 |
 |
 |
 |
Mr. Smith: Mr. President, I rise to commend Senator Hatch and the other members of the conference committee for incorporating what originated in this Congress as my bill, S. 270, the Alien Terrorist Removal Act of 1995, into the conference report on S. 735, the Anti- Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
I also want to thank Senator Specter again for the opportunity to testify before his Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism last summer regarding my alien terrorist removal bill.
My bill--now the alien terrorist removal section of the conference report on S. 735--essentially embodies the Smith-Simpson amendment that the Senate passed unanimously as part of the crime bill in the last Congress. Unfortunately, certain House members of the conference committee on the 1994 crime bill insisted on the deletion of the Smith- Simpson amendment from that legislation.
After I introduced S. 270 early in the first session of this Congress, the Clinton administration proposed its own substantially identical version of my bill as part of its omnibus antiterrorism legislation. Then, in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, Senators Dole and Hatch introduced S. 735, which incorporated the substance of my bill, S. 270. S. 735, of course, passed the Senate by a vote of 91 to 8 last June.
Unfortunately, when S. 735 reached the House, the alien terrorist removal provisions of the Senate-passed bill were removed from the legislation. Commendably, however, Senator Hatch steadfastly insisted that the conference committee include an alien terrorist removal section in its conference report on S. 735. Fortunately for our Nation, Senator Hatch succeeded in that effort.
Let me summarize briefly for the benefit of my colleagues what the alien terrorist removal section of S. 735 is all about. The alien terrorist removal provisions of the bill would establish a new, special, judicial procedure under which classified information can be used to establish the deportability of alien terrorists.
The new procedures that are established under section 401 of S. 735 are carefully designed to safeguard vitally important national security interests, while at the same time according appropriate protection to the necessarily limited due process rights of aliens.
Under current law, Mr. President, classified information cannot be used to establish the deportability of terrorist aliens. Thus, when there is insufficient unclassified information available to establish the deportability of a terrorist alien, the Government faces two equally unacceptable choices.
First, the Justice Department could declassify enough of its evidence against the alien in question to establish his deportability. Sometimes, however, that simply cannot be done because the classified information in question is so sensitive that its disclosure would endanger the lives of human sources or compromise highly sensitive methods of intelligence gathering.
The Government's second, and equally untenable, choice would be simply to let the terrorist alien involved remain in the United States.
Sadly, Mr. President, what I have just described is not a hypothetical situation. It happens in real cases. That is why the Department of Justice, under both Republican and Democratic Presidents and Attorneys General, has been asking for the authority granted by my bill--now section 401 of S. 735--since 1988.
Utilizing the existing definitions of terrorism in the Immigration Act of 1990 and of classified information in the Classified Information Procedures Act, section 401 of S. 735 would establish a special alien terrorist removal court comprised of sitting U.S. district judges designated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. This new alien removal court is modeled on the special court that was created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Under section 401 of S. 735, the U.S. district judge sitting as the special court would personally review the classified information involved in camera and ex parte.
Where possible, without compromising the classified information involved, the alien in question would be provided with an unclassified summary of the classified information in order to assist him in preparing a defense.
Ultimately, the special court would determine whether, considering the record as a whole, the Justice Department has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the alien is a terrorist who should be removed from the United States.
Finally, Mr. President, any alien who is ordered removed under the provisions of section 401 of S. 735 would have the right to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Mr. President, the most serious national security threat that our Nation faces in the post-cold-war world is the scourge of international terrorism. That threat became reality in 1993 with the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York City. Tragically, with the Oklahoma City bombing 1 year ago this week, we learned the bitter lesson that we face the threat of terrorism from domestic extremists as well.
Now, this historic 104th Congress is responding, strongly and effectively, to address the twin terrorist threats that we face. I urge the prompt adoption of the conference report on S. 735 by the Senate and, once again, I commend the conferees for incorporating my alien terrorist removal bill into their landmark legislation.
Mr. Leahy: Mr. President, I am encouraged that the conference report includes important provisions that I proposed back in June 1995, when the Senate began consideration of antiterrorism legislation. These provisions were adopted by the Senate and then passed as part of the original S.735 and passed a second time last year by the Senate as part of H.R. 665, our version of the mandatory victim restitution legislation. They are now included as sections 231 and 232 of the conference report. It is astonishing that at the time I added these provisions to the bill there were no victims-related measures in any antiterrorism legislation.
When the bomb exploded outside the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City last year, my thoughts and prayers, and I suspect that those of all Americans, turned immediately to the victims of this horrendous act. It is my hope that through this legislation we will proceed to enact a series of improvements in our growing body of law recognizing the rights and needs of victims of crime. We can do more to see that victims of crime, including terrorism, are treated with dignity and assisted.
The conference report incorporates the provisions of the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, which will accomplish a number of worthwhile objectives. They include a proposal to increase the availability of assistance to victims of terrorism and mass violence here at home.
We, in this country, have been shielded from much of the terrorism perpetrated abroad. That sense of security has been shaken recently by the bombing in Oklahoma City, the destruction at the World Trade Center in New York, and assaults upon the White House. I, therefore, proposed that we allow additional flexibility in targeting resources to victims of terrorism and mass violence and the trauma and devastation that they cause.
The conference report includes these provisions to make funds available through supplemental grants to the States to assist and compensate our neighbors who are victims of terrorism and mass violence, which incidents might otherwise overwhelm the resources of a State's crime victims compensation program or its victims assistance services. I understand that assistance efforts to aid those who were the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing are now $1 million in debt. These provisions should help.
The substitute will also fill a gap in our law for residents of the United States who are victims of terrorism and mass violence that occur outside the borders of the United States. Those who are not in the military, civil service, or civilians in the service of the United States are not eligible for benefits in accordance with the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986. One of the continuing tragedies of the downing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, is that the United States Government had no authority to provide assistance or compensation to the victims of that heinous crime. Likewise, the U.S. victims of the Achille Lauro incident could not be given aid. This was wrong and should be remedied.
