---

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Amendment No. 1207 to Amendment No. 1199

Mr. Brown: Mr. President, earlier today, the distinguished Senator from Utah was kind enough to propose for me an amendment to the bill. That particular amendment was designed to extend the sanctions that we now have in place against Iran to all countries designated as terrorist countries by our Secretary of State.

Let me add that it is not my intention with this legislation to restrict the President or the Secretary of State. And included in the amendment is a very extensive waiver provision so that while we would have on our books a provision for adding these sanctions against other countries that have been designated as terrorist countries, it would not necessarily require the implementation of these sanctions, but it would require the waiver of them in the event a terrorist country is so designated. That waiver is quite broad and gives the President a great deal of discretion. The President, if he so determines for national security interests or even humanitarian reasons, may waive the action. But what it does do, Mr. President, it gives some consistency to our action. It puts countries that would contemplate using state terrorism on notice that this country is serious, that there are sanctions, that those sanctions are broad and significant, as in the sanctions the President has applied against Iran.

It also will put them on notice that while these sanctions come with being designated a terrorist country, it is possible, if they work with our President and with the Secretary of State, they can work their way out of it.

Mr. President, I think this is an important amendment because what it says is we are going to be consistent. If a country chooses to adopt these kinds of terrorist policies, we ought to at least make sure that when we designate a nation as a terrorist country there are some sanctions involved.

The final version of the amendment differs slightly from the provision that was introduced earlier today. The waiver provision, to be specific, is different in the final version of the amendment. It simply makes clear that there are very wide discretions on the part of the President. And I would ask unanimous consent that the final version of the Brown amendment be entered into the Record at this point and substituted for the original amendment.

Mr. Biden: Mr. President, reserving the right to object, does the Senator have a copy of that so I can take a quick look at it?

Mr. Brown: I do. I would be glad to----

Mr. Biden: I would like to suggest maybe we could have a short quorum call. I do not want to object. I do not think I will object, but if the Senator would allow----

Mr. Brown: Mr. President, I will withhold my unanimous consent request until the distinguished Senator from Delaware has had an opportunity to review the amendment, and I would at this point note the absence of a quorum.

The Presiding Officer: The absence of a quorum having been suggested, the clerk will call the roll.

The 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: Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1209 to Amendment No. 1199

(Purpose: To prohibit the distribution of information on the making of explosive materials with intent or knowledge that such information will be used for a criminal purpose)

Mrs. Feinstein: Mr. President, I would like to send an amendment to the desk.

The Presiding Officer: The clerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein] proposes an amendment numbered 1209 to amendment No. 1199:

At the appropriate place in the amendment, insert the following section:

SEC. ------. PROHIBITION ON DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION RELATING TO EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS FOR A CRIMINAL PURPOSE.

(a) Section 842 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

"(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to teach or demonstrate the making of explosive materials, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture of explosive materials, if the person intends, or knows that such explosive materials or information will likely be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal criminal offense or a criminal purpose affecting interstate commerce."

(b) Section 844 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by designating section (a) as subsection (a)(1) and by adding the following new subsection:

"(a)(2) Any person who violates subsection (1) of section 842 of this chapter shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

Mr. Biden: Will the Senator yield for 30 seconds?

Mrs. Feinstein: Yes.

Mr. Biden: Mr. President, I had asked that a quorum call be put into effect to determine whether or not I could agree with the unanimous consent request by the Senator from Colorado. I would just ask the Senator from California, when we conclude that, if I would be able to interrupt her to allow the Senator from Colorado to amend his amendment.

I do not seek that now, but I would like that so the Senator from Colorado does not think I have put this off for a couple hours.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from California.

Mrs. Feinstein: Mr. President, I am happy to, or I am happy to wait. I am trying to use the time usefully.

Mr. Biden: I would encourage the Senator to proceed. I would ask her permission, when we work this out, whether I could interrupt her at that point.

Mrs. Feinstein: Absolutely. I would be delighted. I thank the Senator.

Mr. Biden: I thank the Chair and I thank the Senator.

Mrs. Feinstein: Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to address what I believe is a rather surprising problem in our society, and that is the distribution of bombmaking information for criminal purposes. This amendment is simple, and I think this cartoon in USA Today really describes what the situation is.

Here is a youngster sitting in front of his computer learning how to put together a bomb. Here is the mother on the phone saying, "History, astronomy, science, Bobby is learning so much on the internet."

This amendment would prohibit the teaching of how to make a bomb if a person intends or knows that the bomb will be used for a criminal purpose. Additionally, the amendment would prohibit the distribution of information on how to put together a bomb if a person intends or knows that the bomb will be used for a criminal purpose.

The penalty for violation of this law would be a maximum of 20 years in prison, a fine of $250,000, or both.

Now, you might ask, how is that possible? How would anybody do this? I think the next chart I will put up will show clearly how it is possible and what people today are doing.

Let me show you this. This is from the internet, entitled "Stuff You Are Not Supposed to Know About." It advertises the Terrorist Handbook. It says,

Whether you are planning to blow up the World Trade Center, or merely explode a few small devices on the White House lawn, the Terrorist Handbook is an invaluable guide to having a good time. Where else can you get such wonderful ideas about how to use up all that extra ammonium triiodide left over from last year's revolution?

Well, that is just part of it. What that then leads to is a whole series of recipes on how to put together a bomb aimed at killing, injuring, or destroying property. The handbook goes on to give a step- by-step instruction on what to do. Let me quote from a section on acquiring chemicals:

The best place to steal chemicals is a college. Many State schools have all of their chemicals out on the shelves in the labs and more in their chemical stockrooms. Evening is the best time to enter a lab building, as there are the least number of people in the building. Of course, if none of these methods are successful, there is always section 2.11.

And it then tells how to pick a lock to get into the chem lab. It tells how to dress to look like a student. It tells where the shelves are that the chemicals are on. The handbook lists various explosive recipes, using black powders, nitroglycerin, dynamite, TNT, and ammonium nitrate. It provides explicit instructions for making pipe bombs, book bombs, light bulb bombs, glass container bombs and phone bombs, just to name a few.

Now, I have heard people say, oh, but the Encyclopedia Britannica has eight pages on explosives, and nobody criticizes that. Well, I have read the eight pages on explosives, and it does not say how to make a toilet paper roll booby trap. What legitimate purpose is there for a toilet paper roll booby trap other than to kill somebody? You do not blast out the stump of a tree. You do not need it for mining. You need it for no civilian or military purpose other than to kill. Or a vacuum cleaner booby trap. Again, no civilian or military purpose, no blasting out of tree trunks, no mining use. A traffic cone booby trap. A video alarm booby trap. A washing powder box booby trap. How to develop this thing in a bottle or a box of soap powder.

Light bulb bombs. The Terrorist Handbook describes, "an automatic reaction to walking into a dark room is to turn on the light. This can be fatal if a light bulb bomb has been placed in the overhead light socket. A light bulb bomb is surprisingly easy to make. It also comes with its own initiator, an electric ignition system." And then it goes into detailed instructions and diagrams of how to put one together.

I am not going to repeat those on the floor of the U.S. Senate. But I can assure you that the Terrorist Handbook provides these step-by-step instructions.

One of the more appalling descriptions of bombmaking involves a baby food bomb. The following information was taken from the bulletin board, computer bulletin board off the internet. Baby food bombs. "These simple, powerful bombs are not very well known, even though all of the material can be easily obtained by anyone, including minors. These things are so"--and then there is a four-letter word--"powerful, that they can destroy a car. Here is how they work."

Then it tells how they work. It says,

Go to the Sports Authority or Herman's sports shop and buy shotgun shells. At the Sports Authority that I go to, you can actually buy shotgun shells without a parent or adult. They do not keep it behind a little glass counter or anything like that. It is $2.96 for 25 shells.

The computer bulletin board posting then provides instructions on how to assemble and detonate the bomb. It concludes with these words:

If the explosion doesn't get them, the glass will. If the glass doesn't get them, then the nails will.

I do not think our first amendment, or the framers of the Constitution, want to protect the freedom of speech for criminal purposes. Clearly, these bombs are there for one reason and one reason only and that is a criminal purpose.

Let me give you another example that came through on April 23 of this year on the internet.

Are you interested in receiving information detailing the components and materials needed to construct a bomb identical to the one used in Oklahoma? The information specifically details the construction, deployment and detonation of high- powered explosives. It also includes complete details of the bomb used in Oklahoma City, how it was used and it could have been better.

Another examples comes from April 25 on the internet. I will quote it:

I want to make bombs and kill evil Zionist people in the Government. Teach me, give me test files. Feed my wisdom, O Great One.

That was April 25 on the internet.

The forward to the book "Death by Deception: Advanced Improvised Booby Traps" states:

Terrorists, IEDs [improvised explosive devices] come in many shapes and forms, but these bombs, mines, and booby traps all have one thing in common: they will cripple or kill you if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

In this sequel to his best-selling book "Deathtrap," Jo Jo Gonzales reveals more improvised booby-trap designs. Discover how these death-dealing devices can be constructed from such outwardly innocuous objects as computer modems, hand-held radios, toilet-paper dispensers, shower heads, talking teddy bears, and traffic cones. Detailed instructions, schematic diagrams, and typical deployment techniques for dozens of such contraptions are provided.

Now, none of this is for use in any constructive civilian or military project. All of them are used for criminal purposes.

Other titles of books that teach people how to make bombs include: "The Guerrilla's Arsenal: Advanced Techniques for Making Explosives and Time-Delay Bombs"; "The Advanced Anarchist Arsenal: Recipes for Improvised Incendiaries and Explosives."

Well, there are those who would say this is just a simple first amendment exploration. Do not worry about it. People are just curious.

