---

Mr. Biden: Mr. President, the majority leader today opened the session by criticizing the President and criticizing the Democrats for what he says are a flood of amendments that are holding up this bill. He said that if the Senate is not finished by tomorrow, we will pull the bill and go on to further matters.

Let me point out that in all the years that I have been here--and the Senator from Utah has been over here a few years less than I have--one of the things delaying action on the bill today is we are coming off of a recess of a week and half and the Members are not back in town yet. That is one of the reasons there is delay.

Let me first say, contrary to the majority leader's representations, we are not trying to delay this bill. Indeed, on the very same day we received the final version of the Republican bill--and we had started off, by the way, with the President's bill. The President introduced a bill, or had 3 Members introduce the bill on his behalf.

Senators Kohl, Specter, and myself met with the President at the White House. This was a bipartisan group, including the Republican leadership. We were under the impression that the President's bill would be the bill from which we worked.

The Republicans, as is their right, introduced their own bill. One of the problems is that we did not see that bill until toward the middle of the afternoon the day that we went out of here, I think, or maybe the day before we went out. People had not had a chance to read the bill.

Notwithstanding that, the very same day we received the bill, we agreed to a finite list of amendments. We did not wait around. Once we calmed everyone's concerns--we heard about terrorism, civil liberties, new actions, and everyone from folks who view the interests of the NRA as paramount, to folks who view the interests of the civil liberties community as paramount--everyone wanted to make sure they knew what was in that bill.

Notwithstanding that, we ended up with a finite list of amendments which we have now. No doubt that list would have been shorter from the beginning had the Democrats had any reasonable opportunity to review the Republican bill before it was brought to the floor.

Now, having worked hard over the recess, our staffs having worked hard, primarily, we have limited the number of amendments we need to offer from our side of the aisle, and effectively cut the list by more than half.

There is no evidence of any intent to delay the bill. And while talk of delay and the need for cloture motions may be good politics, it has nothing to do with the reality of the work before the Senate. The reality is that we are addressing an important topic that deserves serious--not token, but serious--consideration by this body.

That is, the threat of terrorism from both at home and abroad. That threat is real. Bombings at the World Trade Center 2 years ago and in Oklahoma City 2 months ago are proof positive of the need to strengthen our responses to this threat.

Does not this threat deserve more than 2 days of the Senate's time? It seems to me that while we all want to move forward, we should also want to make sure that we do the job right. The President has sent two strong terrorism proposals to the Congress this year in responding to two terrible bombings on American soil. His proposals contain many needed reforms to enable law enforcement to better investigate and prosecute terrorist acts.

The Judiciary Committee and its Terrorism Subcommittee held a number of extensive hearings on the President's proposal over the last 6 weeks. Many issues have been discussed, debated, and drafted into legislative language. The Republicans have put a bill together, drawn in large measure from the administration's proposal, and much of which is supported by both sides of the aisle.

Unfortunately, the Republicans fail to include in their bills several proposals to give law enforcement modest but needed new authority to fight terrorism in the areas of wiretaps, taggants, and military assistance in cases of biological and chemical terrorist acts, just to name three.

There will be amendments to address these subjects, and the amendments are needed to make this bill a truly effective tool to fighting terrorism. Several of the amendments have been identified, and several of them have already been offered.

"The suggestion that they are meant to delay this bill is an obvious attempt to shift focus from the fact that Republicans oppose strengthening the hand of law enforcement against terrorists, the way the President's proposal is opposed to any attempt to delay.

In addition, the Republicans included several provisions in their bill that some of Members believe are ill-drafted and are inappropriate as part of this bill. We have several amendments to modify these provisions, but this is a Republican bill.

Again, the amendments are identified and they have not and will not be offered to delay. They will be shortly offered. They will be voted on. They are not vehicles for delay.

Moreover, I note that the Republicans have identified a number of amendments as well. As I understood from the list before we went out last week, the Republican Members of the Republican Party suggested they had 32 amendments--32 amendments. Now, maybe some of those were in response to what they anticipate to be amendments from Democrats. Democrats have amendments that were put forward in anticipation of what they thought the Republicans were doing. Much of this, I think, will fall away.

Putting this in perspective, if there is delay going on--and there is not delay going on--32 out of 40-some amendments or 70, whatever the number was that were listed last week, are Republican amendments.

In all the talk of delay by Democrats over habeas corpus reform, the unanimous-consent agreement under which we are operating identifies 4 Democrat amendments on habeas corpus and 4 Republican amendments on habeas corpus.

We have all been around here long enough to know Senators do not agree to a unanimous consent agreement limiting the number of amendments that can be offered on a subject that is allegedly the reason for the delay on the bill.

There are four amendments offered by Democrats, four amendments offered by Republicans. I am sure we can get time agreements on all those amendments at some point along the way when they are proposed. That is it.

I might add, by the way, if my Republican friends had wanted to move on this terrorism bill quickly, all they had to do was leave habeas corpus off this. It would not have attracted all these other amendments. We could have put it on their crime bill. They have a crime bill they want to push. We have plenty of time for that, instead of dealing with this issue.

It is true that delay on death penalties being imposed could have a perverse effect, once we identify and convict the people responsible for the bombing in Oklahoma City. That is prospective, way down the road.

