 |
 |
 |
 |
Mr. Biden: Mr. President, my colleagues will know this is the last motion I have.
I offer a motion to recommit the conference report with instructions to delete the section relating to the study of Federal law enforcement. Senator Kohl of Wisconsin wishes to be added as a cosponsor as does, I believe, although I am not certain, Senator Nunn. I will check that. But Senator Kohl for certain.
I send a motion to recommit the conference report to the desk.
The Presiding Officer: The clerk will report.
The bill 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.
Mr. Biden: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the motion be dispensed with.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered. The motion is as follows:
Motion 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 deleting the text of section 806 of the conference report.
Mr. Biden: Mr. President, just for the sake of discussion, if there were 10 very important provisions in this bill when we passed it out of the Senate, it has come back to us with 4--I am not being literal--with fewer than we sent over. Fewer than 50 percent of the provisions that I think are important in this bill remain in the bill.
In truth, when the Senator and I got to conference, there were probably only 10 percent of the provisions we thought important in the bill. To the credit of the Senator from Utah, he was able to get back additional provisions in the bill. For that I compliment him.
What I have been fighting about all afternoon here is trying to add back provisions that I think were mindlessly removed and removed tools that we could make available to law enforcement to protect my children and me and all of us in this Chamber and around this country.
This is the one portion of the conference report that I am seeking to delete that has made the bill worse than when it went out of here. Up to now I have been arguing that we sent a bill out of here with a lot of good things that the House stripped out and I wanted to put them back in. Not only did the House take out the bulk of the really good things that were invaluable to fight terrorism, but it added some things which I think are counterproductive. One of them is pandering to this concern of some Americans that the bad guys are the cops, the bad guys are the Government, the bad guys are the FBI or the ATF or the Justice Department.
I do not believe we should go forward with an antiterrorism bill that has a study in it only of police and not terrorists. For that reason, I propose to delete the study of the police in this bill. I think it is more of an affront than it is a substantive problem. If we do not delete this, we will be faced with a conference report that studies cops but not terrorists.
Let us remember who has literally laid down their lives in the defense of our Nation and our way of life. It is the Federal law enforcement officers, not the terrorists. This study will provide nothing but a forum for those who believe the Federal law enforcement is the enemy of the American people and not the protectors. We are unwittingly aiding and abetting that notion by deciding that, in a terrorism bill, we are going to study the cops.
The study says, section 806, Commission on the Advancement of Federal Law Enforcement.
(a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be known as the "Commission on the Advancement of Federal Law Enforcement" (hereinafter in this section referred to as the "Commission").
(b) Duties.--The Commission shall review, ascertain, evaluate, report, and recommend action to the Congress on the following matters:
(1) The Federal law enforcement priorities for the 21st century, including Federal law enforcement capability to investigate and deter adequately the threat of terrorism facing the United States.
(2) In general, the manner in which significant Federal criminal law enforcement operations are conceived, planned, coordinated, and executed.
(3) The standards and procedures used by Federal law enforcement to carry out significant Federal criminal law enforcement . . .
(4) The investigation and handling of specific law enforcement cases . . .
(5) The necessity for the present number of Federal law enforcement agencies and units.
Get that? We are going to study the necessity, the necessity of the present number of law enforcement agents and agencies. What is the implication of that? The implication of that is there are some bad law enforcement agencies out there. I assume this is the right's attempt to go after the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. I do not know. That is who we are studying. We are going to study the cops, not the terrorists.
We have to study the location and efficacy of the office or entire entity responsible, aside from the President, for the coordination of interagency bases of operation, programs and activities of all Federal law enforcement agencies.
It goes on, by the way, for another half a dozen sections.
Think about this. Many of us were local officials before we came here. How many times did a very small segment of our community come to tell us that we had to set up commissions and we had to set up outside organizations, we had to set up police review boards, and so on, because they did not like the cops? Sometimes it was necessary. But remember how good cops responded to this.
I spoke with Director Louis Freeh today. He called me--the Director of the FBI. Of every single thing in the bill, this is the thing that most concerns him because of what it says to the American people about what we in the Congress think about our law enforcement agencies, the very people who probably have captured the Unabomber; the very people who have gotten hold of, apparently, the man or men who blew up the World Trade Center, as well as the Federal building in Oklahoma City; the very people who, just a couple of weeks ago, outside of my State in neighboring Pennsylvania, were shot down dead, protecting people in Philadelphia--FBI agents, the very people who, increasingly, are losing their lives fighting crime and terrorism.