Well, let me tell you that on Friday, Orange County bomb squad Sgt. Charlie Stump told me that a 14-year-old was in his garage making a pipe bomb with an 11- and 12-year-old watching him do it. The information to make this pipe bomb came from the Improvised Munitions Black Book, which can be obtained in any gunshop through the Paladin Press mail order outlets. So this youngster blew himself up, and right next to him was the handbook that he used.

Another example. In Mission Viejo, a 20-year-old junior college student went into the so-called survivalist movement and accidentally set off his own bomb and killed himself. Again, the manual was sitting right next to him.

So, according to the sergeant, these books tell you in vivid detail how to make bombs, how to kill people, how to destroy cars, how to destroy trains--whatever type of destruction you want to do, these books will tell you how to do it.

The purpose of this amendment is to say that if you know or intend this will be used in a criminal way, you have committed a Federal criminal offense by putting out this information.

Other examples include the following:

One of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers was arrested with manuals in hand.

In 1989, four Bethesda teenage boys were killed when a homemade pipe bomb subsequently went off. They were following instructions from another manual.

In 1987, a California teenager blew himself up with homemade bombs. The "Improvised Munitions Black Book" was found nearby.

Enough is enough. Common sense should tell us that the first amendment does not give someone the right to teach others how to kill people. The right to free speech in the first amendment is not absolute, and there are several well-known exceptions to the first amendment which limit free speech.

These include obscenity; child pornography; clear and present dangers; commercial speech; defamation; speech harmful to children; time, place, and manner restrictions; incidental restrictions; and radio and television broadcasting.

I do not for 1 minute believe that anyone writing the Constitution of the United States some 200 years ago wanted to see the first amendment used to directly aid one in how to learn to injure and kill others.

I believe that the distribution of information on bombmaking, if we know that information will be used for a criminal purpose, should be illegal.

At a recent hearing of the Judiciary Committee, I asked FBI Director Louis Freeh if anyone has a first amendment right to teach someone how to build a bomb in this country. He replied that it is a very important debate that very few people have reviewed. He suggested that it is a question that should be taken up by Congress. That is what we are doing this very day.

My amendment is specifically aimed at preventing and punishing the distribution of material that will be used to commit serious crimes external to the distribution itself, and only when there is intent or knowledge that the information will be used for a criminal purpose.

In other words, it is not aimed at suppressing contents per se, or fashioned as a prior restraint. Its purpose is addressing the facilitation of unlawful criminal conduct.

Now, we will talk for a moment about current law. There currently is a Federal law on the books that is similar to my proposed amendment. Title 18, section 231(a)(1) of the Criminal Code states:

Whoever teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm or explosive or incendiary device . . . knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

At least 18 States have similar bombmaking laws on the books, including Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Virginia.

I know that concerns have been raised by some civil libertarians and others about the constitutionality of my amendment, because it in essence takes this section which I have just read of the code and says if you, additionally, distribute that information with the knowledge or intent that it will be used for a criminal act, then you are guilty of a Federal violation.

So if you read information that is within a terrorist handbook, where the beginning page of the handbook says, "Whether you are planning to blow up the World Trade Center, or merely explode a few small devices on the White House lawn, this is the information you should have," that clearly sets, in my view, the purpose and intent of providing the information.

The current law, section 231 of title 18, has already been used to prosecute several criminals. It has been constitutionally upheld by the courts. In the United States versus Featherston, 1972, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the statute "is not unconstitutionally vague" and affirmed the convictions of two defendants who were prosecuted under the law.

The fifth circuit wrote:

. . . the statute does not cover mere inadvertent conduct. It requires those prosecuted to have acted with intent or knowledge that the information disseminated would be used in the furtherance of a civil disorder.

I know, though, that the true test of the amendment's constitutionality will be if and when it comes before the courts. And, I welcome that opportunity.

The last time the Supreme Court directly dealt with the issue of freedom of speech restrictions was over 20 years ago, in Brandenburg versus Ohio, 1969. As I understand it, this case involved a Ku Klux Klan leader's right to advocate destruction of property and other violence as a means of obtaining political reform. I think it may be time, especially in light of Oklahoma City and the World Trade Center bombings, for the Supreme Court to deal with this issue again.

In today's day and age, when violent crimes, bombings, and terrorist attacks are becoming too frequent--2,900 bombings a year, 541 in California alone in the year 1993--and when technology allows for the distribution of bombmaking material over computers to millions of people across the country in a matter of seconds, I believe that some restrictions on speech are appropriate.

Specifically, I believe that restricting the availability of bombmaking information for criminal purposes, if there is intent or knowledge that the information will be used for a criminal purpose, is both appropriate and required in today's day and age.

As Wisconsin District Judge Robert Warren wrote in the Progressive case dealing with the publication of information on how to build an atomic bomb:

What is involved here is information dealing with the most destructive weapon in the history of mankind, information of sufficient destructive potential to nullify the right to free speech and to endanger the right to life itself . . . . While it may be true in the long run, as Patrick Henry instructs us, that one would prefer death to life without liberty, nonetheless, in the short run, one cannot enjoy the freedom of speech or the freedom of the press unless one first enjoys the freedom to live.

I could not agree more with Judge Warren.

Enough is enough. I do not believe the first amendment gives anyone the right to teach someone how to kill other people or provide certain information that will be used to commit a crime. Even our most precious rights must pass the test of common sense.

I thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. Biden: 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. Biden: Mr. President, I rise to speak to the Feinstein amendment and suggest that what the Senator from California has raised here, paraphrasing director Freeh, is a debate that we should be having.

I do not think there are many people, and I do not think there are any people here in this body, who would suggest that the examples the Senator has given are examples we should not be concerned with. As evidenced by the Senator's comments, she also is mindful that although there are exceptions to the first amendment they are few, and we should, in drafting legislation, keep the first amendment in mind.

It is in that regard that I rise to discuss very briefly, the case of the United States versus Featherston, the fifth circuit case that the Senator mentioned. In that case, the court upheld a conviction of two leaders of a militia group who showed their followers how to make explosives. The purpose of the demonstration they put on was to prepare the group for the coming revolution.

Now, the statute at issue makes it a crime to teach someone how to make a bomb, knowing, intending or having reason to know that the bomb will be unlawfully used in a civil disorder as defined as a public act of violence involving three or more people.

In upholding the statute's constitutionality, however, the court read the language in the statute more narrowly than the language appears on its face. The court found the statute requires--this is the fifth circuit speaking--that those prosecuted have acted with "intent or knowledge" that the information would be used to further a civil disorder.

Now, the Senator has adjusted the language in her amendment in order to strike a much broader intent standard that she had originally proposed. The original language she had said, "a person intends, knows or reasonably should know that such explosive material or information will be used. . . ." She has amended that to say that if the person "intends or knows"--let me get the exact language here. I beg the Chair's pardon. The language now reads, "intends or knows that such explosive material or information will likely be used for. . . ."

I would respectfully suggest that language does not meet the fifth circuit standard requiring intent or knowledge.

I see the Senator is understandably occupied at the moment with the chairman of the committee, discussing this amendment, but at an appropriate point I am going to ask the Senator whether she would be willing to further amend her language to comport with what at least I believe the fifth circuit's minimal requirements are, and that is to say that if the person "intends or knows that such explosive material or information will be used." Put it another way, drop the word "likely."

Mrs. Feinstein: May I respond?

Mr. Biden: Please.

Mrs. Feinstein: The answer to the question is yes. I was just talking to the committee chairman, the floor manager on this subject.

Mr. Biden: I compliment the Senator for that.

Mrs. Feinstein: I will be happy to.

Mr. Biden: I suggest that would put it in line with what she intends and what the court found.

Mrs. Feinstein: Mr. President, may I move to amend?

Mr. Hatch: May I ask the Senator to withhold for 1 minute?

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Utah.

Mr. Hatch: I appreciate the Senator's willingness to take out the prior notification and the word "likely" in her response to the distinguished Senator from Delaware. But if she would also modify and take out "or knows," in other words if such person "intends" and take out "or knows." I will tell her why that is important.

There are a lot of explosives manufacturers and personnel who do teach others how to make explosives and how to use them legitimately, for legitimate purposes, mining and others. There are a lot of slurry manufacturers in my State. In fact, the chief for slurry underground explosives happens to be the founder of the IRECO Chemical Corp. in my home State. If you put "or knows" in there, what we are concerned about is if they teach a university class or teach other people in their business or teach other people, in seminars, about how to do slurry explosives or some other type of explosives, they could, under this provision, be indicted or prosecuted.

I really believe the distinguished Senator does a great favor if she says that the person "intends that such explosive materials or information will be used for. . . ." I think that is the fair way to do it. It is one way of alleviating these difficult legal questions that really make it very difficult for people who are in the explosives business to even talk about the business.

If the Senator could do that, I will be willing to accept this amendment.

Mrs. Feinstein: If I may respond, and perhaps the Senator from Delaware, because I think this is a useful discussion. I would like to respond to the Senator from Utah.

What concerns me is somebody writes a terrorist handbook. We have that case. And they tell somebody how to steal; how, in detail, to put together, let us say, a light bulb bomb.

You come to them and say, "You violated a criminal law."

They say, "I did not intend this to be used for crime."

Then the comeback is, "You should know it is going to be used for crime because that is the only purpose for a light bulb bomb. It is the only purpose for a toilet paper bomb, for a candy box bomb."

Mr. Biden: Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. Feinstein: I will right away, in just 1 second.

What the Senator from Utah is saying is the explosive company that makes the explosive does not intend--that is clear--that it be used for criminal purposes. I agree. The intention of this is not to get at the explosive company. The intention is to get at the person who misuses or mispackages, and who does it all for the purposes of committing a criminal act.

Mr. Biden addressed the Chair.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Delaware.

Mr. Biden: Mr. President, if I may--and I thank the Senator for her invitation for me to speak to this as well--we have three slightly different points of view here. Let me make clear what I would like to see avoided and what I would like to see accomplished. Using specific examples and hypotheticals is not always the best way to do it, but it seems to be the only way I have available to me to do it at this moment.