We will have Democrats--not me, but other Democrats--who will stand up here on the floor and argue that because we have not done more to deal with the ability of people to get explosives, because we have not dealt more restrictively with the people and the ability of people to get ahold of weapons, because we cannot deal with certain bullets that can penetrate vests, that kill police officers, because they have not done that, they hamper our ability to deal with terrorist acts. That is true.

I plead with my Democrat and Republican friends, keep that stuff off this bill. Move forward on the essential elements of what the President said and what we all agree is needed to enable the FBI and the law enforcement agencies, federally, to be able to have the manpower as well as additional legal authority to both infiltrate, identify, arrest, prevent--hopefully--prevent future terrorist acts, whether they are domestic or foreign inspired.

That is not where we are. No matter how much it made sense to do it that way, it does not make a lot of sense for me to spend much more time talking about it other than to put in perspective what has happened here. We could have finished this bill a long time ago.

The fact of the matter is that a clear decision was made to take a very important part of the Republican crime bill, their essential elimination of Federal habeas corpus, and drop it on this bill.

We could probably settle this whole habeas corpus matter very quickly, the Senator from Utah and I. The only effect habeas corpus can possibly have in this bill is Federal habeas corpus. We have an amendment to limit their proposal to Federal habeas corpus cases. Let us go ahead and do that and drop all Federal habeas corpus amendments, vote on that one.

That is the only thing that is arguably related to Oklahoma City. Nothing else has anything to do with Oklahoma City, zero, zero. Nothing else has anything to do with this legislation. This is Federal legislation dealing with terrorist acts. That is Federal court. That is Federal prosecutors. That is a Federal conviction. So let us deal with Federal habeas corpus, not State habeas corpus.

This is a sham. I think we should change habeas corpus. I have been trying to change habeas corpus, differently than my friend from Utah has, for the last 8 years. We have battled over it, and it is a legitimate and serious, intellectual, political, and criminal justice issue but it has not a darned thing to do with this. So if we want to end all the delay--and there is no delay in terms other than time consuming on each of the amendments--let us just have the debate on that issue. That applies to this legislation. None of the rest does.

The point I want to make here, and I am probably overmaking it, is that there is no delay. There is no delay. We have agreed to the amendment. We have limited the number of amendments that can be brought up. We could further eliminate a lot of those amendments, I am sure, if we could agree on focusing on international and domestic terrorism and we could move on. But one thing for certain, this issue warrants serious consideration--serious consideration. I note the Republicans do not think their 32 amendments are frivolous. Now I doubt any of these amendments, Democrat or Republican, are designed as delaying tactics. I expect we can work many of them out and we can proceed on the rest. But I believe very strongly that our job involves offering relevant amendments to make the bill better and debating them fully and reasonably. Again, terrorism is not a trivial matter, as we all know. The issue is as vital as it is complicated.

Let me just give one example how complicated it is. I will bet that 90 percent of the American people would have guessed that when Joe Lieberman, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, and I brought an amendment to the floor at the request of the President last week that said we want to give the FBI the same power to use wiretapping devices and wiretapping under the circumstances that we presently allow them to investigate organized crime to organized terrorist threats, I will bet 90 percent of the American people would have thought everybody in this floor would vote for that--especially the Republicans. They talk about law and order all the time, like Democrats do these days. And what happened? We voted on it and it lost. I offer that as a simple example of what is so complicated about this issue. People are beginning to understand when we deal with people's constitutional rights and the fourth amendment that maybe it is better to err on the side of being very cautious in the power we give the police.

I have always been one to be very cautious. But I thought, since we had the ability to do to organized crime what was proposed by Senator Lieberman and in the President's bill, we ought to be able to do that with terrorists. But, guess what, an overwhelming majority of my Republicans friends did not think that made sense. I do not criticize them for that point of view. I just offer it to point out how complicated it is. I bet they have trouble explaining that back home. I do not suggest that their action was wrong or had any motivation other than they have a heightened sense of concern about the use of wiretaps. I respect that.

But guess what, this is not as simple as the majority leader makes it sound. If it were simple, that would have passed like a hot knife through butter here. But it did not. If we could understand how a majority of Republicans do not think we should be able to go after terrorists like we do the mob, then we ought to be able to understand that this is a complicated issue. It is important to get the bill right. Again, terrorism is not a trivial matter. It is vital, as vital as it is complicated. And we have to give law enforcement the tools it needs, even while we maintain protecting our constitutional rights.

Now, look, just to give an example, we are going to have an amendment here shortly that is another wiretap amendment. I will give this as just one example. That wiretap amendment, if it passes, will allow the Attorney General, the Federal Government, to be able to do roving wiretaps. That is the second amendment. That says, if you go to a judge and say, "Judge, we have probable cause to believe John Doe is committing or committed a felony under the existing title 18 of the United States Code that allows us to ask for a wiretap and we want to tap John Doe's phone," if the court concludes there is probable cause, then in fact what we do is we go along and we say: All right, the judge says that he will allow a wiretap. Generally what happens is you get a wiretap for a specific phone in John Doe's office or John Doe's home. But lots of times what has happened is that John Doe may figure he may be being tapped because he knows he is doing something wrong. He knows he is trying to avoid detection. So he may walk to the corner phone booth and use the corner phone booth all the time. Or he may go use the phone in his sister's home.