In its report to Congress in 1994, the Office for Victims of Crime at the U.S. Department of Justice identified the problem. Both the ABA and the State Department have commented on their concern and their desire that crime victims compensation benefits be provided to U.S. citizens victimized in other countries. This bill takes an important step in that direction. Certainly U.S. victims of terrorism overseas are deserving of our support and assistance.
In addition, I believe that we must allow a greater measure of flexibility to our State and local victims' assistance programs and some greater certainty so that they can know that our commitment to victims programming will not wax and wane with events. Accordingly, the conference report includes an important provision to increase the base amounts for States' victims assistance grants to $500,000 and allows victims assistance grants to be made for a 3-year cycle of programming, rather than the year of award plus one, which is the limit contained in current law. This programming change reflects the recommendation of the Office for Victims of Crime contained in its June 1994 report to Congress.
I am disappointed that some have objected to an important improvement that would have allowed all unspent grant funds to be returned to the crime victims fund from which they came and reallocated to crime victims assistance programs. I believe that we ought to treat the crime victims fund, the violent crime reduction trust fund, and Violence Against Women Act funds with respect and use them for the important purposes for which they were created.
The crime victims fund, we should remember, is not a matter of appropriation and is not funded through tax dollars. Rather, it is funded exclusively through the assessments against those convicted of Federal crimes. The crime victims fund is a mechanism to direct use of those funds to compensate and assist crime victims. That is the express purpose and justification for the assessments.
Accordingly, I believe it is appropriate for those funds to be used for crime victims and, when not expended for purposes of a crime victims program, they ought to be returned to the crime victims fund for reobligation. Instead, because of a technicality in the application of the Budget Act, the conference report includes a change from the language that I proposed and that was approved by the Judiciary Committee and previously by the Senate. My language would have returned all unspent crime victims grant funds to the crime victims fund. The conference report will require that some of the money that came from the crime victims fund go, instead, to the general Treasury if it remains unobligated more than 2 years after the year of grant award. I am pleased that we have been able to obtain some concession in this regard and note that the unobligated funds must exceed $500,000 in order to revert to the general Treasury.
Fortunately, the Office for Victims of Crime has improved its administration of crime victims funds and that of the States over the past 3 years to a great extent. While more than $1 million a year has in past years remained unobligated from grants made through the States across the country, in 1994 that number was reduced below $125,000. The Director of the Office for Victims of Crime, Aileen Adams, should be commended for this improvement. It is my hope that the administration of crime victims fund grants will continue to improve through the Department of Justice and the States and that the Department of Health and Human Services will, likewise, improve its oversight and grant administration and encourage the States to be more vigilant. If so, the change in the language of the bill from that previously adopted by the Senate and by the Judiciary Committee will not result in a significant diversion of crime victims fund money to other uses.
I also regret that the emergency reserve is not structured as I recommended. I would limit the reserve to the highest level of annual deposits placed in the fund in the past 5 fiscal years. This would allow the emergency reserve to fulfill its purpose as a rainy day fund and smooth the distribution of aberrational deposit pattern. Further, I hope that we will soon reconsider the 40-percent cap of Federal contributions to State victim compensation awards and other suggested improvements to the Victims of Crime Act.
Our State and local communities and community-based nonprofits cannot be kept on a string like a yo-yo if they are to plan and implement victims assistance and compensation programs. They need to be able to plan and have a sense of stability if these measures are to achieve their fullest potential.
I know, for instance, that in Vermont Lori Hayes at the Vermont Center for crime victims Services, Judy Rex at the Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Abuse, and many others provide tremendous service under difficult conditions. I was delighted to be able to arrange a meeting between them and the Attorney General of the United States when Attorney General Reno recently visited Vermont. They will be able to put increased annual assistance grants to good use. Such dedicated individuals and organizations will also be aided by increasing their programming cycle by even 1 year. Three years has been a standard that has worked well in other programming settings. Crime victims' programming deserves no less security.
In 1984, when we established the crime victims fund to provide Federal assistance to State and local victims' compensation and assistance efforts, we funded it with fines and penalties from those convicted of Federal crime. The level of required contribution was set low. Twelve years have passed and it is time to raise that level of assessment in order to fund the needs of crime victims. Accordingly, the conference report includes as section 210 a provision that I worked on with Senator McCain and that the Senate previously passed as an amendment to the antiterrorism bill last summer. It doubles the special assessments levied under the Victims of Crime Act against those convicted of Federal felonies in order to assist all victims of crime.
I do not think that $100 to assist crime victims is too much for those individuals convicted of a Federal felony to contribute to help crime victims. I do not think that $400 is too much to insist that corporations convicted of a Federal felony contribute. Accordingly, the conference report would raise these to be the minimum level of assessment against those convicted of crime.
While we have made progress over the last 15 years in recognizing crime victims' rights and providing much-needed assistance, we still have more to do. I am proud to have played a role in passage of the Victims and Witness Protection Act of 1982, the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990, and the victims provisions included in such measures as the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. I thank my colleagues for their acceptance of the provisions of the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.
I thank the outstanding crime victims advocates from Vermont for their help, advice, and support in connection with the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and the improvements it includes to the Victims of Crime Act. I also thank them for the work they are doing by developing and implementing programs for crime victims in Vermont.
In addition, I thank the National Organization for Victim Assistance, the National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards, and the National Victim Center for their assistance and support in the development of the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act. Without their help, we could not make the important progress that its provisions contain. I appreciate the cooperation of all those who have worked to incorporate these improvements to the Victims of Crime Act in this measure.
It is important to me that we do all we can to bring stability to the crime victims fund so that the State programs for compensating and assisting victims of crime can plan and provide services for victims that increase and expand across our States in the coming years. I hope that we can continue to cooperate and refine the Victims of Crime Act's provisions.
Mr. Feingold: Mr. President, it has been nearly 1 year since America was shocked and outraged by the bombing in Oklahoma City.
The anguish and the pain caused by this cowardly act left a marked impression on each of us which remains today.
That which had formerly been reserved for distant parts of the globe--acts of savage terrorism--was now being visited upon the citizens of this Nation.