None of us wants to have the publishers of World Book Encyclopedia indicted because they, in their World Book, tell you how you can make a bomb. You can go to a public library and you can find out how to build a nuclear device. It is a lot more complicated than building a light bulb bomb, but you can find that out.

The purpose, the knowledge or intention of the publisher of World Book Encyclopedia or any other publication is in all probability not the same purpose as that of the publisher of the Terrorist Handbook. But for the purpose of Lady Justice, blindfolded, weighing her scales, it is hard to tell the difference sometimes, other than looking at the person or the organization that is publishing the material, to determine their intent. And we do not want courts getting into that kind of business. I do not think the presiding officer wants that to happen, nor do I, nor do I think anyone does, although I sure would like to be able to capture those folks who issued that handbook.

So the Senator has narrowed her language, I think appropriately, to say "know or intends."

Let me tell you why I think "know" makes sense to be in there. If, for example, that gruesome example that the Senator gave from the internet, where somebody puts on a bulletin board how to make a terrorist device, a bomb, and then someone writes back and says, "O Great One," I am paraphrasing, "I want to kill Zionists in the Government. Tell me more. Feed me." Or whatever the terminology was.

The original publication of that information on the bulletin board on the internet may or may not meet the standard of having known the information was going to be used for a criminal purpose, or may or may not meet the standard of having intended that it be used. But it seems to me it is pretty clear that when that idiot writes back or punches in his code and name and says, "O Great One, I want to kill people, tell me more," if the original person who put the information up on the bulletin board said, "All right, Swami, here it comes. If you really want to get Zionists, here is how to do it," it seems to me at that point the person knows that the information he or she is disseminating is intended for a criminal purpose.

The Senator from California said there are some stores, some retail outlets that sell the handbook. Or you can write away to get the handbook. If I walk in to you and you are selling the handbook, you have the handbook and I say, "Ma'am, I would like to buy a handbook that would teach me how to--do you see the cop down there in the corner? I want to put a pipe bomb in that trash can where he stands every morning from 8:30 to 9. I want to blow that SOB up."

And you say, "I have just the thing for you," and you walk over and you hand him the handbook, it seems to me you knew the information that is available to you to do something terrible, kill that policeman standing at the corner. It would be awfully hard to prove, though, that, if you sold that handbook to me, you intended for me to kill that policeman. You could know I was going to use it to kill someone without having intended for me to kill someone. Are you with me?

So my concern is, if it gets even narrowed further to say only "intends the information to be used in a criminal enterprise or criminal act," then it is so narrow that you are not going to catch in that net people who I think we should catch.

I have been, for the last 23 years, always listed as one of the two or three or four people most protective of the first amendment. You know, all these rating organizations that rate us whether we are conservative, liberal, good, bad, or indifferent? I am always, along with Senator Leahy and a few others, listed here as one of the staunchest defenders of the first amendment.

So I am not looking to broaden the net the Senator wishes to cast. But it seems to me if you narrow it so much so that you only use the word "intend," you do not get the circumstance where I know that the information I have at my disposal as to how to build a light bulb bomb or any other kind of bomb, I know why you are seeking the information. You have told me. You tell me, "I want to know how to make a bomb out of Gerber's baby peaches. I want to know how to do that. Teach me, oh Great One." You say, "I've got just the answer for you. Here is how you do it."

It seems to me that does fall beyond the purview of first amendment protection. It seems to me it is narrow enough and specific enough that it warrants to be made unlawful. And it seems to me that it is not at all inconsistent with what the fifth circuit and other courts have said relative to the standard required on the part of the person disseminating the information.

So in truth, you might also be able to get that very person on a conspiracy charge. You might not even need this statute. My friend, who is truly--we use this phrase too frequently around here, and it does not always apply, but in this case it does. My friend, who is learned in the law could stand and say, "Well, all right, Joe. I am not trying to eliminate the ability to nail the person who is knowingly participating in an unlawful activity. We can already do that under a conspiracy statute." Practically, that is true. But I would argue that including the word "knows" as well as "intends" here does no damage to the first amendment, and makes the case if not easier, equally as able to be pursued as a conspiracy theory would be. This is more direct.

So my friend from Utah and I have been, the first 15 years of our working together, not always on the same side of these civil liberties arguments. And it is truly--I mean this sincerely--a pleasure to be on the same side of these arguments with him these days. I do not by that in any way imply a change in his motivation at all. I think things have changed, and as the troubles in society, the maturation process, has taken place, and we all are seeing different applications of old principles to new problems. So I am not being facetious when I say I welcome it. But I respectfully disagree with him here.

I will not object to the Senator from California taking out the word "knows." But I would suggest that her test, her intended purpose, is best served by saying if the person intends or knows that such explosive material or information will be used for or in furtherance of an activity that constitutes a criminal, a Federal criminal offense, or a criminal purpose affecting interstate commerce, I think keeping only two words "intends" or "knows" is totally appropriate, and I would support that.

But it is obviously her amendment. If she is persuaded by the reasoning of the Senator from Utah, I will not object to it.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. Feinstein: If I may, Mr. President, I would like to amend the amendment by removing the word "likely." So that the amendment reads:

Information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture of explosive materials, if the person intends and knows that such explosive materials or information will be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal criminal offense or a criminal purpose affecting interstate commerce.

The Presiding Officer: Will the Senator send her modification to the desk?

Is there objection to the modification?

Mr. Hatch: May I see the modification?

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Utah.

Mr. Hatch: If I could have the attention of the distinguished Senator from California, the way she has written it is different than the way she read it. It says if the person "intends or knows." But if the Senator will read it "intends and knows," I will go along with it.

Mrs. Feinstein: I meant "or." I beg your pardon.

Mr. Hatch: Could the Senator change the "or" to an "and"?

Mrs. Feinstein: I did not mean to. Did I?

Mr. Hatch: Yes.

Mrs. Feinstein: I will change it to "intends or knows."

Mr. Hatch: If I can just respond to the distinguished Senator from California, I would prefer "intends and knows" rather than "intends or knows" because I believe that can lead to some mischief in the criminal law. On the other hand, this was a narrow interpretation. I agree with the distinguished Senator from Delaware. I am not sure that you can catch them on a conspiracy statute in this area. I do not remember the law with regard to the explosives. But whether that is so or not, as I understand it, the word likely will be stricken in the amendment.

Mrs. Feinstein: That is correct.

Mr. Hatch: Then I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. Biden: Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

The Presiding Officer: Is there objection?

Mr. Biden: Reserving the right to object, is the language "and" or is it "or"? If it is "or," I have no objection.

The Presiding Officer: Is there objection to the modification?

Mr. Hatch: I have no objection.

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, the amendment is so modified.

The amendment (No. 1209), as modified, is as follows:

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following new section:

SEC. . PROHIBITION ON DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION RELATING TO EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS FOR A CRIMINAL PURPOSE.

(a) Section 842 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

(l) It shall be unlawful for any person to teach or demonstrate the making of explosive materials, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture of explosive materials, if the person intends or knows, that such explosive materials or information will be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal criminal offense or a criminal purpose affecting interstate commerce."

(b) Section 844 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by designating section (a) as subsection (a)(1) and by adding the following new subsection:

(a)(2) Any person who violates subsection (l) of section 842 of this chapter shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

Mr. Hatch: Mr. President, with that modification, I am prepared to accept the amendment, if the distinguished Senator from Delaware is likewise.

The Presiding Officer: Is there further debate on the amendment?

Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Delaware.

Mr. Biden: For clarification purposes, and I think I will accept it, I want to read the entire amendment. It will take me one moment. It says:

Section (a) reads, "Section 842 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

Subsection 1.

It shall be unlawful for any person to teach or demonstrate the making of explosive materials, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture of explosive materials, if the person intends or knows that such explosive material or information will be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal criminal offense or a criminal purpose affecting interstate commerce.

Subsection B.

Section 844 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by designating section (a) as subsection (a)(1), and by adding the following new subsection:

(a)(1), any person who violates subsection (1) of section 842 of this chapter shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

That is the end of the amendment. Is that correct?

Mrs. Feinstein: The "1" is an "l". It is a lower case.

Mr. Biden: I beg your pardon. In the last paragraph?

Mrs. Feinstein: In the first paragraph and the last.

Mr. Biden: I beg your pardon. It is "l", and not "1."

So it will read, the following new section "l", "It shall be unlawful for any person to teach or demonstrate the making of explosive material or to distribute by any means information pertaining to", et cetera. Then at the bottom paragraph, it reads "Any person who violates subsection l of this section." Then that is how it reads, Mr. President?

The Presiding Officer: The Senator is correct.

Mr. Biden: Mr. President, I am sorry to do this to you. But also in the third paragraph, it reads:

Section (a) as subsection (a)(l) and by adding the following new subsection.

So, in other words, the three places where I thought it was a "1" it is not a "1." It is an "l."

So that being the case, that is the only correction of me, not of the amendment, I have no objection. We accept the amendment as well.

The Presiding Officer: The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

The amendment (No. 1209), as modified, was agreed to.

Mr. Biden: Mr. President, let me say that the Senator from California never ceases to amaze me. I say that with genuine respect. When she zeroed in on this problem when Senator Kennedy came to the hearing and presented a 60-, 70-, 80-page document--I forget how long it was--of information that the staff had pulled off the Internet for him on how to do these things, one of the things that I admire most about her is her incredible common sense.

I remember her sitting there looking at us and saying, "You mean you can do this? I mean, why are we allowing this?" All of us who were supposedly hopefully good lawyers all looked and said, "First amendment problem, Senator." And we all did say that. We all knew because of our reverence for the first amendment. Those of us who are conservative, liberal, and moderate alike all said, "First amendment problem." We all kind of went on to other things.