Right now the current authority for what are known as roving or multipoint wiretaps, or wiretap orders--a provision was proposed by the President, but not included in the Republican substitute, that would allow this kind of multipoint order, multipoint wiretap to be used. Multipoint wiretaps allow law enforcement officers to obtain a judicial order to intercept the communications of a particular person, not just for one specific phone as with most wiretap orders, but on any phone that a person may use.

A recent prosecution will help illustrate how the multipoint wiretaps work. In this particular case involving one of the world's biggest international drug traffickers, agents determined that a courier was contacting his bosses by using a number of randomly chosen public phones around his home, public phones outside his home. A multipoint wiretap was obtained and up to 25 phones were identified to prepare for the chance that the target would use one of these phones. Any time he used one of those phones the agents were able to initiate a wiretap. Interceptions obtained in this way led to 53 Federal indictments and 19 tons of cocaine that were seized.

The wiretap on his phone would not have yielded much at all, but they identified all the phones around this guy's neighborhood because they watched him. They watched the pattern. He would walk out of his house and go to a telephone and use that phone. The next time he would use one two streets down from his home, and then four streets, and across the street, and in the drug store across the street. So they got an order for a multipoint wiretap. And they were right. They got the order through a judge.

Under the current law the Government can get a multipoint wiretap order only if it can show that the defendant is intending to thwart surveillance, usually by switching from phone to phone. The amendment the President wants, and Senator Lieberman will propose on his behalf, would allow a multipoint wiretap where the defendant's conduct has the effect of thwarting surveillance regardless of whether or not the Government can prove the defendant's intent. Keep in mind they already have a guy they identified as the subject of a legitimate wiretap in his own home. And there is probable cause to believe this guy is doing something bad that exists as a crime under the law that you can get a wiretap for.

Mr. Hatch: Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. Biden: I will be happy to.

Mr. Hatch: Actually, I think the amendment the Senator is talking about is a good amendment. We have some on our side who have some troubles with it, but I probably am going to support this amendment because, let us be honest about it, all they are saying is they are going to follow the criminal. That is all this amendment means. The President is right on this, in my opinion, in that sense.

The original amendment written in the President's bill is not as good as this one, as I understand. We have even worked with my colleague on the language on it. I am going to talk to our side and see if there is some way we can get them to accept that amendment. But there are people who are so afraid of the Government right now--polls show somewhere around 40 percent of the people are afraid of their Government. That is pathetic. And part of the reason is because of what happened in Waco, because of what happened at Ruby Ridge, and a whole variety of other reasons, because the Federal Government has been too intrusive in all of our lives.

But I think the distinguished Senator from Delaware and I, working together, might be able to get this done because I think he makes a tremendous point. So did the President. With what the President wants to do, the problem was the roving ban semantically had implications that frightened people even more. But all the distinguished Senator from Delaware, as I understand it, is trying to do for and on behalf of the President and others is say that, if you have a criminal who is going from phone to phone, you can follow the criminal. I personally do not see anything wrong with that. I see some great value in doing exactly that.

Once again, I give the Senator from Delaware credit for being one of the astute leaders in criminal law. We agree on a lot more than we disagree on. Frankly, where we disagree--and there are acceptable and good arguments on both sides. I appreciate the way he is approaching this. I want to read the language. But I personally feel pretty strongly that this amendment ought to be supported by both sides. I did not mean to take so much of the time.

Mr. Biden: That is fine. Mr. President, I am delighted for the intervention. As I said at the outset of my discussion of this, the chairman was occupied with the staff for a moment. At the time, I said that I was confident he and I could work this out. I am confident we can work out most of this. The reason I raise this is an illustration of the larger point I am making; that is, there is no attempt to delay anything here. This provision was not included in the Republican bill. I think it is a very important provision.

Mr. Hatch: Will the Senator yield?

Mr. Biden: Yes.

Mr. Hatch: I do not think there is any attempt on the part of my friend and colleague from Delaware to delay. But by his own comments today he indicated that if we could get right off the habeas problem, we would not have the problems, we probably would not have 68 Democrat amendments. My personal belief is that we have to face that problem one way or the other.

The distinguished Senator from Delaware has some well-intentioned amendments in this area. I have to fight against them. But at least he is willing to face this issue. It is always easier to take controversial matters and not deal with them. But in this case, I think we have to do it. It is the only thing that really will make a difference with regard to Oklahoma City.

I call my colleague's attention, because of his comments earlier in the day where he said, if we did Federal habeas, that is all that needs to be done here. I call his attention to Robert H. Mason's letter dated May 24, 1995. He is district attorney for Oklahoma County, the district in which this occurred, where he points out that if you did just Federal habeas, it would not solve the problem because there were people who were not Federal workers, who were not in the building at the time, who were also killed and maimed. He intends to bring prosecutions in the State courts and to have swift justice in those cases also, which would require full habeas corpus reform like we have.

I respect my colleague. He knows that. We have been together on too many occasions. We have fought battles together, and we have fought them against each other. There are very few people who understand these criminal law ramifications as well as my friend from Delaware. But I would really urge him to help us on this habeas corpus reform because I really believe it is something that has to be faced, it is something we need to do, and I think we can do it the way it is written in a way that protects the civil liberties and rights of those who are accused.

I apologize for again interrupting and taking time.