These are the people who we are going to investigate. There is not even a parallel study in here to investigate malicious, to investigate organizations that, in fact, raise questions, to investigate--separate issue--terrorist, per se, organizations. We are going to investigate the cops.
I can remember the years during the Reagan era. We talked about how demoralized the military felt and, to Reagan's great credit, in my view, one of the things I agreed with him on is he built up the morale of the military, after years of being beaten about the head after Vietnam.
These guys need our support, Mr. President. These women need our support. They do not need us yielding to the NRA and others insisting on a study--a study of them in a terrorism bill.
That is the study we are going to make. We are fighting terrorism, and every law Federal law enforcement officer in the Nation, guarantee you, knows that we spend an entire page of this bill--that is not true, half a page of this bill--laying out extensively what we are going to study, the people we are going to appoint to study this and, listen to this:
(1) Number and appointment.--The Commission shall be composed of 5 members appointed--
By whom?
One member appointed by the President pro tempore in the Senate; one by the minority leader of the Senate; one by the Speaker of the House; one appointed by the minority leader of the House; one member who shall chair the Commission will be appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
(2) Disqualification.--A person who is an officer or employee of the United States shall not be appointed a member of the Commission.
How is that? Why cannot someone who is an officer of the U.S. Government--what a field day these wacko Freemen out in Montana are going to have when we pass this. I promise you, they are going to hold this up--some of them, may not be those guys--but other wackos and say, "See, we're right, the U.S. Congress thinks we have to study these people, and they don't even trust them enough to allow any Federal Government employee in any capacity to be on the commission."
I think this is humiliating, absolutely humiliating. Disqualifications: you are disqualified if you are an officer or an employee of the United States of America. That means any military person could not be on the commission; it means the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff could not be put on the commission.
This is disturbing, and if you doubt what I am saying after this is over or before we vote, pick up the phone, call Louis Freeh, call any of the police officers you know and respect, call the people we count on to protect our lives that we are studying them.
I see my friend from Utah is on his feet, and my friend from Wisconsin who wishes to speak in favor of this motion is here. I will be happy to yield to either one of them. How much time remains under my control, Mr. President?
The Presiding Officer: Three minutes 50 seconds.
Mr. Biden: I yield the remainder of the time to the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. Kohl: I thank my friend from Delaware.
Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of this motion to recommit, and I also want to speak generally about the terrorism measure before us. In sum, we should approve this legislation because it is the best we are likely to get and the best we can do for the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing. But I believe the record should be clear that we should have done better.
For many years, we have watched with growing concern as terrorist violence has escalated and reached closer to our homes. We can no longer ignore the fact that post-cold war violence knows no borders, and respects no distinction between soldiers and innocents.
For that reason, Senators Biden and Specter and myself introduced legislation to fight international terrorism last February. We broadened our legislation to reach domestic terrorism after Oklahoma City. And building on this, the Senate overwhelmingly supported a strong, bipartisan proposal.
That is not the proposal we are debating, however, today. We are now considering a version of that bill which is far more watered down.
Still, if we cannot enact a strong and decisive antiterrorism bill, this measure will do at least some good. For example, it will still provide law enforcement with new weapons to choke off terrorist fundraising, new powers to deport suspected terrorists, and the ability to "tag" plastic explosives. All of these provisions will help reduce the threat of terrorism, all are constitutional, and in their entirety they make this measure worth saving.
Unfortunately, other parts of the conference report are more problematic. The conferees deleted Senate provisions that would prevent new technology from undermining our wiretap laws. The conferees prohibited the military from using its resources to help fight chemical and biological weapons.
And the conference also added some troubling items. For example, our subcommittee held 14 days of hearings on Ruby Ridge and issued a report that was praised across the political spectrum--by Janet Reno and by militia leaders. So why do we need to have a so-called Commission reopen this matter? Similarly, why does a study of cop-killer bullets suddenly appear in this bill? Is this really necessary? Is it really an important part of our fight against terrorism?