There can be no debate that we must respond to these acts, as we must all acts of crime, with the singular and unyielding purpose of capturing, prosecuting and punishing the responsible individuals.
Unfortunately, in the 12 months that has passed since Oklahoma City, this legislation has been subject to many varied interests--interests placing certain proposals above the underlying goal of responding to terrorism in the measured and focused manner necessary to protect the citizens of this Nation.
Unfortunately, many of the proposals which have been offered throughout this debate to combat terrorism simply went too far and placed the civil liberties of all Americans in peril.
For this simple reason I opposed language included in the Senate bill which would have expanded the scope of wiretap authority and would have injected the military into areas of law enforcement which are better left to local officials.
I am concerned that these provisions move us toward unwarranted expansion of Federal power. Accordingly, I support the removal of these provisions from the final package.
However, just as some of those proposals overstepped the boundaries of civil liberties, the final conference report remains flawed.
Careful review of this legislation reveals that it contains very few substantive provisions which would have prevented or helped prevent the Oklahoma City tragedy.
As I said when the Senate considered this legislation last summer, it is essential that law enforcement be given the resources and support necessary to investigate and prosecute terrorists.
To truly protect citizens of this Nation, terrorists must be stopped before they strike--before they take innocent lives in some misguided effort to prove the validity of their agenda.
That is why I am so troubled when I hear the suggestion that the single most effective antiterrorism provision in this bill is the alleged reform of habeas corpus.
The link between habeas corpus and keeping the people of this Nation free from acts of terrorism is tenuous at best. The argument that these habeas provisions will prevent another Oklahoma City is one which is manufactured solely to justify inclusion of these unrelated provisions in a bill originally meant to address terrorism.
These so-called habeas reforms will do nothing to rid our communities of dangerous persons who may strike against innocent people.
The only time habeas corpus is even remotely related to terrorism is after the terrorist has committed an act of terrorism, has been apprehended, convicted and is sitting in a prison cell.
Once again political expediency has obscured sound policy making. In the words of the New York Times, "Members of Congress are exploiting public concerns about terrorism to threaten basic civil liberties."
Many of my colleagues want very sincerely to address what they perceive to be abuses in the use of habeas corpus. These efforts, however, should not be hidden behind the unsustainable claim that doing so in anyway makes the people of this Nation less likely to be attacked by terrorists.
Further, the provisions in the conference report go well beyond reform and eviscerate the constitutional underpinnings of habeas corpus. Just as many of the law enforcement provisions went too far, so too do the habeas provisions.
By setting unreasonable limitations and standards of review available on appeal of constitutional violations, this bill greatly enhances the potential that this Nation will execute an innocent person for a crime they did not commit.
I do not disagree with my colleagues who argue that justice must be served. The families of the victims and the American people deserve as much. However, the pursuit of justice does not require us, as these habeas provisions do, to depart from over 200 years of constitutional protections.
Justice is not served by the execution of an innocent human being. The families of the victims and the American public will find no comfort from such an occurrence.
Like so many facets of this bill, the habeas provisions of this bill lack any semblance of reasonable balance.
A recent March 20 editorial from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel entitled "A needless overreaction to terrorism" criticized these provisions and pointed out the fallacy of the alleged link between habeas reform and terrorism or that these provisions will have any deterrent effect.
In the words of the Journal;
It's difficult to see how limits on appeals by prison inmates would deter terrorism. Most such prisoners have been convicted of ordinary--not political--crimes. Besides, many terrorists are willing to undergo punishment, even death, for the causes they believe in.
The inclusion of habeas reform in this legislation has very little to do with terrorism and a great deal to do with advancing an agenda which has previously languished in the Congress.
Just as I opposed those law enforcement provisions which raised constitutional concerns, so too do I oppose these proposals.
We should be just as wary of proposals which forsake constitutional protection in the name of habeas reform as we are of those which do so in the name of expanding wiretap authority.
Mr. President, it is very likely that this conference report will become law. This is unfortunate. Not simply because bad provisions of this bill will become bad law, but because this bill represents an opportunity squandered.
This legislation started as an effort to address terrorism--to provide some protection for the citizens of this Nation against acts of terrorism. The American people deserve as much. Sadly Mr. President, for all the fanfare which will likely accompany this legislation, it fails to meet that laudable and important goal.
Mr. Heflin: Mr. President, I will support passage of the Terrorism Prevention Act Conference Report. Although the conference report is not as strong as the Senate-passed bill, nor is it as strong as I would like, it is much stronger than the House-passed bill and reflects a compromise between the two houses which is an essential element of our Nation's democratic process.
It is fitting that we enact this legislation around the anniversary of the tragic bombing which occurred in Oklahoma City and resulted in such a massive loss of life and injury to innocent people. We must enhance our Nation's efforts to combat domestic and international terrorism, and the conference report is a step in the right direction.
I am pleased that the conferees were able to restore many provisions which the House-passed bill deleted, such as allowing courts to expeditiously deport alien terrorists, allowing the President to designate foreign terrorist organizations so any assets they have in the United States can be more easily frozen by the Government, and making it a crime to donate or accept funds for foreign terrorist organizations. Further, the House-passed bill contained almost no funding for Federal law enforcement, and the conference report has a funding level of $1 billion for Federal and State law enforcement over a 4-year period.
The conference report contains a provision to require taggants be placed on plastic explosives, which are most commonly used by foreign terrorists, thereby making them more detectable, and it calls for a study on placing taggants on other types of explosives.
I would have preferred that the conference report contained the Senate-passed provisions allowing for multipoint wiretaps and other strong provisions, but this did not occur and motions to recommit the bill to conference with instructions to include those provisions have been unsuccessful. This is the democratic process, and I accept the will of the Senate.
That does not, however, leave this legislation a toothless tiger. It contains strong provisions to reform Federal habeas corpus laws-- something that is long overdue. Reform of the habeas corpus process will speed up the imposition of sentences of those criminal convicted of especially brutal crimes. Overall, the conference report is a step in the right direction, and I urge its passage so that it can be signed by the President and allow our Nation to enhance its efforts to combat both domestic and international terrorism.