Mr. Biden: Not at all. Mr. President, I welcome--not interruptions--I welcome this colloquy and conversation. I know that there is an understanding that there will be no votes until 5 o'clock. So the likelihood of anybody other than the most stalwart of the Members of the Senate--I see the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and the distinguished Senator from North Carolina here--other than a few, there are going to be a lot of folks making their way back from the west coast and the Midwest on airplanes. So the likelihood of anything happening of consequence between now and the time that it was announced there would be a vote is de minimis. So I welcome the discussion.

Let me just again, not by way of argumentation but illustration of the confusion surrounding the legislation--understandable confusion. Even if the Republican bill had not been introduced, had the President's bill been introduced and nothing else, there would be confusion surrounding it. I do not mean this in a pejorative way.

The letter from the district attorney, as I understand it, from Oklahoma County, the county in which Oklahoma City is--I have not read it yet, but the fact of his rationale of why they need full habeas corpus, to have State habeas corpus included, is because there were non-Federal workers killed--understandably, he misunderstands the bill. It does not matter who is killed in the building. It is a Federal crime. That is what we are establishing. It is a Federal crime. A foreign national could be killed in the building, anyone, under current law, killed in a Federal building that is blown up, it is a Federal crime. It is also a State crime as well. It can be a State crime as well. But it is a Federal crime.

So the point raised by the distinguished--again, I am not criticizing the district attorney or the prosecutor in that county. I doubt whether he has had a chance to review the existing Federal law. But at any rate, the larger point here is this: I am ready, willing, anxious and, hopefully will be able to demonstrate, "able" to debate this habeas corpus issue. The reason why I did not want habeas corpus introduced into this issue is because I did not want to also get into a debate on guns in this issue. I did not want to debate militia and NRA and ACLU and all of these things.

Look, I am fearful that, although things have calmed down a little bit, if you listen to the rhetoric from Democrats and Republicans on these issues, you would assume that everyone who joined a militia--by the way, we should not use that phrase. They are not militia. There is no militia under the Constitution. But anyone who joins these groups who organize themselves and call themselves militia, on the one hand you have everybody making them patriots; on the other hand, all a bunch of thugs, depending on who speaks to it. The same with the NRA--the NRA puts out an ill-advised letter, and all of sudden everyone in the NRA is a "thug", a "bum." The vast majority of NRA members in my State, the overwhelming number of NRA members are honest, decent citizens. They join the NRA because that is the outfit that taught them how to use a gun when they were a Boy Scout, how to fire their first rifle, took them to the firing range.

I am going to oppose the amendment of Senator Lautenberg. I support the use of that $25 million in funds allowing ammunition to be made available to teach people how to learn to use weapons. That is a healthy thing. That is not a bad thing. Half of the people who join the NRA in my State join for the insurance that is offered by the NRA. The NRA, the members of the NRA, are good, God-fearing people; some of them probably good atheists; they are good everything. The fact they join the NRA is not because it is a bad organization.

But what is going to happen here before this debate is over is we start talking about guns. They are either all going to be superpatriots or they are all going to be a bunch of thugs. I think that is a useless debate to have now when what the President says he needs, we all know he needs, is he needs more agents. He needs more money. He needs more authority.

So to finish the point--and I will be happy to yield--before I finish my statement, my reluctance about getting into a debate on habeas corpus is that we who have been around here even a year all know that is what we refer to in the jargon as a "hot-button issue." Once you mention habeas corpus, you bring out everything, left and right and center. It engages almost a religious debate. It takes on proportions like striker replacement. I mean it brings out everyone's deeply-held feelings.

I predicted as soon as habeas corpus was put on this bill that there would be 1, 2, 5, 10 amendments on guns. I suspect my friends would acknowledge that, if the Democrats had decided to introduce a terrorism bill that was loaded up with gun amendments, they would say, "Wait a minute. What are you doing that for? You are just trying to delay action on this thing. Are you just trying to raise everyone's hackles? Are you just trying to get into sort of a debate that has nothing to do with the added responsibility and authority that the President wants and has?"

That is the only point I am making about habeas corpus. But it is done. The reason I even mentioned it now is to explain what I think has been already demonstrated by the short colloquy we have had thus far that Senator Dole is wrong. This has nothing to do with the intent to delay.

The introduction of habeas complicated--did not delay--complicated action on this bill. Deletion of more intrusive authority on the part of the FBI complicated what already was a difficult debate requiring additional amendments. Additions of some legislation I support, and some I do not relative to firearms complicated consideration of this core legislation.

That is the only broad point I wish to make. That does not add up to delay. That adds up to an additional consumption of time out of necessity. It is necessary to use more time to resolve those complicated problems.

I daresay that if, in fact, my Republican colleagues thought that any one of these gun amendments was likely to pass, there would be, as there was in the past, extended debate. Just like I worried and thought--but is not going to happen now--that, if they raised habeas corpus, there would be extended debate. Neither is going to happen. I presume the reason it is not going to happen is because they have the votes. It always makes things go quicker when you have the votes. I remember the good old days when we used to have the votes. We do not have the votes anymore, my team. So we understand the likely outcome on most of this.

But this is not an attempt to delay. That is the only point I wish to make again to my distinguished friend, the Republican leader from Kansas, who on the Sunday talk show--I think it was Meet the Press, I am not certain which one it was--and today directly stated that this was a Democratic effort to delay.

The other side of this is that I am going to have, as we say, "clean hands" in this matter. The administration is putting pressure on the Republican leader asking, "Why did you not get my bill?" Why did you not get it done? Why do we not have this done? I think part of that also is done for political reasons.