As she always does, she went back to her office, and I am sure she turned to that able staff member next to her and said, "Wait a minute, there has to be a way to do this. There has to be an answer to this." As usual, her instinct is almost always right. And when I have dealt with her, it has been unerring. Not being a lawyer, she went out and got some fine lawyers and said, "How can I write this thing because I, Dianne Feinstein, don't want to amend the first amendment either, but I do want to deal with this foolishness."

She did it. I compliment her. And remind me, if I ever forget, never to underestimate her. She always gets it done. We are all better for it. I again congratulate her.

We have no other amendment on the floor at the moment. What I would like to do, unless someone wishes to bring up an amendment, I would like to because I was not here when the Senator from California spoke on her first amendment, the taggants amendment, and I would like to take a moment.

Amendment No. 1202

If anyone has any other thing to bring up, I would be happy to yield. I rise at this moment to support the amendment of my friend from California on taggants, if I may, because we are going to be voting on that I think around 6 o'clock.

One area we did not address in the legislation before us was the issue of taggants. The President wanted to see it addressed, and I did as well and spoke very briefly with my friend from California and encouraged her to move the amendment on taggants.

I feel it is very important in the battle against terrorism to enhance our ability to identify, following detonation, the source or origin of the explosives used in an act of violence against our fellow Americans. Key Federal law enforcement officials recognize that to provide for enhanced tracing capabilities is a logical and, I would argue, overdue response. The administration included a tracing provision in their antiterrorism proposal, and it was section 803 of S. 761.

Now, I want to make it clear to those of our colleagues who may be listening in their offices, I am not inadvertently substituting the word "tracing" for "taggant" because that is what this is all about. We want to be able to trace the manufacture of the material used, not for purposes of prosecuting the manufacturer, unless the manufacturer violated the law intentionally in to whom they sold the material, but in order to be able to trace the person who purchased the material which would enhance our ability to find out who detonated the bomb.

The provision authorizes the Secretary of Treasury to promulgate regulations requiring taggants to be added to explosive materials. Now, the Republican bill, however, omits this key provision. Instead, the Republican bill calls for no action, only more study. I would also note that not only does the Republican bill choose study over action but, even worse, their bill calls on the Justice Department to study this issue.

Now, we all know that jurisdiction over these issues and the real expertise related thereto is in the Treasury Department. Let us not duplicate effort. Let us not duplicate bureaucracy. Let us think of the taxpayers, not the pet peeves of some special interest group because they do not like the Treasury Department. The Treasury Department is the outfit that has been dealing with this issue and explosives for time immemorial. The Justice Department is not. It does not have the expertise. So I would suggest that is not the place we should look.

Now, taggants are tiny plastic, as they are referred, sandwiches with different color stripes that are added to explosives during the manufacturing process. Because these taggants are left after the explosion, they can be used to identify the source of an explosion. And that is the source of the material--where it was purchased. In other words, these identifiers, these little plastic sandwiches, as they are called, different colored stripes are put into the explosive when it is being manufactured, legitimately manufactured. We are not talking about some back-room operation. These are legitimate explosives. These are legitimate materials made by legitimate companies for legitimate purposes. You add at the time of their manufacture these little colored strips so that when the explosion goes off, you are able to go into the area where the explosion took place and by use of detection means find these taggants.

These taggants--this is my phrase; I have never heard anyone else use this--are a little bit like that little bar code on the bottom of everything you buy in the grocery store. The checker just runs it through a scanner. They can identify what stock it was, what date it was made, where it came from, what part of the store it was in, how much it cost.

It is the same principle here. We want to be able to essentially run the residue of that explosive material through a scanner, in effect. And you are able to say OK, the material used in this bomb was manufactured at such and such a time, such and such a batch, et cetera, and work your way back with the intention of not going after the manufacturer but going after the person who purchased it.

Now, it may be the person legitimately purchased it, and we find out it was purchased for a construction operation and it was put in, properly stored in a locked vault and that you find out the vault was not broken into but that on the job it turned out a couple pieces were missing. Well, then you have the investigative tool to narrow it down. Maybe then you look at the people who took the explosive out and were legitimately working on the job. Maybe it turns out to be one of them. It was not them. They may say, well, it was only 20 minutes it was not here. And there was a guy wearing a red cap that came by. It is investigative work. It merely gives, but significantly gives, an opportunity to law enforcement agencies to begin to trace, backtrack, until hopefully you find the person who was the person who purchased and used this material.

Now, to use a practical example of how even small pieces of evidence are vital, consider that the vehicle identification number on the exploded remains of a rental truck that was used to blow up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City was the critical piece of evidence that gave Federal law enforcement a critical lead on the bombing suspects.

There was a taggant in effect on that vehicle in an ID number on it. Where would we be if we had not required an ID number on that vehicle? We would be nowhere. You would not have been able to go back to find out from where that vehicle was rented, who walked in and rented it, what they looked like, what their description was and then trace it back to the guy who gets arrested almost incidentally on a highway going out of Oklahoma City the day of the bombing.

Very important material, a tiny little thing. You would say, well, wait a minute. That truck was blown to smithereens. This just goes to show you the investigative capability of the people there. The axle--I believe it was an axle--on which this identification number existed was found. They knew to go and look at that ID number.

Once they found it, they could begin the tracing process. In fact, it was the employees of the rental agency they traced this back to who provided much of the information necessary to create the composite sketch of the suspect initially known as John Doe 1, whom we now know as Timothy McVeigh.

Now, taggants work much in the same way. The taggants would give an indication where the explosives were purchased. Not only does that lead law enforcement to a sales clerk who might have provided a description of the terrorist, but this information may also be key, and perhaps the only physical evidence that a prosecutor can use, to nail the defendant to the crime. If there were taggants in the explosives that were used, you would be able to do the same thing--and they were recovered. You might be able to go back and find where the material that blew up the-- and that was fertilizer added with some chemicals and the like. You may be able to go back and find out where that fertilizer was sold and you may find the very same thing. The clerk says I remember selling that fertilizer to the following person, and you do a composite sketch. Again, it is a strong piece of evidence.

Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will argue that we should study this issue more closely. But that means only one thing: More needless delay. The potential effect of taggants has been highlighted in a study that was conducted in the late 1970's when the ATF seeded a very small portion of explosives, 10,000 pounds, with taggants.

We had this debate, I might add, when I first came to the Senate in the 1970's, and we were told, no, it may be a destabilizing element in the manufacture of the material; it may be used for purposes on the part of law enforcement to do bad things, et cetera. But we agreed that Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms could do an experiment. So they went to a manufacturing site, and they tagged 10,000 pounds of explosives. They put in one of these little colored strips, these sandwiches.

Now, despite this relatively small amount--and that probably represented less than--I will not even guess--one one-hundredth percent of all the explosives sold that year. It was infinitesimally small in this little experiment compared to the universe of all explosives sold that year. For example, my staff is telling me 4 billion pounds of explosives are sold per year--4 billion pounds. This was 10,000 pounds that was tagged as an experiment. Now, notwithstanding that, that one experiment back in 1978--and the Senator from California knows this--was very instrumental and effective in helping solve a bombing incident in the State of Maryland. Now, the idea that we did this one experiment--and it was just pure luck, I suspect, that that 10,000 pounds was purchased. But what happened was there was a car bombing, and but for the fact that the explosive used was part of that 10,000-pound batch that was the only batch out of four billion pounds sold that year, the perpetrator of the act was unlucky enough to purchase something from that batch. And that was the thing that led to the identification and conviction of that individual, with little or no possibility of their ever having found him but for the taggants.

I suggest that the study by the Office of Technology Assessment on taggants is also a key source of the safety and efficacy of taggants. There was this experiment and the study by the Office of Technology Assessment. The Office of Technology Assessment found that "identification taggants would facilitate the investigation of almost all significant criminal bombings in which commercial explosives were used."

Now, safety tests performed by the Office of Technology Assessment found taggants to be compatible with the explosives covered by this amendment. By compatible, I mean they did not diminish the efficacy of the explosives, No. 1. So it blew up just as big as it would have blown up without the taggant. It did not diminish its capacity.

Second, it did nothing to destabilize the explosive. It made it no more or less dangerous to deal with that explosive. One of the arguments we will hear used is that if you add these taggants, they will have the effect of destabilizing this explosive material, making it more dangerous to handle. There is no evidence of that, according to the Office of Technology Assessment.

Third, they also found that it did not, in any way, affect the manufacturer of that material. That is, placing the taggants in the material as it is manufactured did not diminish safety in the production of that material.

For 15 years, law enforcement in Switzerland have recognized taggants as an important piece of the puzzle in solving crimes involving illegally used explosives. Under this amendment, the Secretary of the Treasury will determine how we can best utilize this technology. Then we will move forward and use the taggants after that assessment has been made by the Secretary of the Treasury. And that is key. We should move forward in this area now, and we should do so without further delay.

Now, a study on common and precursor chemicals, another aspect of the amendment I want to touch on briefly, is the requirement that the Secretary of the Treasury study and make recommendations regarding: First, the ability and feasibility of rendering inert those common chemicals used to manufacture explosive materials and, second, the ability to impose controls on those precursor chemicals used to manufacture explosive materials.

Let me make it clear, this is a separate issue. There are two issues here that the Senator from California has pursued that were in the President's legislation. One, this notion of, in effect, seeding an explosive with a color-stripped material so that when the explosive goes off, you can find the material and trace back the place where it was manufactured and sold. That is the taggant.

Now, there is a second issue, and that is chemicals which are sold--I will use this phrase--over the counter. These are chemicals you can go and buy, but they can be used for destructive purposes, although their intention is for constructive purposes. Fertilizer is to help things grow, not kill things or kill people.