Mr. Bradley: Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report to S. 735, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Almost 1 year ago today, the Oklahoma City bombing brought into sharp focus the reality and horror of domestic terrorism in America. The death toll of the bombing stands at 167, making it the deadliest mass murder in the history of the United States.
While several strong crime fighting provisions that I supported in the Senate version of the bill were deleted by the conference committee, this legislation contains tools that will enable the United States to respond to the international and domestic terrorist threats and prosecute these despicable criminal acts. On balance, Mr. President, this legislation will enhance the ability of law enforcement to combat both foreign and domestic terrorism.
Mr. President, the provisions in this bill are vitally important to our efforts to respond to international and domestic threats of terrorism. I, therefore, support this bill, and I am confident that because of our actions today, America will be more fortified against the evils of terrorism.
Mr. Chafee: Mr. President, for the last day and a half, the Senate has been debating the antiterrorism bill conference report. During debate, a number of motions to recommit the legislation to conference were offered.
I voted against all of them--even those with which I agree on the substance. In this situation sending the bill back to conference would not be simply a matter of adding back provisions that we in the Senate like. Sending the bill back to conference would reopen the legislation to countless changes that the House might, in turn, demand that the Senate accept.
Obviously this conference report is not perfect. No bill is. Frankly, there are some provisions I wish were still in there, and others I would gladly see dropped. For example, I would have liked to see in the final bill the Boxer amendment on the statute of limitations for firearms violations. But I recognize that the nature of a conference is compromise. And therefore the package before us is the only one on which we can act.
In conclusion, I might add, I do not believe that the door is finally shut on amendments such as the Boxer amendment. We can hopefully revisit that amendment on another bill.
Mr. Brown: Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference report on the Terrorism Prevention Act. This bill takes many important steps in the fight against terrorism. In particular, several key provisions will significantly strengthen U.S. efforts to combat international terrorism. In recent years, attacking terrorism has taken a back seat in U.S. foreign policy. Attacks have been waged against innocent people and allies across the world, and yet terrorists are invited to the White House where their violent rhetoric has been conveniently overlooked.
In January 1994, Gerry Adams, the leader of the Irish-national political organization Sinn Fein, was granted a visa on a Presidential foreign policy waiver to travel to the United States. In doing this, the National Security Council overruled a unanimous recommendation from the Department of State, the Department of Justice, and the intelligence community that the waiver should not be granted due to the fact that neither Adams nor the Irish Republican Army have really renounced violence in theory or in practice. This exception represents the current administration's ability to pay lipservice to stopping terrorism while failing to achieve substantive results.
In the past, Adams had been denied a visa eight times by previous administrations because of his affiliation with the terrorist organization. But since obtaining a visa in January 1994, Adams has received seven additional visas from the Clinton administration, was received by State Department officials, introduced to National Security Advisor Anthony Lake, raised money throughout the United States while touring in March 1995, and celebrated St. Patrick's Day in the White House. All of this transpired even though he has yet to renounce the use of violence to achieve political goals or denounce the plague of terrorist bombings in Great Britain.
We cannot continue to project such an inconsistent and unflattering testament of our commitment to fight terrorism. The legislation we now consider addresses many of the shortcomings in our ability to deal strongly and effectively with terrorism. The provisions in S. 735 will significantly strengthen our authority to combat international terrorism, and three sections in particular are worth noting.
Section 221 of this bill amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to permit jurisdiction of U.S. courts for lawsuits against terrorist states, as designated by the Secretary of State. Under current law, U.S. citizens are barred from suing foreign governments or state-owned foreign enterprises unless the alleged injury is directly related to the commercial activity of the foreign government. In other words, American citizens can be tortured or murdered in a foreign state by agents of that state, and if that state provides no effective legal remedy, the American victims and their families have no enforceable legal remedy either in the United States or anywhere else in the world. The provision in section 221 will now allow victims of terrorism, hostage taking or torture abroad, or their survivors, to seek restitution against a state sponsor of terrorism when they are unable to gain relief in the courts of the country involved.
This provision provides vital remedies for victims. Just last summer a United States district court barred survivors of Pan Am 103 victims from suing Libya even though the United States Government had found Libya to be directly responsible and two Libyans had been indicted in United States court for the crime.
It is important to note that section 221 provides a responsible avenue for victims to seek just compensation. This is a powerful and significant tool that should be used cautiously. Thus the legislation limits the scope of jurisdiction to only those countries who have been identified as state sponsors of terrorism. Sovereign immunity is designed to protect nations from being dragged into another nation's courts for legitimate sovereign acts. The international community, however, does not recognize the right of any state to commit acts of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, or hostage taking. Sovereign immunity is an act of trust among nations of good faith. When a terrorist state harbors or supports known terrorists, or injures or kills American citizens, it destroys that trust and should not be allowed to avoid the accusations of those it harms.
Beyond ensuring that American citizens have recourse after brutal terrorist acts, this section represents a vital counterterrorism measure. I am confident that the threat of enforceable judgments and levies against assets from U.S. courts will be a significant inducement for countries to get themselves off of the State Department's terrorist list.
Section 323 also provides an important tool in combating international terrorism. As a result of international pressures against states which provide support to international terrorists, some terrorist groups are seeking other means of financing and support, such as raising funds from sympathizers or establishing front companies. During its investigation of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International [BCCI], the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unearthed a significant trail of funding through BCCI that demonstrated the importance of international financial networks in the support of illegal and terrorist activity abroad. The bank hosted many illegal, unsafe, and unsound banking practices, as well as acting as a front for worldwide arms deals, drug deals, and assistance to various groups linked directly or indirectly to terrorist activity. Section 323 will enable U.S. prosecutors to begin to crack down on the use by terrorist groups of international financial institutions and front companies for their material support.