And so I just hope that we in this body, once folks fly back into town here and we start debating on the amendments, can agree where we can agree, as the Senator from Utah and I at least think we can agree on the so-called multipoint wiretapping that the President wants made available to him, or made available to Federal agencies, and I hope we can even go back and revisit the, I think, ill-advised vote defeating the Lieberman amendment on wiretapping because I think once people took a closer look at it and took off our sort of political blinders here, they would see what was being asked for had nothing to do with anything other than what we now allow under our law and have to deal with the Mafia. Why should the terrorist organizations have any more protection than the Mafia? I do not understand that. And I do not think, in fairness to those who voted against it, they fully understood what the amendment meant.

Again, terrorism is no trivial matter. If it takes a week, then it is time well spent, in my view, to arrive at a serious, significant piece of legislation that gives additional tools to the Government without infringing upon any of the civil liberties of the American people and diminishes the prospects that domestic or foreign terrorists will be able to succeed in repeating what was done at the World Trade Center and what was done in Oklahoma City.

So I do not consider this a waste of time. The telecommunications bill is an important bill, but I imagine, if you said to the American people, we can do one of two things for you: We can pass a bill that will enhance and make better the way in which the telecommunications industry functions in America and we can do that right away, or we can pass a bill that significantly strengthens the United States ability to deal with terrorists and to prevent terrorist acts, which do you want? My guess is they would pick--I do not know what they would pick. I would pick doing something about terrorism.

So in my view, even if it takes the remainder of the week to work our way through these amendments--and I predict it will not, but even if it did, it would not be wrong nor unreasonable. The goal here is we must get the best possible bill that we can. We owe no less to the American people. We owe no less to the people in Oklahoma City. We owe no less to ourselves. We owe more, much more, to the memory of those who have lost their lives at the hands of a madman or mad men and women in the unthinkable moment of insanity that we witnessed now well over a month ago.

And so I look forward, once we have a quorum assembled here in Washington--and again, I am not being critical of anyone who is not here now. If you represent the State of Utah or the State of California or the State of Washington and you went home over the recess, it is difficult to get back here early in the day and still meet your commitments without leaving a day earlier.

And so I am confident we can move with some dispatch once we get underway. I just plead with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the various issues that will be raised here that we should not make the same mistake the authors of the NRA letter made. They figured out they made a mistake and they retracted what they said. We are going to have a tendency, as this debate heats up, to say some fairly outrageous things, some of which may even be true. But I do not think this is the circumstance under which we should do it.

I say to the Presiding Officer, I really do believe that we owe it to the people who have been victimized thus far by a foreign and a domestic terrorist act to act with dispatch, in a slightly dispassionate way, to come up with hardnosed, serious efforts to enable the Federal Government to legitimately fulfill its primary role of protecting the American people under these circumstances from these kinds of actions. So I will try my best to follow my own advice as this debate goes forward and suggest that to vilify any organization, right or left, to vilify individuals will not get us very far. What we should be doing is vindicating, vindicating those who have already suffered greatly in an attempt to make sure that we do not have to stand on the floor of the Senate again and deal with a similar circumstance.

The President has basically asked for two things. The first thing he said was give me more people. Give me more FBI agents. Give me more people to do this job. We should do that. We should do that, A, because he is right and, B, because even those who might want to point out that the last President and this President cut people for a while, they did not add as rapidly as they should have--well, for whatever the reason, let us not argue about that. He wants more people. We should give him more people--him and whomever follow-on Presidents will be.

Second, he said I need some additional authority. The authority I would like to have as the chief law enforcement officer for the United States of America, as the Chief Executive to give to the law enforcement agencies in this country the ability to do some things other nations have done with great success, that have diminished the ability to make these god-awful bombs, give the authority to tag the elements of these explosives so that when they blow up, you can identify from whence they came, where they were purchased and, hopefully, who purchased them to solve the crime. They are called taggants. We will debate that. There are legitimate reasons to debate it. But I think it is a legitimate request on the part of the President.

The President also says I need some additional authority to deal with this new emerging problem of terrorism on American soil, and it is authority that I want expanded for wiretapping in certain circumstances under which they are expanded. I think he should be given that authority, or at least we should debate it and make that decision as a body.

I think we should focus on the expanded authority he says he needs, and we should focus on the expanded resources he is requesting, and do our job for the American people and do it, as I said, hopefully-- hopefully--by demonstrating to them that we can do something of consequence that is not rooted in political motivation, something of consequence on which we can agree. And, my Lord, if we cannot agree as a body, Democrats and Republicans, that we should give more authority to deal with terrorists in this country, then I am not sure on what we are likely to agree.

So I look forward to a reasoned, a serious, and hopefully an unemotional debate on these issues, and a resolution in the near term so that we can send to the President of the United States, after a conference with the House, a piece of legislation that is worthy of his signature.

I thank the Senate for listening, and I see that Senator Exon and others are in the Chamber. I would be happy to yield the floor for the time being.

Mr. Exon addressed the Chair.

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Brown): The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.

Mr. Exon Mr. President, I congratulate the managers of this bill, the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from Utah, both very good friends of mine. I have the utmost faith and confidence in their abilities. I recognize they do not always agree. But I believe that under the leadership of these two individuals, who have been foremost in the Judiciary Committee for a long, long time, we certainly should be able to come up with some workable arrangement to dispose of the terrorist bill which the President sent us.