Now, I said this before, and I say it to my friend from California here. I was at a conference with a group of U.S. Senators, Congresspersons, and officials from the United Nations the day this god-awful explosion in Oklahoma occurred, and we literally interrupted the conference. One of the conferees was Gen. Michael Rose, a general in the British Army, who was the UNPROFOR Commander of Forces in Bosnia up until about 3 months ago. General Rose and I were sitting next to one another discussing the situation in Bosnia. What happened was that we adjourned when we heard this horrible news and went to the nearest television. The first scene all of us saw--a dozen of us Congressmen, Senators and generals--was a visual image of the Federal building and the confusion surrounding it. You could see how the Federal building was not only blown up, but it looked like it was cut away in the front. I was sitting next to General Rose. I could not hear what was on the television in this hotel lobby. We just saw the picture. He looked at me and he said, "That bomb is a fertilizer bomb. That is what destroyed that building." My staffer reminded me that he looked and he said, "That is an ANFO bomb." I wondered, what in the devil is he talking about? How does he know this? All we can see is this picture on television. He had not heard any more about this than I did. We just walked out of this conference. He went on to explain to me how when ammonium nitrate is added to fertilizer in a certain formula and way, it produces an explosion whose fingerprints or characteristics are like the one we saw. I was amazed. I was complimenting him, because about 3 minutes later a reporter comes on and says, "We have just learned that this was a fertilizer bomb." I did not know how he knew this. He went on to explain to us that it was his experience when he was a commander in Northern Ireland with the use of fertilizer bombs by the IRA. He went on to point out that England had changed the law relative to the sale of fertilizer to Ireland and the type of fertilizer and the amount of nitrate that could be in the fertilizer, and he went on and on about it. And he said something fascinating. He said that it has had three interesting effects. First, the environment is cleaner. There is not as much nitrates left over in the environment when it is applied to the soil. The water is cleaner and the bombs are fewer.

So that is when I became interested in how do you take these materials that seem to me to be totally innocent in terms of the ability to cause damage and render them inert--inert in the sense that they can only do the thing for which they were manufactured, which is to help things grow, as opposed to kill people. One of the ways to do that is to look at it and study it and make recommendations regarding the feasibility of adding materials to the manufacture of these chemicals and precursor chemicals that will not diminish the effectiveness of the chemical but render them incapable of generating the explosion.

The purpose of this provision is very simple, and it should be clear to every American in the wake of the Oklahoma City tragedy. What has become evident in the past weeks is that in America today, nearly anyone, as our friend from California has pointed out, can acquire the ingredients, all of which have other legitimate uses, and build a bomb.

The bomb in Oklahoma was a mixture of ammonium nitrate fertilizer and diesel fuel. Ammonium nitrate can be purchased at almost any garden supply or hardware store, and when mixed with a fuel, it can be classified as a high explosive. One way to desensitize ammonium nitrate while still preserving its effectiveness for its intended use would be to mix a nonexplosive chemical such as lime, calcium carbonate, into the product, to render it inefficient for use as an explosive.

Now, I think it makes overwhelming sense to suggest that a feasibility study be done and recommendations made as to whether or not, for example, lime can be added to ammonium nitrate, allowing the fertilizer to be as potent as it was before for the purposes of encouraging growth in the soil, yet rendering it incapable of being used as a bomb when mixed with a fuel supply. This type of desensitizing is currently employed in England, as I said.

Let me be clear, all this amendment does with regard to this point, all it does is require the Secretary to study the feasibility of such a policy being implemented in the United States.

It is an unfortunate reality that individuals would take seemingly harmless--I might add, legal--products and devices and turn them into weapons capable of exacting the devastation and loss of life that we all saw in Oklahoma City. However unfortunate that may be, it is a reality nonetheless. The amendment of my friend from California is an effort to curtail the availability of products which can be used in this manner.

Mr. President, I would like to make as a concluding point that I understand negotiations between Senator Feinstein and other interested parties on the other side are proceeding. Of course, I hope these discussions will be successful, but I strongly urge that the Senator from California not relent on the two essential aspects of her amendment.

One, the taggants be able to be placed, by recommendation from the Secretary of Treasury, in explosives; and, two, that the study be undertaken that would determine whether there are ways that we can feasibly render inert the destructive capability of otherwise totally constructive precursor chemicals.

I see the Senator from California is on the floor and seeking recognition. I yield the floor.

Mrs. Feinstein addressed the Chair.

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Grams): The Senator from California.

Mrs. Feinstein: Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Delaware for that very eloquent exposition on taggants.

I must say that it never ceases to amaze me, because outside people are saying they are for legislation to begin to tag explosives where safe and not adding to the volatility. Yet once again, I must tell the Senator, the lobbying of those special interests is starting up again to, one by one, move Senators off of this legislation.

This led me to get a little bit of the history of taggants before this body. While the Senator has been here for a long time, I am a relative newcomer, 2\1/2\ years, and I did not realize this issue has been raised now for 22 years before this body. It might be interesting to go back into a little bit of the history.

It actually began in 1973 when Congress asked ATF to look into possible methods of fighting terrorists in criminal bombings. That year, ATF and the FAA established an ad hoc committee on explosives seeding. That same year, ATF formed an inner agency advisory committee on explosives tagging.

Also in 1973, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, which we knew as LEAA, sponsored a study by Lawrence Livermore Lab, managed by Aerospace Corporation, to study the feasibility of identification tagging of explosives.

Several companies, including 3M and Westinghouse, began taggant development. By 1976, this was far enough advanced to be the subject of the pilot tagging program developed by aerospace under the contract with the Bureau of Mines. The results seemed positive, in 1977, with the Omnibus Antiterrorism Act.

Mr. President, was the Senator here in 1977?

Mr. Biden: Mr. President, yes, I was here. I was also here in 1973, unfortunately. I have been here, and I have been interested in this issue since then. That is why I am so happy the Senator is pushing it.

Mrs. Feinstein: Mr. President, it is interesting to see, because in 1977 Senators Abe Ribicoff and Jake Javits presented language mandating the introduction of explosive tagging over a period of time.

During consideration of the bill, the National Rifle Association--who somebody has just said is for taggants--opposed the inclusion in the program of black and smokeless powders used by some hunters to hand- load antique rifles. The National Rifle Association was successful at the committee level at deleting the requirement that these powders be tagged.

Nonetheless, the requirement that other types of explosives be tagged was left intact. The bill never reached the Senate floor.

In the 96th Congress, the antiterrorism legislation was reintroduced with provisions for gradually phasing in identification tagging over a 2\1/2\-year period. The legislation was considered in the House by the Aviation Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee.

It was supported by the Airline Pilots Association and the Airline Transport Association. The House Members and Glenn Anderson, the subcommittee chair, wanted to wait for action on the subject in the Senate before taking the issue up in the House.

The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee marked it up on May 7, 1979. The only controversial aspect of this Omnibus Antiterrorism Act, Senate bill 333, was explosive tagging. Again, the NRA and the Institute of Makers of Explosives lobbied hard to kill the entire program and made wild accusations about the cost, safety, utility, and burdensomeness of taggants.

So the principal supporters, Ribicoff and Javits, and the principal opponent, who was Senator Stevens at the time, agreed to postpone committee consideration pending an examination of taggants by the congressional Office of Technology Assessments.

That was the report I held up this morning. OTA was not to conduct original research, but rather was supposed to review existing data and report its findings back to the Governmental Affairs Committee no later than August 6, 1979.

OTA went out. They established a staff drawn from science foundations, Lawrence Livermore Lab, to carry out the proposal. They also formed an advisory committee composed of representatives from the law enforcement community, the explosives industry, and the gun lobby to provide input. It is my understanding that one of the explosive industry members was later indicted for selling explosive materials to Libyan terrorists.

Despite the efforts on the part of OTA to comply with the August 6 deadline, it soon became apparent that the deadline could not be met. So a new deadline was set for Thanksgiving. In the interim, American hostages were seized in Iran and the Senate decided to postpone consideration of the underlying bill until the situation was clarified.

This gave OTA more time to develop its report, which was finally released on April 28, 1980. That is the report I mentioned this morning.

At this point, the National Rifle Association, I am told, hired lobbyists to lobby against the bill. I am told that the people hired were paid more than $250,000 for the effort to defeat this. They were successful in getting several trade associations in the construction industry, including the Crushed Stone Association, to launch campaigns against the bill on the theory that taggants would increase the cost of explosives by more than 100 percent. In fact, the estimate is less than 10 percent. I read those figures into the Record this morning.

By the date of the markup, it became clear that the Javits-Ribicoff approach would not win. Senator Glenn offered a compromise. That did not go ahead. The committee vote was 8-7 in favor of an Eagleton motion, who was an opponent of taggants. And on and on and on it goes.

Now here we are with a massive incident in the United States--two of them--the World Trade Center and the building in Oklahoma City. And now, today, this afternoon, the phones are heating up. Senators that I thought would be for this are calling. They are now getting the agriculture communities involved, saying they do not want a study. Just the study on ammonium nitrate, the fertilizer that blew up the building and killed 168 people, we were being told we should not study it.

I cannot believe it. It is unbelievable to me that anyone could oppose a study to see if fertilizers can be made inert so they will not detonate it.

Mr. Biden: Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a moment?

Mrs. Feinstein: I will yield.

Mr. Biden: I do not mean yield to the issue, but yield temporarily on the floor.

Let me ask the Senator somewhat of a rhetorical question. She points out accurately, my recollection, because I was here during the entirety of what she spoke of. From my perspective, her historical analysis is accurate. I remember at the time being dumbfounded, quite frankly, that the chemical industry, a large chemical industry in Delaware, and others would not push hard for these actions to be taken. I mean, I just assumed, naively, that this would be something everybody would be for.

There is one argument that can be made in opposition to what we are trying to do and I think we should state it. That OTA study, Office of Technology Assessment study, said that there was only one possible exception to the circumstance under which adding a taggant might diminish the safety, and that was with regard to smokeless powder.