This provision would create a new offense of providing material support or resources, or concealing the nature, location, source, or ownership of material support or resources, for various terrorist- related offenses. Currently, an individual responsible for building a bomb or taking someone hostage can be prosecuted for their activities, but those providing financial or technical support, or harboring terrorists after the crime, can escape punishment of any kind. Section 323 criminalizes a series of offenses by recognizing all forms of meaningful assistance and material support to terrorists.
It amends current law which was originally offered with the same intent as section 323, but was severely weakened in conference, rendering it virtually ineffective. This language strengthens current law by restoring the original intent of punishing all persons involved, to whatever degree, in terrorist activities.
Finally, section 411 which allows the exclusion of alien terrorists from the United States is an extremely important tool in combating international terrorism. Currently we have a loophole in our immigration law that permits the United States to issue visas to know members of terrorist organizations. How can America expect to condemn other nations who support terrorists without first taking action to limit the organizational efforts of known terrorists in the United States? We must slam the door on foreign members of such terrorist organizations who now freely travel to our country.
The case of Sheikh Rashid Ghanoushi's application for a visa to the United States highlights the far-reaching consequences of our limited exclusionary authority. Ghanoushi is an Islamic extremist whose terrorist organization was responsible for the deaths of many innocent tourists in Tunisia. He was convicted in absentia.
Nonetheless, in 1993, he applied for a visa to travel to the United States to speak to religious and academic audiences. In June 1994, the Government of Tunisia indicated that it would regard a United States decision to admit Ghanoushi as a hostile act. Furthermore, in the past Ghanoushi has urged violence against United States interests and continues to demand Israel's destruction. Yet the United States has still not issued a final decision about whether to grant a visa to him, claiming lack of authority to deny him entry. At present, Ghanoushi's case is under active review by the State Department.
It is well known that many foreign terrorist groups depend on money raised in the United States to fund their activities abroad. Terrorist activity should not be defined by the area in which a bomb explodes.
Our Nation, with its many democratic freedoms, represents fertile ground for terrorist organizations for fundraising, organizational support, and international recognition. Many of these terrorists organizations have already developed networks of support in our country.
The existing loophole in the Immigration Act of 1990 permitting members of terrorist organizations to come to the United States fostered an atmosphere of indecisiveness. It sends the wrong signal to the international community. The provisions in section 411 correct this inconsistency and effectively strengthen our authority to combat terrorism and keep those people who are members of terrorist organizations off of U.S. soil.
In the past decade, Americans have suffered numerous terrorists attacks. Without the authority and support created by S. 735, particularly the three sections I highlighted, we will continue to needlessly hamstring our ability to protect American citizens. Enough is enough. It is time to take bold steps to protect American citizens from the threat posed by terrorism. We know the obstacles currently facing us in the fight against international terrorism. S. 735 provides the tools and the authority necessary to wage an effective defense.
Mr. Dodd: Mr. President, this Friday will be the first anniversary of the brutal and cowardly bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. One hundred and sixty-nine Americans, including 19 children tragically lost their lives in this terrible act of domestic terrorism.
A year later, that terrorist bombing continues to tear at the Nation's soul. As we continue to mourn the loss of so many innocent lives, our hearts go out to the survivors, the families of the victims and the courageous residents of Oklahoma City who have already begun the difficult healing process.
However, part of the process of healing begins with the pursuit of justice. And for the past year, law enforcement officials have tirelessly labored to see that the full force of the law is brought to bear on the guilty parties. And soon, the trial against the alleged bombers will begin.
But, as we continue the process of providing answers to this terrible tragedy--the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil--we must find new and innovative ways to prevent such acts in the future. That's what this bill is all about.
While no one will argue that this legislation, or for that matter any legislation, will finally and completely end terrorism, we must take the necessary steps to deter terrorists from their deadly actions. We must make it more difficult for them to kill and injure. And we must ensure that they are swiftly brought to justice.
President Clinton deserves praise for moving forcefully in that direction by submitting a comprehensive counter-terrorism proposal to Congress, after the Oklahoma bombing.
Unfortunately, in the year since the President introduced that proposal, Congress has dragged it's feet on this legislation. What's worse, I believe, many of the strongest elements of this bill have been watered down or eliminated by the House of Representatives.
Several provisions that would make it easier for law enforcement agencies to utilize multipoint and emergency wiretaps against suspected terrorists were removed.
The failure to include these wiretap provisions in the final conference report create a situation where it is easier for the FBI to tap the phone of someone they suspect of bribing a bank officer than someone who may be prepared to engage in a terrorist act.
What's more, this conference report prevents the Attorney General from requesting technical and logistical support from the military if our Nation faced an emergency involving biological and chemical weapons.
This provision was deleted even though I think everyone in this body would agree that the military has far more expertise in matters of chemical and biological weapons than our law enforcement agencies.
It's particularly disheartening that while these provisions were overwhelmingly agreed to by the Senate, they were removed from the final conference report because of the intransigence of the other body.
Similarly, while we need to find ways to prevent prisoners from abusing the legal process, by filing meritless appeals, we must ensure that those people who have been unfairly convicted have some legal recourse.
Unfortunately, I believe that the habeus corpus reform measures in this bill are ill-advised. They limit the ability of inmates to raise claims of innocence based on newly discovered evidence and also require Federal courts to defer to State courts on issues of Federal constitutional law raised by these claims.
However, while I feel this legislation could be further strengthened if it were recommitted to the conference, there are enough positive elements in the bill that allow me to vote for it.
This counter-terrorism legislation provides Federal law enforcement officials with the proper means to investigate and prevent terrorism. It establishes new Federal offenses to ensure that terrorists do not elude justice through gaps in the current law.
Similarly, it increases penalties for terrorist actions. And it gives new assistance to victims of terrorist attacks, including provisions that will make it easier to bring lawsuits against States that sponsor terrorism. Combined, these steps will give law enforcement important new tools to use in the fight against terrorism.
Although it is not perfect, this bill will not only help the Nation prevent terrorist acts but it will also help hold terrorists accountable for their actions.
The bombing in Oklahoma made clear just how vulnerable we all are to these terrible acts of violence. And ultimately, I believe this legislation will make Americans safer from the scourge of international and domestic terrorism.