As I brought out when we last met here 10 days ago, when the majority leader and the minority leader were debating the fact of how fast we could move this bill ahead--we were going to take it up today, and the majority leader said he wanted to complete work on it on Tuesday--for the life of me, I do not know why Tuesday is such a magical date. I simply say there were supposedly some 50 or 60 amendments that were going to be offered, or proposed to be offered by Members on both sides of the aisle. We also remember that in the last week we met here, we had some 55 or 60 amendments to the budget bill. We finally got down to work and completed our deliberations and had our votes in a matter of, I believe, 3 days.

As important as I think the budget debate was, as important as I think the ever-increasing deficit is, as alarmed as I am about the ever-increasing national debt and the cost to the taxpayers for the interest on that national debt, I do not believe there is anything more important to the people of United States of America today than terrorism.

Terrorism is not like the balanced budget that I hoped we could get to a few years ago down the road. It is with us today. It was demonstrated in Oklahoma City very vividly most recently. I would simply like to ask my colleagues, if I could get their attention, to explain to this Senator why is it that we cannot make some kind of a good-faith effort by the two leaders of the Judiciary Committee, supported by the majority leader and the minority leader, to come to some kind of an understanding about how many amendments we are going to have, and about how long that is going to take. I would think that if we would try to stay away from the filibuster and eventually limit debate to 15 minutes a side for most of these amendments, clearly that would give us an opportunity, in this Senator's opinion, to come forth and let the Senate express its will by majority vote on this tremendously important amendment that has to do with terrorism. And I assure all of my colleagues--and they know it full well--that terrorism is unfortunately alive and well in America today. I believe that the people of the United States expect us to stand up and do something about it, not in a foot race fashion, but in an expedited process of some kind, to have everyone have a chance, as is customary in the Senate, to work their will and maybe offer amendments.

This Senator has no amendments to the bill. That cuts us down to 99 other Senators that may have amendments. I simply say to the managers that this Senator wishes to cooperate with them, and if they would put out an appeal and if the majority leader and minority leader would join in that, I would think that maybe we can focus on this important piece of legislation that the President has set up. We do not have to approve it exactly like the President wanted it. We can change it dramatically in any fashion we see fit by a majority vote here.

I simply feel if we can put out this appeal, certainly the majority party, the Republicans, have demonstrated that they march basically in lockstep on most of these matters. The Republicans, it seems to me, have the majority and have the responsibility to either vote up or down on any amendments that could be offered from either side. I am simply appealing for some expeditious action on this tremendously important piece of legislation. If we have to take until Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, or even into next week, and if that is necessary, I do not think there is anything more important right now than this bill that is before us.

I salute the President for addressing terrorism. A failure of respect for law and order is rampant in our society today. Certainly, the police, the prosecutors, the judicial system we depend on to handle these matters for us, need strengthening, they need additional tools. I believe that the bill suggested to us by the President of the United States goes a long way into helping these people that need help today with the ever-increasing threat of terrorism.

So I simply pose a question for the managers of the bill. At their first opportunity, I ask them to respond as to whether there have been efforts made and are efforts being made now before the vote--as I understand it, there is a vote scheduled for 6 p.m. this evening. I would certainly be willing to remain here until midnight or 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning to take up or debate the reason or lack thereof of many of the amendments that I understand are to be offered.

I hope that we will not do what the majority leader had indicated over the weekend--that he would pull the bill down on Tuesday-- tomorrow--unless we complete action. I feel, though, that the majority leader is not irresponsible in asking for some time agreements, some way to limit the number of amendments that I think could be constructively moved forward, if it is the will of the majority of this body.

I have posed a question, and I will await the response of the managers of the bill at their first opportunity.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.

The bill 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 listened to my distinguished colleague from Delaware and my distinguished colleague from Nebraska, and I appreciate both of their remarks.

With all due respect, I have to point out to my distinguished friend from Delaware that most all of the language in this bill was found in the substitute and it came from S. 3, introduced the first day of this session and S. 390, introduced several months ago. We have had several hearings in the full committee and two in the subcommittee. Thus, the language in this bill is well known.

Second, of the 32 Republican amendments, 12 have either been offered or have gone away. I suspect most of the others will as well. I fully expect that many of the remaining Republican amendments will also disappear in short order, once we move pretty quickly here.

What I find troubling, however, is the suggestion that habeas corpus should be dropped from the bill. The President--a Democrat, I might add--called for habeas corpus reform in his "60 Minutes" interview. His instincts were right. He knows this is the time to try to get habeas corpus reform and that it will make some difference to the victims and survivors of the Oklahoma City incident. In fact, it is the only thing we can do in this bill that will really make any difference to them. They have called for this.

As I wear this ribbon in their honor symbolizing the four strands-- Oklahoma, hope, those who could not be found, and those who are dead--I have to say that I feel very deeply that we need to do this.

So in addition to the President, who has called for habeas corpus reform--but, of course, he has been riddled by those on the liberal side of his fence for having called for it, and has thus been somewhat muted ever since. I might mention there are other Democrats that are very strong for this habeas corpus provision of the bill. The Democratic attorney general of the State of Oklahoma is one of our strongest supporters. He has called for habeas corpus reform in the form this bill has it. The Democratic district attorney of Oklahoma, Robert H. Macy, has called for habeas corpus reform. Add to this a bipartisan letter from the State attorneys general and the State district attorneys.