I believe the answer is no.
The best arguments against the motions to recommit seem to be this: Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the expedient. Or we have to accept the bad in this bill to finally enact some of the good.
Well, in a certain sense that is true. But America should clearly understand that this is not what we here in the Senate agreed to. America should know that this legislation has been used to forward a political agenda that does not advance the cause of preventing terrorist acts. America should understand that while this bill does something for the memories of the Oklahoma City victims, it could have done much more.
So I will support this conference report--on balance it is better than no bill at all--and I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Utah.
Mr. Hatch: Mr. President, this Commission will explore issues surrounding the future and mission of Federal law enforcement as we enter the 21st century. Among other things, the Commission will assess our efforts to prevent and investigate future acts of domestic and international terrorism. It will consider the pressing issues facing law enforcement as crime rates rise and as criminals become more sophisticated.
I appreciate the fact that the law enforcement community is sensitive to this sort of review, but this Commission is different in focus, and we made it different in focus in the conference from the House-passed version. What was once a Waco-Ruby Ridge Commission with subpoena power is now a Commission to help Congress set Federal law enforcement priorities for the 21st century. It is a Commission which, in my opinion, will help law enforcement. I must say to my friends in the law enforcement community that I only learned of their concerns after the report was filed. If there are specific areas of the Commission's scope which are truly troublesome, I will work with them to try to address their concerns.
It should be noted that the last time a Commission looked at Federal law enforcement was over 60 years ago in 1931. In that year, the Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement, established by President Hoover, better known as the Wickersham Commission, made public its recommendations to Congress.
In a report signed by its chair, former Attorney General Wickersham, the Commission concluded that the growth of interstate crime, an interstate organized crime network, and interstate property and economic criminal activities, mandated the need for an increased Federal role in law enforcement.
At that time, the findings and recommendations of that Commission were truly a major contribution to the fight against crime in this country.
There is more I have to say on this. At the appropriate time, I will move to table both of the Biden motions, because this Commission is thought to be extremely critical by people in the House. We have bona fide it to make it more palatable to those who object to it, and I believe we bona fide it to a degree that it can be acceptable.
On the other hand, we will continue to look at this language after this bill is passed, and I will continue to listen to law enforcement and others who are concerned and see what we can do to resolve their concerns.
I am pleased to yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Specter addressed the Chair.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Specter: Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for yielding this time.
I support this legislation because I think it makes important improvements in our fight against terrorism and also in our fight against violent crime in the United States.
The additional $1 billion will be an enormous help to the FBI and law enforcement officials to fight terrorism. The Subcommittee on Terrorism, which I chair in the Judiciary Committee, held extensive hearings after the Oklahoma City bombing. There is absolutely no doubt about the need for more resources by the FBI. The FBI Terrorism Center will provide a clearinghouse which will be of enormous aid and assistance.
As is frequently the case, the bill is not entirely to my liking or the liking of anyone. There are a couple of provisions which concern me that I want to comment about because they may be cured at a later date.
On the provision relating to expedited deportation, I am concerned about the absence of a right of confrontation. There is a constitutional right to confront your accuser in a criminal case. A deportation proceeding is not a criminal case. It is defined as a civil case, but the consequences are extreme because a person is ousted from the country. There are very important policy considerations to not allowing the right of confrontation because many of the witnesses are confidential informants and the disclosure of their testimony would be very harmful to ongoing law enforcement efforts.
We do have an unclassified summary, included in an amendment offered by Senator Simon and myself, and I think that is about as far as we can go. But I believe we have to watch how the act works on this expedited deportation proceeding in the absence of a confrontation right.
The restrictions on fundraising are also important. I have some concern about the limited judicial review, but on balance, this legislation against terrorism is very, very important. I am glad to see that we are finally acting on it.
Attached to this terrorism bill, Mr. President, are provisions relating to modifications of habeas corpus which limit the time for appeals on death penalty cases. This has been a long time in coming to this country. It is something that I have worked on personally for more than a decade, based upon the experience I had as the district attorney of Philadelphia. We currently have the death penalty applied and then there are delays of up to 17 years while the cases languish in the Federal courts. Most of the arguments about these provisions are made by people who are opposed to the death penalty. The lengthy appeals process in the Federal court has, in effect, defeated the deterrent effect of the death penalty.