Mr. Warner: Mr. President, I rise in support of this conference report which embodies compromise antiterrorism and anticrime legislation. I recognize that many Members would like to see additional provisions added. We have waited too long, however, to allow this opportunity to pass without enacting legislation which will help us avoid additional disasters such as Oklahoma City and the World Trade Center bombings. I thus support this conference report as it stands and will continue to work to pass additional measures which will combat terrorism, whether sponsored by foreign entities or by domestic extremists.
This bill provides $1 billion for enhanced law enforcement efforts, both at the Federal and State levels, to combat terrorism. Plastic explosives will be required to be tagged with materials which can be tracked back to the source in the event of a bombing. Foreign terrorists will be denied the opportunity to raise money inside the United States, and if found here, will be subject to special, but constitutional, deportation proceedings. The bill also includes numerous important and noncontroversial provisions which will remove legal impediments to combat terrorism.
This bill also contains one of the most important anticrime and judicial reform measures passed in years. Finally, the charade of habeas corpus appeals will be reformed: death row inmates will no longer be allowed to drag out their appeals for several decades. I have faith that our State courts respect our constitutional rights, and in the exceptional case where Federal rights have been violated, defendants retain very reasonable access to Federal courts to prove their innocence.
We have come to a crossroads in this debate almost 1 year after the tragedy in Oklahoma. Either we pass this bill and begin reaping the protections it will provide us in the fight against terrorists, or we throw up our hands and give up. I believe we need this bill now and I commend the efforts of Senator Hatch and others to reach a reasonable consensus which can pass both houses and be signed into law by President Clinton.
Mr.Pell: Mr. President, today, as the Senate considers the conference report to S. 735, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, I regret that as I did when this bill was presented for passage in the Senate, I again must oppose the final version of the bill. I do so for two basic reasons.
First, the conference did nothing to change those provisions of the bill which drastically curtail the Federal judicial protections afforded those given the death penalty in State courts. This is a departure from a longstanding tradition in English and American jurisprudence and, as an opponent of the death penalty, I feel I cannot in good conscience support it.
Second, the conference removed several of the most effective antiterrorism measures that were included in the Senate version of the bill. These include giving the FBI the ability to employ court-approved multipoint wiretaps, adding terrorism crimes to the list of those for which wiretaps can be approved, including terrorism crimes under RICO statutes, and permitting the use of military expertise to cope with either chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction. Without these provisions, I believe that the bill has been severely compromised and, in the process, the chance to do something truly meaningful about domestic and international terrorism in this bill has been lost.
Accordingly, I believe that the conference report fails to correct the deficiencies of the legislation that left the Senate last summer and furthermore, has eliminated many of its most effective counterterrorism provisions. Thus, I continue to oppose passage of this legislation.
Mr.Levin: Mr. President, I will vote for S. 735, I am distressed that a number of the strongest antiterrorism provisions of the Senate bill were dropped in conference with the House. For example, I am disappointed that the conference report would not--Provide the Attorney General the enhanced tools for fighting domestic and international terrorism that were requested by the administration and included in the Senate bill; permit the Attorney General to utilize the expertise of the military in investigations of crimes involving the use of chemical and biological weapons; or prohibit the dissemination of information on making explosive materials with the knowledge that the information will be used for criminal activities.
On balance, however, I conclude that the antiterrorism provisions in the bill, viewed as a whole, are still worth enacting.
The habeas corpus provisions of the bill are also problematical. Under the conference report, an application for a writ of habeas corpus may be granted if the underlying State court decision was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States."
I interpret the new standard to give the Federal courts the final say as to what the U.S. Constitution says. I reach this conclusion for two reasons.
First, several Members have raised the concern that the reference in the bill to an unreasonable application of Federal law could create two different classes of constitutional violations--reasonable and unreasonable. I vote for the bill because I have confidence that the Federal courts will not do this. I believe the courts will conclude, as they should, that a constitutional error cannot be reasonable and that if a State court decision is wrong, it must necessarily be unreasonable.
Second, I note that this provision permits a Federal court to grant a petition for habeas corpus if the State court decision was contrary to Federal law. I interpret this language to mean that a Federal court may grant habeas corpus--on a first petition--any time that a State court incorrectly interprets Federal law and that error is material to the case. In other words, if the State court's interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is wrong, this standard authorizes the Federal courts to overturn that interpretation.
The provision in the bill refers to "clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States." I understand this provision to refer to the whole body of Supreme Court jurisprudence on substantive and procedural rights. If the Supreme Court has adopted a clear rule of law and that rule has been consistently interpreted and applied by the courts of appeals, that rule--and its consistent interpretation and application--would prevail in habeas corpus proceedings.
In sum, Mr. President, I believe that this standard can be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the fundamental duty of the Federal courts to act as the final interpreters of the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, and to protect the constitutional rights of Americans.
Mr. Hatch: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the only remaining motions to recommit in order to the pending conference report be the following: Two additional Biden motions; further, that the motions be limited to the restrictions previously agreed to, and that following the debate on all motions and the conference report, the Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to the pending motions, to be followed by a vote on the adoption of the conference report, all without any intervening action or debate, with the exception of using 6 minutes, equally divided, for debate prior to the final passage vote.
The Presiding Officer: Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Biden: Mr. President, I am offering a motion to recommit the conference report with instructions to add provisions relating to a third type of wiretap that was deleted, referred to as an emergency wiretap.
I send the motion to recommit the conference report to the desk.
The Presiding Officer: The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] moves to recommit the conference report on the bill S. 735 to the committee of conference with instructions to the managers on the part of the Senate to disagree to the conference substitute recommended by the committee of conference and insist on inserting the following:
SEC. . REVISION TO EXISTING AUTHORITY FOR EMERGENCY WIRETAPS.
(a) Section 2518(7)(a)(iii) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting "or domestic terrorism or international terrorism (as those terms are defined in 18 U.S.C. 2331)" after "organized crime".
(b) Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code is amended by inserting the following words after subsection (4):
(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means any activities that involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and which appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.