Mr. President, they also have called for habeas corpus reform. You have a pretty good idea that this is a bipartisan appeal. It is a bipartisan reform.

I just wish that my distinguished friend from Delaware had been with me 2 weeks ago when I talked to these survivors and victims and family members. Just this morning, I have met those people whose lives have been shattered by the Oklahoma City bombing. Interestingly enough, they have all called for habeas corpus reform in the form that this bill has it.

I think it is important that we continue to fight for this aspect of the bill. It is about time. We have argued about it for years. We have a chance of debating it at this particular time, and we should do so.

I have to say that I was also interested in Senator Biden's comments that these are Federal crimes. Well, I am not so sure they are with regard to the State citizens who were not Federal employees who were outside of the building at the time. This bill will not apply retroactively and could not be applied retroactively. So those murderers are going to have to be prosecuted in State court. If there is no habeas corpus reform applying to the State courts, we will continue to live with the long, incessant delays and appeals that have gummed up this system for years.

If we just enact a law that expands Federal jurisdiction over only Federal employees, that would not cover those nonfederal employees who were killed outside of the building. It could not be applied to those cases against the Oklahoma killers. To do so would be a clear violation. If we tried to apply Federal law to this, it would be a clear violation of the constitutional provision of the ex post facto laws. That is the way it appears to me.

This body needs to understand that habeas corpus reform, both State and Federal, is the only thing we can enact that will directly affect the Oklahoma case.

I might mention, also, that rather than exploiting the devastation of Oklahoma City, I believe that we are protecting the families of the victims from additional unwarranted victimization.

Comprehensive habeas corpus reform, as I have said before, is the only legislation Congress can pass as part of a terrorism bill that will have a direct affect on the Oklahoma City bombing. It is the one thing Congress can pass to ensure President Clinton's promise that swift justice will be kept.

President Clinton, recognizing this fact during his April 23, 1995, "60 Minutes" appearance, showed that he understood this. His instincts were right when, in response to a question about whether those responsible would actually be executed without the adoption of habeas reform, he said:

It may not . . . happen but the Congress has the opportunity this year to reform the habeas corpus proceedings, and I hope they will do so.

The claim that habeas corpus reform is tangential or unrelated to fighting terrorism is ludicrous. Indeed, habeas corpus reform has far more to do with combating terrorism than many of the proposals contained in the administration's own antiterrorism package, such as the proposals to enhancing FBI access to telephone billing records, and to loosen standards for use of wiretaps in felony cases.

Although most capital cases are State cases and the State of Oklahoma could still prosecute this case, our habeas reform proposal would apply to Federal death penalty cases as well. It would directly affect the Government's prosecution of the Oklahoma bombing case.

Indeed, several people were killed just outside the Oklahoma Federal building. The terrorists who destroyed the Federal building could thus be tried in State court for the murder of those citizens.

The district attorney for Oklahoma City and Oklahoma County is planning those prosecutions. The progress of this bill demonstrates the relationship of habeas reform to the terrorist bombing.

No. 1, it would place a 1-year limit for the filing of a habeas petition on all death row inmates, State and Federal inmates. No. 2, it would limit condemned killers convicted in State and Federal courts to one habeas corpus petition where, under current law, there is currently no limit to the number of petitions he or she may file. No. 3, it requires the Federal courts, once a petition is filed, to complete the judicial action within a required specified time period.

Clearly, by passing these provisions, we ensure that those responsible for killing scores of U.S. citizens will be given the swift penalty that we in society exact upon them.

Now, one last thing. One reason we brought habeas corpus reform here is not just because it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do with regard to keeping off gun amendments. We have asked people on our side to not get involved in any gun fights today. If there has to be a gun fight, we should do it over the crime bill that we will bring up in the future. We should keep this bill clean and decent. I would caution my colleagues on the other side, we should not try to make this a gun issue.

There is no reason to get into that debate, when we are trying to pass basically what the President has said he must have, what the Justice Department has said it must have, what the FBI Director has said he must have; that is, legislation that could really give some teeth to law enforcement in the area of antiterrorist activities.

I think we should concentrate on that goal. We should not get involved in extraneous debates. We ought to pass this bill as quickly and as promptly as we can. If we have to fight it out over habeas corpus reform, we should do it.

I think the distinguished Senator from Delaware has 67 amendments on that. Fine, bring them up. We will fight them out and see what happens. I can live with almost anything if we can get a bill passed that will really make a difference in not only all of our lives, but the people specifically in Oklahoma City whose lives have been devastated by what happened there. I think passing this bill will be as good a memorialization for those who have died as anything we in the U.S. Congress can do.

I cannot imagine why any Member would fight this bill when we have worked our guts out to work with our President, to work with the Justice Department, the FBI, and others. And this will beef up law enforcement as it should be beefed up, not only from the law enforceability standpoint, but from a law enforcement personnel standpoint. It is long overdue. I agree with the distinguished Senator from Delaware.

In the last 2 years, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have been cut back rather than beefed up. Now the President realizes that we have to change course and beef them up. There is about $1.8 billion in this bill that will take care of strengthening our law enforcement with regard to antiterrorist activities and other activities that are long overdue, in my eyes.

I have been complaining about this for quite a while. I have to admit, I think during the Reagan and Bush years, we could have done a better job of beefing up the FBI and other law enforcement agencies ourselves. Now is the time to face these issues. I think we should do so.