The Senator pointed out that back as early as 1973, the NRA pointed out that they were concerned about people who were muzzle loading antique guns and using smokeless powder to put them in a position to be able to use the guns. Probably we could have settled that matter then but it turned out that, whether the NRA was concerned about that or not--and I will not make a judgment about that--it ended up being the initial device used, the wedge used to block anything from happening.

It is my understanding from my discussions with the White House, with the Justice Department, my staff and others, that when I introduced the President's bill, when Senators Kohl and Specter and I introduced the President's bill containing this provision, that we did not intend--the White House did not intend, the Justice Department did not intend--to include within the definition of explosive, smokeless powder. The ATF indicates that they do not include that in their definition of explosives. And I would think that--I would like to ask the Senator whether this is not her understanding as well, that we would be willing to make it very clear in the record that our definition--your definition of explosives does not include smokeless powder.

Mrs. Feinstein: I would be prepared to do that, Senator. It is my understanding this affects gels, slurries, dynamite, emulsions and cast boosters, and black powder. But it does not include smokeless powder.

Mr. Biden: As further evidence that we are not just arriving at this as a means of a compromise, it was never our intention to include smokeless powder. I would read from, as further evidence of that although we did not make it absolutely clear, I would read page 2 of the amendment, subsection (e), the bottom, second-to-the-last-line of the page.

The Senator from California.

Mrs. Feinstein: Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Delaware for that very eloquent exposition on taggants.

I must say that it never ceases to amaze me, because outside people are saying they are for legislation to begin to tag explosives where safe and not adding to the volatility. Yet once again, I must tell the Senator, the lobbying of those special interests is starting up again to, one by one, move Senators off of this legislation.

This led me to get a little bit of the history of taggants before this body. While the Senator has been here for a long time, I am a relative newcomer, 2 1/2 years, and I did not realize this issue has been raised now for 22 years before this body. It might be interesting to go back into a little bit of the history.

It actually began in 1973 when Congress asked ATF to look into possible methods of fighting terrorists in criminal bombings. That year, ATF and the FAA established an ad hoc committee on explosives seeding. That same year, ATF formed an inner agency advisory committee on explosives tagging.

Also in 1973, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, which we knew as LEAA, sponsored a study by Lawrence Livermore Lab, managed by Aerospace Corporation, to study the feasibility of identification tagging of explosives.

Several companies, including 3M and Westinghouse, began taggant development. By 1976, this was far enough advanced to be the subject of the pilot tagging program developed by aerospace under the contract with the Bureau of Mines. The results seemed positive, in 1977, with the Omnibus Antiterrorism Act.

Mr. President, was the Senator here in 1977?

Mr. Biden: Mr. President, yes, I was here. I was also here in 1973, unfortunately. I have been here, and I have been interested in this issue since then. That is why I am so happy the Senator is pushing it.

Mrs. Feinstein: Mr. President, it is interesting to see, because in 1977 Senators Abe Ribicoff and Jake Javits presented language mandating the introduction of explosive tagging over a period of time.

During consideration of the bill, the National Rifle Association--who somebody has just said is for taggants--opposed the inclusion in the program of black and smokeless powders used by some hunters to hand- load antique rifles. The National Rifle Association was successful at the committee level at deleting the requirement that these powders be tagged.

Nonetheless, the requirement that other types of explosives be tagged was left intact. The bill never reached the Senate floor.

In the 96th Congress, the antiterrorism legislation was reintroduced with provisions for gradually phasing in identification tagging over a 2\1/2\-year period. The legislation was considered in the House by the Aviation Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee.

It was supported by the Airline Pilots Association and the Airline Transport Association. The House Members and Glenn Anderson, the subcommittee chair, wanted to wait for action on the subject in the Senate before taking the issue up in the House.

The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee marked it up on May 7, 1979. The only controversial aspect of this Omnibus Antiterrorism Act, Senate bill 333, was explosive tagging. Again, the NRA and the Institute of Makers of Explosives lobbied hard to kill the entire program and made wild accusations about the cost, safety, utility, and burdensomeness of taggants.

So the principal supporters, Ribicoff and Javits, and the principal opponent, who was Senator Stevens at the time, agreed to postpone committee consideration pending an examination of taggants by the congressional Office of Technology Assessments.

That was the report I held up this morning. OTA was not to conduct original research, but rather was supposed to review existing data and report its findings back to the Governmental Affairs Committee no later than August 6, 1979.

OTA went out. They established a staff drawn from science foundations, Lawrence Livermore Lab, to carry out the proposal. They also formed an advisory committee composed of representatives from the law enforcement community, the explosives industry, and the gun lobby to provide input. It is my understanding that one of the explosive industry members was later indicted for selling explosive materials to Libyan terrorists.

Despite the efforts on the part of OTA to comply with the August 6 deadline, it soon became apparent that the deadline could not be met. So a new deadline was set for Thanksgiving. In the interim, American hostages were seized in Iran and the Senate decided to postpone consideration of the underlying bill until the situation was clarified.

This gave OTA more time to develop its report, which was finally released on April 28, 1980. That is the report I mentioned this morning.

At this point, the National Rifle Association, I am told, hired lobbyists to lobby against the bill. I am told that the people hired were paid more than $250,000 for the effort to defeat this. They were successful in getting several trade associations in the construction industry, including the Crushed Stone Association, to launch campaigns against the bill on the theory that taggants would increase the cost of explosives by more than 100 percent. In fact, the estimate is less than 10 percent. I read those figures into the Record this morning.

By the date of the markup, it became clear that the Javits-Ribicoff approach would not win. Senator Glenn offered a compromise. That did not go ahead. The committee vote was 8-7 in favor of an Eagleton motion, who was an opponent of taggants. And on and on and on it goes.

Now here we are with a massive incident in the United States--two of them--the World Trade Center and the building in Oklahoma City. And now, today, this afternoon, the phones are heating up. Senators that I thought would be for this are calling. They are now getting the agriculture communities involved, saying they do not want a study. Just the study on ammonium nitrate, the fertilizer that blew up the building and killed 168 people, we were being told we should not study it.

I cannot believe it. It is unbelievable to me that anyone could oppose a study to see if fertilizers can be made inert so they will not detonate it.

Mr. Biden: Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a moment?

Mrs. Feinstein: I will yield.

Mr. Biden: I do not mean yield to the issue, but yield temporarily on the floor.

Let me ask the Senator somewhat of a rhetorical question. She points out accurately, my recollection, because I was here during the entirety of what she spoke of. From my perspective, her historical analysis is accurate. I remember at the time being dumbfounded, quite frankly, that the chemical industry, a large chemical industry in Delaware, and others would not push hard for these actions to be taken. I mean, I just assumed, naively, that this would be something everybody would be for.

There is one argument that can be made in opposition to what we are trying to do and I think we should state it. That OTA study, Office of Technology Assessment study, said that there was only one possible exception to the circumstance under which adding a taggant might diminish the safety, and that was with regard to smokeless powder.

The Senator pointed out that back as early as 1973, the NRA pointed out that they were concerned about people who were muzzle loading antique guns and using smokeless powder to put them in a position to be able to use the guns. Probably we could have settled that matter then but it turned out that, whether the NRA was concerned about that or not--and I will not make a judgment about that--it ended up being the initial device used, the wedge used to block anything from happening.

It is my understanding from my discussions with the White House, with the Justice Department, my staff and others, that when I introduced the President's bill, when Senators Kohl and Specter and I introduced the President's bill containing this provision, that we did not intend--the White House did not intend, the Justice Department did not intend--to include within the definition of explosive, smokeless powder. The ATF indicates that they do not include that in their definition of explosives. And I would think that--I would like to ask the Senator whether this is not her understanding as well, that we would be willing to make it very clear in the record that our definition--your definition of explosives does not include smokeless powder.

Mrs. Feinstein: I would be prepared to do that, Senator. It is my understanding this affects gels, slurries, dynamite, emulsions and cast boosters, and black powder. But it does not include smokeless powder.

Mr. Biden: As further evidence that we are not just arriving at this as a means of a compromise, it was never our intention to include smokeless powder. I would read from, as further evidence of that although we did not make it absolutely clear, I would read page 2 of the amendment, subsection (e), the bottom, second-to-the-last-line of the page.

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 material for their intended lawful use, adversely affect the safety of the explosives, or have substantially adverse effects on the environment.

So we thought that we were dealing with this red herring by having the section requiring that the decision would have to be made that the tracer elements, the taggants, would not adversely affect the safety of the explosives.

Since OTA indicated that there was a possibility of that with regard to smokeless powder, we did not intend that to be covered. But I would suggest--I know my friend from California who is leading this effort has probably had some discussions already with the majority staff and others about this. I hope we can reach a resolution on it. And I sincerely hope, coming from a State where agriculture is our single largest industry in terms of dollars and effect on the economy, and where fertilizers are used a good deal--hope no one would be fearful of explaining to the agricultural community that they supported a study to determine this. I cannot imagine the farmers in my State, very conservative, hard-working folks, would be opposed to a study being conducted to determine whether or not ammonium nitrate could have an element added to it that would not in any way diminish its efficacy on the land but would diminish its efficacy as an explosive component.

I might point out--I might ask it, actually, in terms of a question. Is it the sponsor's intention that this merely be a study relative to means to render inert these components, precursors that can be used as bombs? And that if the study concludes that the only way it could be done would be to diminish the capacity of ammonium nitrate to do its job on the field, that we would not move forward? This is merely a study, is it not?

Mrs. Feinstein: The Senator from Delaware is 100 percent correct.

I might say, coming from a State that has a $18 billion agricultural industry, I called up to see if we have had any phone calls at all from Agriculture, Farm Bureau, anybody else. The answer is no.

I would hazard a guess, knowing the agricultural community of California, that they would not object to a study. So I think this is probably a very targeted lobbying drive at the present time.