(c) This section shall be effective one day after enactment of this Act.
Mr. Biden: Mr. President, I do not plan on taking the entire allotted time on this side with this motion.
Let me be real clear about this. This provision was not in the Senate bill. It was offered by Senator Lieberman, and it was strongly supported by many in this body. But it was not in the original Senate bill.
This provision incorporates the President's proposal to expand emergency wiretap authority. Today, emergency wiretap authority is available for organized crime cases. This proposal simply makes it available for terrorism cases. This proposal says that what is fair for the mob is fair for Hamas. What is good for John Gotti is good for any terrorist from abroad. What is good for those involved in organized crime is good for terrorists. If the justification exists for organized crime in and the mob, why does it not exist for crimes of terrorism?
Let me first explain what an emergency wiretap is, because understandably a lot of people--I know many, like the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, and the Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy, all former prosecutors understand these wiretap requirements, but many do not.
An emergency wiretap--I will explain more precisely not only what it is but how it is limited. First of all, in all cases--or in most cases--the Government must go to a judge to get a court order before it can initiate a wiretap. But at the same time, Congress recognized there are emergency situations where time is of the essence and that completing the necessary paperwork and getting the judge's order will simply take longer than the situation allows.
I have gone through today probably a half hour's worth laying out precisely the safeguards built into getting a wiretap for a crime that is listed in the Criminal Code as being able to get a wiretap for, and how long and difficult the process is and should be. But the Congress in the past has recognized that there are situations under current law which allow the Government to initiate a wiretap without a court order. Here are the circumstances: where immediate danger, death, or serious physical injury exists; where conspiratorial activities threaten the national security, or a conspiratorial activity characteristic of organized crime activities exist.
Only the top three Justice Department officials--the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, and the Associate Attorney General--have the authority under the present law to issue or to authorize any emergency wiretap.
If the law stopped there, I would agree with those who object to this amendment. I would agree that it does not go far enough to protect our civil liberties if all it said was one of the three top the Justice Department officials can initiate a wiretap. But the law does not stop there now. It does not allow Federal officials to operate on their own for long. Indeed, it requires that if the Attorney General authorizes an emergency wiretap for any one of those three circumstances I mentioned, they must nonetheless go before a Federal judge within 48 hours and make a case that probable cause exists for this wiretap prior to the authorization of the wiretap, prior to the time the tap started. Prior to that time, they have to prove there is probable cause that the subject was committing a specific crime. The officials also must convince the judge that they could not have completed the necessary application prior to beginning the wiretap.
And, of course, if the judge concludes that either they could have completed the application in the necessary time or that there was no probable cause at the outset, then none of the evidence, no matter how incriminating, that is acquired as a consequence of the emergency tap can be used in court against the target. If the judge does not buy it, enforcement will have blown their case. Not only must the wiretap stop, but none of the evidence obtained by the tap can be used against the target.
This is a powerful check on the Government's power. You can bet that they are not just going to go around willy-nilly exercising--the top three officials of the Justice Department--emergency authority because, if they do, they will lose their evidence if they turn out to be wrong, which means they will lose their case, which means the bad guys go free and all the time investigating up to that point will have been wasted and blown. That is not what law enforcement wants.
I want to repeat. Why, if we give this authority, this very limited and proscribed emergency authority to the Government, to the prosecutors, to the Attorney General of the United States, to deal with organized crime, why does it not make sense to allow them to deal with Hamas or deal with a terrorist organization?
The last time I looked, the Mafia had not blown up a Federal building. The last time I looked, the Mafia had not blown up the World Trade tower. They are real bad guys, and I have spent the bulk of my career as a U.S. Senator on both the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee passing laws and working to nail the Mafia. But if an emergency wiretap is good enough for John Gotti, why is it not good enough for the Unabomber? If the emergency wiretap is good enough for John Gotti, why is it not good enough for some wacko who blows up or is about to blow up a Federal building in Wilmington, DE, or Washington, DC?
I want to repeat. To give this authority to the Government when it comes to organized crime, why not for terrorists?
Of course, wiretapping is a powerful and intrusive tool. That is why the current wiretap statute contains a number of restrictions to prevent the abuse of emergency wiretaps, none of which would be changed by this amendment.
Let me repeat. Only the top officials at Justice--the top three, those who have the most at stake in an investigation being blown by bad evidence--can authorize such a tap. Even then, they have to go to the court within 48 hours and must adhere to all the strict guidelines for getting a court order in the first instance. If they do not get the court order, none of the evidence is able to be used.
Let me emphasize. This amendment does not in any way weaken what the Government must show to get a wiretap order. Law enforcement still must show that some particular person has or is about to commit some particular crime. And this provision only applies to cases of international domestic terrorism, which is further defined as--let me define what this would apply to and only what it would apply to: activities that involve violent acts, or acts dangerous to human life, and which appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce the civilian population, or to influence the policy of the Government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a Government by assassination or kidnapping.
Why, if in fact they believe that any one of those circumstances exist, should they not, with all the safeguards built in, be able to get an emergency wiretap?
Let me say, although I have no illusions that this will pass, that I hope we will continue to demonstrate by the votes we have heretofore-- over 45 and as many as 48 of our 100 colleagues felt strongly about these issues. These are not frivolous undertakings. These are not frivolous motions. All but one of the amendments I have offered, I believe, has gotten over 40 votes. I think they have all gotten over 45 votes, so we are pretty evenly divided on this. I just want to make sure that before final vote on this conference report, that I do everything in my power to make this a much more useful tool in fighting terrorism.
Again, I know my colleague--and I respect him--is going to say if this passes it will kill the bill. I cannot believe that this will kill the bill. If we cannot put 35, or whatever number that is the number quoted by the House, Members of the House in the position where they have to yield on what would be an incredibly strong bill only because they are worried that we now allow terrorists to be treated the same way as John Gotti and the mob, then I think--I doubt whether they will vote that way because I doubt whether many of their constituents will keep them around if they vote that way. And quite frankly, if they vote that way, it is best for all to see. If they vote that way and defeat the conference report, we could come back with an amended report and pass what we have. So this will not kill the bill, but I am sure that is going to be stated.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. Hatch addressed the Chair.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from Utah.