We have a number of stacked amendments. The bill is currently open for any other amendments that any Member might file. I hope that our colleagues will bring their amendments to the floor and debate them. We still have 2\1/2\ hours before we begin voting. I would like to resolve as many of them as we can, and stack as many amendments as we can for voting.

I am hopeful that we can get colleagues to withdraw amendments that really do not belong on this bill, and to reduce the number of amendments we can have so that we can pass this bill by tomorrow evening, if we can, or at least within a relatively short time.

I understand the majority leader's pressures. There are all kinds of important pieces of legislation that must be brought before the U.S. Senate over the next few weeks and months. He has not had the time to devote excessively to any particular bill. This is one bill that has to pass. We will pass it. I hope that all Members will cooperate in the process.

I hope our Senators will bring their amendments to the floor and we can move from there. 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. Craig: 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 Idaho is recognized.

Mr. Craig: Mr. President, I came to the floor this afternoon to stand in support of the Dole-Hatch substitute to Senate bill 735 that deals with necessary and appropriate redefining of our laws in relation to terrorist activities or terrorist type activities in this country. But in coming to the floor this afternoon to speak, I also wanted to speak very briefly on the amendment that is pending and will be voted on this afternoon offered by the Senator from California on the issue of taggants.

The legislation before us deals with taggants, and the question is then, if it does and does so appropriately, why will the Senator from California offer something that is considerably different? Is it a new idea? Not at all. In fact, it is really quite an old idea that the Congress has looked into before over the years to attempt to identify or cause to be identified explosive material so that when they are inappropriately used or misused they can be identified and traced. To my knowledge no one in this country has objection to that concept. But the word "concept" is what is key in this debate.

It is a concept. And there have been studies produced that would argue that, while it is well intended, it may be at least at this point in time scientifically and technologically impossible to get to the point of putting in explosive materials, that are so designed to develop to do certain things, an identifiable marker that would still cause them to perform as they were tested and manufactured to perform. In fact, the concern is that it might cause them to perform in an inappropriate way and cause harm to the individual who was using them in a legitimate, legal, and responsible fashion.

That is, of course, exactly what the Senate bill 735 substitute recognizes when it proposes that we study this issue and try to bring the community of science and technology together to see whether in fact we can produce an identifiable marker, if you will, within an explosive material that tags it, that identifies it, and that would allow it to be used.

There was something else said by the Senator from California this morning, that at least frustrated me, which was her very open and direct statement that the NRA opposed it, the National Rifle Association. I thought it was important that the record be straight, that, in fact, the record be factual.

The NRA does not oppose this provision of Senate bill 735. What the NRA, as a responsible representative of a variety of people who use gunpowders for legitimate reasons, is suggesting is that, if you do not do it right and you do it wrong, you could cause damage to a lot of innocent people and produce unaffordable costs that do not make a lot of sense.

Let me read to you on the record testimony given before the Judiciary Committee in April of 2 years ago on this issue. Point one proves that is an old idea whose time may not have come yet because we do not have the science and technology to allow it to come; and, second, the NRA never did nor does it now have an official position on the issue.

Let me quote from that testimony.

"The National Rifle Association does not take an official position concerning the licensing, manufacture and restrictions placed upon commercial high explosives, for that is not an area within our field of interest. However, we would be derelict in our responsibilities to America's gun owners and as citizens if we did not point out to this committee"--meaning the Judiciary Committee of the Senate--"the basic flaws and fallacies of the taggants technology."

"An important point that must be made to the committee is that tagging explosives is not a new idea. In fact, the Congress studied and rejected the concepts involving identification and detection taggants in the latter 1970's and early 1980's. The premise behind that experience has been restricted in the aftermath of the bombing"--this was the World Trade Center hearings that emanated out of that horrible explosion--"that law enforcement officers should be assisted in their investigation of tagging explosives. But the facilitation that was to be realized is not available."

In other words, the technology, the availability of the science to do what might be the right thing to do simply does not exist. I ask unanimous consent that the entirety of that testimony be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. Craig: Mr. President, so why the amendment? Why not stay with the substitute bill? If this Congress wants to get the industry that manufactures explosives to a point in science and technology where we could identify the explosive itself, why not pursue it in the way that Senate bill 735 suggested? Or is there another reason to pursue it in a way that the Senator from California has pursued it; that is, do it now and study it later? That is a bit of a strange way to approach something that, if done wrong or if caused by Government and forced to be done without the proper basis of understanding to be done wrong, could create the kind of damage that could occur if this were the case.

So let us today vote to table the amendment of the Senator from California and stay with the substitute bill which does recognize the importance of developing the science and technology for taggants. I support that. And I hope we can get there.

But the record now shows that the National Rifle Association does not oppose taggants, and it never has. It most assuredly supports the science and the technology that could lead us to that. What it is officially on the record as opposing is the amendment of the Senator from California because it simply believes it is too premature. It might well be risky to the science and the technology involved.

This Senate I think in a responsible way wants to do it right. The right way is the Senate bill that has been appropriately heard with the appropriate technology, or the record for technology built into it.

With that in mind, I hope as we vote this afternoon on the tabling motion that we would support the committee and the chairman, and the text of Senate bill 735.

I yield the remainder of my time.

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. Craig assumed the chair.)

---

Continue to DOC Id: cr05jn95-22 Part 4