Mr. Biden: Mr. President, I hope we follow the advice of the Senator. We know this is the right thing to do. We know this is the right thing to do.

We know it is, as a minimum, worthy of scientific study to determine whether this can be done with efficacy. And we also know--I do not fully understand, frankly--we also know there are certain interests that do not want that to happen. Because they are fearful--the only thing I can conclude, Senator, is they are fearful that the study will come forward and say, "Guess what? You can do this without in any way diminishing the effectiveness of fertilizers used for agriculture."

Because, obviously, if the study is going to come back and say you cannot do this without diminishing significantly the capacity of the fertilizer to function, that cannot worry them because if that is the case we are not going to do it. There is no way that would get done here.

So I always am confused by this response. I was confused in 1973 about why people responded the way they did. I hope we will not let interests that I do not fully understand sidetrack even a study. I might point out, by the way, with regard to taggants, originally the people who are now opposing the Senator's language and the President's language were opposed to even a study before. Now they are for a study. I hope we can just bypass--not have to go through another 10 years before we get to the point where they see their way clear, suggesting we can even look at a study.

Mrs. Feinstein: If the Senator will yield?

Mr. Biden: I will be happy to.

Mrs. Feinstein: I have here an amended amendment that may solve the problem. There are some technical amendments which I can read. But the one that deals right now with the situation that my colleague is referring to, smokeless or black powder would be as follows.

At the end of subsection (c)(1) insert the following: For purposes of this subsection, explosive material does not include smokeless or black powder manufactured for uses set forth in section 845(a)(4)(5) of this chapter.

Which is "Small Arms Ammunition and Components Thereof." That is the exception, just for small arms ammunition and components thereof.

Mr. Biden: I say to the Senator from California that is probably broader than we have to make it, but I would agree with her that that is worth doing to allay the concerns and fears of our friends who think somehow there is some nefarious objective here that is not obvious on its face.

The Senator from----

Mrs. Feinstein: If the Senator will yield? We believe it is already exempted. This is a restatement of that.

Mr. Biden: Again, I would have no objection. But I suggest the Senator withhold modifying that because the Senator from Utah was required--he has been on the floor the whole day. He said he had to leave for 15 minutes. And would I not take any action in his absence. So I suggest, and maybe the Senator's staff has already done this, make that language available to Senator Hatch's staff. Hopefully he can agree to that.

But I ask her to withhold modifying her amendment which would require unanimous consent until he returns to the floor and has had a chance to look at it.

Mr. President, while the Senator from California is doing that, I will repeat that in both instances, in the instance of requiring tracers and studying the capability of rendering products which do not have a destructive purpose but are able to be used for destructive purposes, to render them inert--that is incapable of being used for destructive purposes--that in both instances we are very concerned about safety. We do not want at any point here, in attempting to create, eliminate, diminish the possibility of one bad thing happening, to raise safety concerns. So for those explosives with potential--and I want to stress potential--safety concerns, the Secretary of Treasury can account for those concerns by establishing regulations. The point of this amendment is to improve the safety of Americans. But it will not be done by risking the safety of manufacturers or people who lawfully use explosives. This amendment accounts for those concerns and addresses the underlying concern with illicit use of explosives.

I stress again the action just suggested by the Senator from California is further evidence of the fact that we are in no way suggesting an amendment that would diminish the safety of anyone, the manufacturer or the person who lawfully uses those materials. I further note as it relates to precursor chemicals, we are not in any way suggesting that any change be made prior to a full-blown study. And the purpose of that study is to determine whether or not we can be assured that we can render these precursor chemicals inert, without affecting their ability to be used effectively as designed for the purpose for which they are manufactured in the first instance.

So I hope that when we get to this amendment that no one will be dissuaded from voting for it. And I say to representatives of the NRA who are listening that it is not our intention in any way to make anything unsafe for hunters, to in any way diminish or limit any right of any gun owner in America, to in any way put any gun owner in America in any jeopardy whatsoever. This is not a slippery slope. This is not the camel's nose under the tent. This is not all those other things that are always stated when in fact we do anything at all that impacts in any way upon firearms, ammunition, or explosive material.

There is no subagenda here. It is very simple. We want to track down the bad guys who use explosives the wrong way for criminal purposes, and we want to take that material that is sold over the counter for purposes totally unrelated to criminal activity or for explosive capability and determine whether or not, after scientists study the issue, we can safely render that explosive capability inert, render it incapable being used in an explosive compound, and in doing so in no way diminish the purpose, the efficacy of the material for which it was manufactured in the first place.

Mr. Kennedy: I urge the Senate to support the Feinstein amendment to require that explosives be manufactured with identifying chemical markers.

These markers, called taggants, are an essential tool for law enforcement officials in the difficult effort to apprehend terrorists who use bombs. The President has asked us to include this provision in the pending bill, and we should comply with his request.

Explosives are the weapon of choice for any criminal who wishes to kill and maim human beings indiscriminately. Nothing demonstrates this more starkly than the tragedy in Oklahoma City, in which 168 people were killed by a bomb in a parked truck outside the building. The perpetrators of this atrocious crime caused more death and destruction with an explosive device than they could ever have accomplished with even the most lethal firearm.

But Oklahoma City is just the tip of the iceberg. Because of their destructive capacity, explosive devices have been used repeatedly to perpetrate terrorist acts:

On February 26, 1993, Islamic extremists used a 1,200-pound bomb to devastate several levels of one of the World Trade Center Buildings in New York City. Six people were killed, and over a thousand were injured.

Explosives caused seven airline crashes between 1982 and 1989, including Pan Am flight 103, in which 270 people, many of them Americans, were killed over Lockerbie, Scotland. Seven Americans also died in a 1989 plane crash in Africa caused by an explosive device.

In 1993, bomb attacks occurred in every one of the 50 States, as well as in the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico. In Massachusetts, there were 16 illegal explosive incidents that year, and 11 of those bombs detonated before authorities could disable them. In the decade between 1984 and 1993, Massachusetts had a total of 141 bombings and 27 attempted bombings. Four people were killed, and 28 were injured during that period.

Nationwide, 632 people were killed by bombs between 1989 and 1991.

Of course, bombings are not always intended to result in largescale destruction. Explosives are sometimes employed in criminal attacks against specific individuals, as in the case of the assassination of Federal Judge Robert Vance several years ago. And since 1978, the so- called Unabomber has killed 3 and injured 23 people with deadly letter bombs delivered through the mail to his victims' homes and offices. In 1993 alone, the postal service detected 10 bombs in apparently unrelated incidents.

The perpetrators of these crimes often evade capture and conviction, in part because of the difficulty that law enforcement officials face in tracing the origin of explosive devices and components. As the Office of Technology Assessment has noted, "bombings are particularly difficult crimes for law enforcement agencies to handle as the bomber is not usually near the scene of the crime, the physical evidence is destroyed or damaged by the detonation, and the materials necessary to fabricate even a quite catastrophic bomb are easily obtainable."

But cutting-edge technology offers two ways to assist law enforcement in the difficult task of apprehending terrorists. First, there are means to detect explosives when they pass through airports and other secure areas. And second, explosives can be manufactured with chemical taggants that help investigators trace the source of the material after the explosion has occurred.

The pending bill advances the first of these two technologies by requiring that explosives be manufactured with detection agents that will trigger detection devices at security checkpoints. This requirement implements an international convention, and I commend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for including this provision in his substitute.

But the pending bill does not include the second of these two technologies, and the Feinstein amendment would include it. It would give the Secretary of the Treasury needed authority to require manufacturers of explosive materials to include taggants in their products. Experts within Federal law enforcement say that the technology is feasible and appropriate, and President Clinton has asked Congress to give the Treasury Department this enhanced authority.

The use of taggants has proved to be a highly effective law enforcement tool in Switzerland, where the government has already implemented the requirement we are now debating. Swiss law enforcement agencies credit taggants with helping them to identify the source of the explosive in 566 bombing incidents over a 10-year period. The Swiss were able to apprehend a greater number of bombing suspects over this period by taking advantage of this new technology.

This amendment provides law enforcement with a needed technique to trace the origin of bombs and arrest and convict the criminals who use them.

I commend the Senator from California for her amendment and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Levin: Mr. President, I support the Feinstein amendment to require the tagging of explosive materials to help law enforcement officials investigate and prevent terrorist bombings.

The Hatch substitute amendment contains a very narrow provision that would require the use of taggants in only one narrow category of explosive materials--plastic explosives. This is a mistake. I am convinced that we have the technology available today to introduce taggants in a wide range of explosive materials.

In fact, the Congressional Research Service has informed me that Switzerland had required the inclusion of taggants in explosive materials since at least 1980, when that country's regulation on explosives was enacted. That law provides, in relevant part:

[Each] explosive must contain a tagging substance that permits the reliable tracing of the origin [of the explosive] even after the explosion. The tagging substance requires the approval of the Central Office [of the Federal Prosecutor] which must consider changing circumstances.

The New York Times recently reported that a Minneapolis company is already in the business of manufacturing taggants, which it sells primarily to Switzerland. According to the New York Times, the Swiss police have used these taggants to trace explosives in more than 500 bombings and explosives seizure cases over the last 12 years.

Mr. President, the technology needed to introduce taggants into explosive materials is neither new nor experimental. We have had the technology available to us for more than 15 years. As long ago as 1980, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee considered a provision to require the use of taggants as part of the Omnibus Antiterrorism Act. Unfortunately, the provision was dropped in committee, by an 8 to 7 vote.

At that time, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Richard Davis testified that technology was already available or would soon be available to tag a wide range of explosive materials. Mr. Davis provided the following timetable: Black powder, October 1979; smokeless powder, July 1981; dynamites, water gels and slurries, June 1979; fuse and detonating cord, November 1979; detonators, June 1981, label method, October 1981 (double plug method).