Mr. Hatch: Mr. President, again, in the real world, in the case of the Unabomber or a terrorist where there is a real threat or an immediate concern, you do not need this provision to get an emergency wiretap. All the Senator's motion does is expand the number of crimes that would trigger the wiretap statute. This amendment was offered during the Senate debate. It was defeated. It was not a part of the Senate bill. It was not a part of the House bill. It is not a part of our conference report, and rightly so. I oppose this provision that could expand emergency wiretap authority to permit the Government to begin a wiretap prior to obtaining court approval in a greater range of cases than the law presently allows. I personally find this proposal troubling. I am concerned that this provision, if enacted, would unnecessarily broaden emergency wiretap authority. Under current law, such authority exists when life is in danger, when the national security is threatened, or when an organized crime conspiracy is involved. In the real world, we do not need this amendment to get emergency wiretap authority, and that is a fact.
Let me also say that this authority is constrained by a requirement that surveillance be approved by the Court within 48 hours, but that authority already exists in those areas I have addressed.
Now, this proposal of the distinguished Senator from Delaware would expand those powers to any conspiratorial activity characteristic of domestic or international terrorism. I do not think that expansion is necessary to effectively battle the threat of terrorism. You can get that emergency authority now. In the Unabomber case, no question; when terrorist acts are threatened, no question. I think that the opinion of many, many experts would agree with this analysis.
Now, it is also very important to note that it is not 35 conservatives over in the House that are against this. The vast majority of people against this amendment happen to be liberals who are very concerned with an unwarranted expansion of wiretap authority and surveillance authority. I have to say now there is an increasing number of libertarian conservatives who are becoming more concerned over law enforcement and some of the approaches that have been taken. I personally believe that those concerns are not justified.
On the other hand, they are legitimate concerns, and they arise primarily out of the Waco and Ruby Ridge and Good Ol' Boys Roundup, and other types of law enforcement mistakes that really were made. I have called them mistakes. Some people have felt that they should be characterized a little stronger than that.
Frankly, I am proud of the law enforcement agencies of this country. I know these people. I know what wonderful people they are. I know how much they risk their lives for you and me. But we do not need this authority in order to do emergency wiretaps in these particular areas.
At this point, I should like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from California, who has asked me for some time.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from California.
Mrs. Feinstein: Mr. President, I very much thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for this opportunity. I did have an opportunity to speak yesterday, but there is something I omitted to say that I very much felt was part of this discussion.
What happened in Oklahoma City was brought home to us in California last Friday. Early that morning, about 9 o'clock, there was a phone call that came into the Vacaville headquarters of the Labor Department's Mine Safety Administration, and the caller said, using some expletives, "You guys are all dead. Timothy McVeigh lives on."
Later that afternoon, a mine safety inspector by the name of Gene Ainslie, who worked with the Department of Labor, was returning from inspecting a mine in Sierra County and he dropped off his official car. He got into his pickup truck, met his wife, started out on Interstate 80 to return to Sacramento, and the pickup truck exploded. A bomb had been placed on that truck.
Gene and Rita Ainslie are hospitalized today in serious condition-- actually, today is their 32d wedding anniversary--Gene, with shrapnel in his legs and severe burns, and his wife with a broken ankle and a dislocated hip, but they survived. I and every Member of this body send them our fondest greetings and let them know that our hearts and thoughts are with them both.
This was not a random act of violence. It was not a deranged individual on a shooting spree. It was a deliberate and, once again, targeted attack on a representative of the U.S. Government, an attack that was aimed at murdering a Federal employee. This is not an isolated incident, and we have all seen them happening. There will be a study that will released very shortly, an annual study of terrorism. And what it will show is that, for the first time, the United States of America is listed among the top 20 nations experiencing the highest level of terrorism and political violence in the world.
I was shocked when I heard this. According to the study, there were 44 incidents reported to the authorities in the United States, an increase of 200 percent since 1988. With this number of incidents, according to this study, we ranked ahead of Lebanon.
I only say this because of the particular pertinence of the legislation before us today. We relate the legislation to the Oklahoma City bombing a year ago, but in fact even last Friday an incident took place in the State of California.
I think we also need to look at what is happening in our society that is fostering so much hatred and disregard for human life, and what can be done to restore the values of justice and respect for the rule of law that really made this the greatest democracy on Earth.
I do not believe this is about restoring faith in our Government. I do not believe right thinking people resort to this kind of violence because they think they pay too much in taxes or because they are angry at Government red tape. I think there really is no justification and no rationale for this kind of behavior.
But what does concern me is that the report I get from California is that there are very disspirited Federal employees, that morale is low, and that some, for example those affected by the bomb last Friday, really do not know that anybody cares about them. And what I want them to know, and I know I am joined by every Member of this Senate, is that, in fact, we do care about them. We do know that Federal employees--every member of the Army and the Navy who went to the Gulf war was a Federal employee, every park official is a Federal employee-- these people take the job not for the money, certainly, but because this is the way they want to serve their Nation.
They are entitled to respect, and it is our job to see that they have that respect. So, as we pass this bill, which I hope we will do shortly, as a kind of living memorial to what happened in Oklahoma City, I think we have to do it with a view that these events are taking place in this Nation daily, just as it happened last Friday near Sacramento and Vacaville in the State of California.
I say to Gene Ainslie, 56 years old, celebrating his 32d anniversary today with his wife Rita, and all those who labor as part of the Federal Government, that we Americans do respect them, that we do honor them, and we will do everything in our power to see that this kind of behavior is not inflamed, but rather it is put to an end.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Utah has 5 minutes and 13 seconds.
Mr. Hatch: Is there any other time remaining?
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Delaware has 4 minutes and 9 seconds.
Mr. Hatch: I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. Biden: I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. Hatch: Then we will both yield the remainder of our time.
Can we proceed to the next amendment?