In fact, the use of taggants during the testing and research period preceding action on the bill produced an arrest and conviction in Maryland. As Senators Javits and Percy explained in the committee report:

In a May 1979 bombing in Spring Point, Maryland in which one man was killed and another injured, investigators searched through the debris and found the explosive used contained taggants as part of a pilot program. The taggants led police to a West Virginia explosives retailer, where they developed a list of suspects. One of those suspects knew the victim, providing a direct link in the chain of evidence. In December 1979, a Baltimore jury convicted James McFillin as being guilty of manslaughter. It was the first time a court had admitted the taggants as evidence. So, there should be no question in anyone's mind that taggants work.

Mr. President, the opponents of this amendment claim that more study is needed before taggants can be used. That is a needless delay. Taggants have been tested in this country and--even in the limited test--led to an arrest and conviction. They have been required in Switzerland for more than 12 years, and have proved helpful in hundreds of bombing and explosives cases over that period.

Taggants are a proven technology which can significantly assist law enforcement officials in detecting and deterring terrorist acts. We should not repeat the mistake we made when we deferred action on this provision in 1980. We should act now, by adopting the Feinstein amendment.

Mr. Biden: I note that no one else is seeking recognition. The hour of 6 o'clock is approaching.

Parliamentary inquiry: Is there a time set for the first vote at this moment?

The Presiding Officer: Yes. By unanimous consent, the time has been set for 6 o'clock.

Mr. Biden: The first vote will be on what issue, Mr. President?

The Presiding Officer: The motion to table the amendment No. 1202.

Mr. Biden: Amendment 1202 is the taggant amendment of the Senator from California.

The Presiding Officer: The amendment of the Senator from California.

Mr. Biden: I thank the Chair.

Again, I sincerely hope we do not have to wait for another bombing, another horrendous loss of life, even another day before this body will act on an issue that we have debated and discussed since 1973, the first year that I came here. There is no hidden purpose in this amendment, none whatsoever.

For the life of me, I cannot understand how anyone would be against this amendment.

I yield the floor at this time.

Mrs. Feinstein: If I may, Mr. President, say to the Senator from Delaware, we are prepared to move a modification to the amendment. We require unanimous consent to be able to do so. I am hopeful that will be forthcoming.

Mr. Biden: Mr. President, the majority staff tells me that they are checking with Senator Hatch, who is just off the floor, occupied in another matter at the moment. Also, there is a need in order to get unanimous consent to amend the Senator's amendment. There are two other individuals I am told on the Republican side who are being asked to check off. If we are not able to get them prior to 6 o'clock, I will ask unanimous consent the vote be postponed for 5 minutes. I will not do that now. Hopefully we will find that out--to give us an opportunity to determine whether or not there will be agreement. I hope there will be no disagreement on the Senator's amendment because it makes crystal clear we are not intending to deal with small arms, we are not intending to deal with those folks who are the stated reason for concern on the part of those who are opposing this amendment.

Mrs. Feinstein: If I might include in the Record at this time perhaps, if the Senator will yield, the Federal Register, volume 60, No. 80, Department of the Treasury. This is a listing of those explosive materials that we are dealing with precisely. So that will be in the Record.

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

Mr. Biden: 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.

Amendment No. 1202, as modified

Mr. Hatch: Mr. President, it is my understanding, and I ask the Senator from California if she desires to modify her amendment.

Mrs. Feinstein: I do.

Mr. Hatch: I have no objection to modifying the amendment.

Mrs. Feinstein: May I proceed to do so?

Mr. Hatch: That would be fine.

Mrs. Feinstein: Is the Senator from Delaware present?

Mr. Biden: I have no objection.

The Presiding President: The Senator from California.

Mrs. Feinstein: Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.

The Presiding President: Is there objection to the modification to the amendment?

Without objection, the amendment is so modified.

The amendment (No. 1202), as modified, 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 and cost-effective 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 legisation.

(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 (1) which reads as follows:

(1) 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.".

(2) For purposes of this subsection, explosive material does not include smokeless or black powder manufactured for uses set forth in section 845(a)(4)(5) of this chapter."

(d) Section 844, of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after "(a) through (i)" the phrase "and (1).".

(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 6 months after submission of the study required by subsection (a), 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, adversely affect the 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.

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

The Presiding President: 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 (Mr. Inhofe): Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. Hatch: I ask unanimous consent that my motion to table the modified Feinstein amendment be vitiated.

The Presiding President: Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. Hatch: Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Feinstein amendment.

The Presiding President: Is there a sufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Vote on Amendment No. 1202, as modified

The Presiding President: The question occurs on agreeing to amendment 1202, as modified, offered by the Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein]. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Lott: I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth], the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], the Senator from Oregon, [Mr. Hatfield], the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Murkowski] are necessarily absent.

Mr. Ford: I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey], the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], and the Senator from Washington [Mr. Murray] are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New Jersey, [Mr. Bradley] and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] would each vote "aye."

The Presiding President: Are there any other Senators in the Chamber who desire to vote?

The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 0, as follows:

Roll No. 234 Leg.
YEAS--90
Abraham	Akaka	Ashcroft	Baucus	Bennett
Biden	Bingaman	Bond	Boxer	Breaux
Brown	Bryan	Bumpers	Burns	Byrd
Campbell	Chafee	Coats	Cochran	Cohen
Conrad	Coverdell	Craig	D'Amato	Daschle
DeWine	Dodd	Dole	Domenici	Dorgan
Exon	Feingold	Feinstein	Ford	Frist
Glenn	Gorton	Graham	Grams	Grassley
Gregg	Harkin	Hatch	Heflin	Helms
Hollings	Hutchison	Inhofe	Inouye	Johnston
Kassebaum	Kempthorne	Kennedy	Kerry	Kohl
Kyl	Lautenberg	Levin	Lieberman	Lott
Mack	McCain	McConnell	Mikulski	Moseley-Braun
Moynihan	Nickles	Nunn	Packwood	Pell
Pressler	Pryor	Reid	Robb	Rockefeller
Roth	Santorum	Sarbanes	Shelby	Simon
Simpson	Smith	Snowe	Specter	Stevens
Thomas	Thompson	Thurmond	Warner	Wellstone
Nays--0
NOT VOTING--10
Bradley	Faircloth	Gramm	Hatfield	Jeffords
Kerrey	Leahy	Lugar	Murkowski	Murray

So the amendment (No. 1202), as modified, was agreed to.

Mr. Biden: Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. Hatch: Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1207 Withdrawn

Mr. Brown: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

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

So the amendment (No. 1207) was withdrawn.

Mr. Hatch: Mr. President, I understand we can accept a few of the amendments. Senator Dole has informed Members that is the last vote of the day.

Mr. Biden: Mr. President, we are trying to clear additional amendments.

We are prepared to accept the Pressler amendment, renaming a Federal building in his State. We are seeing whether we can clear additional amendments.

While I have the floor, let me ask, the Senator from California, Senator Boxer, was prepared to go with her amendment tonight, but since that was the last vote, I would like to ask whether or not the chairman would object to her being the first amendment tomorrow?

Mr. Hatch: I have no objection to that. Why do we not schedule that right before the caucus meetings tomorrow?

Mrs. Boxer: Mr. President, that is perfect.

Mr. Biden: Mr. President, I would be prepared to move Senator Pressler's amendment regarding renaming the Federal building, if that is appropriate.

The Presiding President: There are two Pressler amendments.

Mr. Biden: Mr. President, I was referring to the Pressler amendment renaming a Federal building. It is amendment numbered 1204. However, I have just been informed by the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction that he would like an opportunity to look at that. Therefore, I withdraw my request to act on Pressler amendment numbered 1204.

What I am saying is we do not have an amendment to clear at the moment.

Mr. Hatch: Mr. President, I do not have any authority to set a vote on the Boxer amendment. I think we have to look at the amendment and go from there. Hopefully, that can be the first vote, if we can work it out.

The Presiding President: The Chair would observe that the pending amendment is No. 1206, offered by the Senator from Utah on behalf of Senator Specter.

Mr. Hatch: As I understand it, maybe we can accept that amendment if it is permissible on the part of the minority.

Mr. Biden: Mr. President, there are two committee members that have a hold on this amendment. I am not sure it will not be able to be accepted, but I cannot clear it at this moment.

Amendment No. 1204

Mr. Biden: Mr. President, the Senator who had objected to moving to consider Pressler amendment numbered 1204 has now withdrawn his objection.

We, on the Democratic side, are prepared to accept Pressler amendment numbered 1204.

The Presiding President: The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

The amendment (No. 1204) was agreed to.

Mr. Hatch: Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. Biden: Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

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

Mr. Hatch: Mr. President, I wonder if the distinguished Senator from Delaware is prepared to accept the Smith amendment, which appears to be a technical amendment.

Mr. Biden: Mr. President, at this moment, we are trying to clear the Smith amendment and several others. I am not in a position to clear any amendment at this moment. We are running that down right now.

If the Senator could withhold for a few minutes.

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

The Presiding President: The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. Dole: Mr. President, I ask that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. Dole: Mr. President, the managers have been accepting some of these amendments. I would like to get some idea of how many are left.

We started off this morning with 99, and I do not know whether we are down to 90, 85, 25, or 10. There will be a cloture vote. If we cannot get consent to vote tomorrow, it will be early on Wednesday morning.

One way or the other, we are going to dispose of this bill. If people are not willing to offer their amendments, we cannot work them out--it is only 6:30 and we thought we would be here late tonight. Obviously, no one wants to stay.

The President says he wants the bill passed. But this is all he says, "I want the bill passed." We need some action. Tomorrow we will have a full day. We are not going to dispose of the 99 amendments tomorrow or 85 or 75 amendments. We would be prepared to exchange lists. We have been able to eliminate many of ours. If the Democrats are willing to give what they have, we will know if we have a chance of completing this tomorrow. If not, I would like to move to the telecom