I am personally convinced, Mr. President, that the death penalty is a deterrent. I saw many cases in my 12-year tenure in the Philadelphia district attorney's office, 4 years as an assistant DA trying murder cases and 8 years as district attorney, arguing appellate cases where the death penalty was imposed, and I am convinced that professional burglars do not carry weapons for fear of the death penalty when it is timely. But the only way a deterrent can be effective is if it is certain and reasonably swift. The time limits established in this bill are very, very important. They break new ground.
I first offered these time limits, Mr. President, in 1990. After a long, tough debate we got these time limits established by a 52-to-46 vote. They were incorporated again in 1991, passed by a narrow vote of 58 to 40. In 1993, habeas corpus was left out of the crime bill, and I offered these provisions. They were defeated on a motion to table. Senator Hatch and I later collaborated on the Specter-Hatch bill. It is not too easy to come ahead of Senator Hatch on a bill, but I did. Senate bill 623 established those time limits and they are incorporated into this final bill. They will require that anyone on death row has to file a habeas corpus proceeding within 6 months if counsel is provided, under State law, or within 1 year if counsel is not provided.
Mr. President, I think that we should have included provisions for counsel. They are not in this bill. I think that is a serious mistake. I hope it is a mistake we can correct at a later time.
When you talk about inmates languishing on death row for up to 17 years, you are talking about a problem for the system, you are talking about a problem for law enforcement, you are talking about a problem for the victims' relatives, and you are also talking about a problem for the defendants themselves on death row.
The European Court on Human Rights decided that it was cruel and barbarous treatment, cruel and inhumane treatment, to keep someone on death row for 6 to 8 years. There was an extradition case which came up where somebody was accused of murder in the first degree in Virginia, which had the death penalty, and extradition was sought from Germany. The Court denied extradition on the ground that it would be cruel, barbarous, and unusual treatment to keep someone in jail for lengthy periods of time, for 6 to 8 years. Obviously, 17 years is an extension of the time which was held to be cruel and barbarous treatment.
This bill provides a limitation on time so that the district court must decide the case within 180 days, 120 days for brief and hearing, and 60 days for decision. I have been involved in these cases in the State court. I have been involved in habeas corpus proceedings as a trial counsel in the Federal court. What the judges do is put these cases on the back shelf. There is no reason they cannot give these cases priority treatment. Now they will have to. The Congress of the United States recognizes judicial independence on what judges decide, but in terms of timetable, we have the authority to establish timetables, and we have done so under the Speedy Trial Act of years ago. Even in the jurisdictions which have a tremendous number of death penalty cases, like Texas, California, and Florida, the judge does not have more than one of these cases every year and a half. So they can put these on the expedited trial list.
This bill also provides that there will not be repetitive decisions, because the court of appeals will be the gatekeeper.
Mr. President, I inquire how much time I have remaining of my 10 minutes.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator has 2 minutes.
Mr. Specter: That tells me how brief I have to be.
We have had repetitive petitions filed. They have been a major irritant in the Federal court system. The idea of the Court of Appeals as a gatekeeper came to me from a law school classmate, Judge Jon Newman, chief judge of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
I am concerned, Mr. President, about a couple of provisions. I think the bill is too restrictive in limiting the ability to present a claim of innocence, requiring that it be proved by clear and convincing evidence. I joined Senator Levin in seeking to change that standard. But the reality is that the standard of proof is a very variable thing. I think if it is established innocence, it may not make a whole lot of practical difference, but I think clear and convincing evidence is too high a standard from a theoretical point of view.
Similarly, I do not favor the deference which is allowed to the State court decision, requiring that it has to be unreasonable in order for the Federal court to overturn it. But I think in a Federal habeas corpus proceeding, if the court thinks it is unreasonable, it will be able to overturn the decision, notwithstanding a standard that is really not as precise as it ought to be.
I think the exhaustion requirement is misplaced here. We would be better off without it. But the net effect, Mr. President, is that this legislation is very good legislation taken as a whole. It will help out on terrorism with the additional resources. We have a tremendous problem in this country with the potential for terrorism. We have seen it in the World Trade Center bombing. We have seen it in Oklahoma City. In my capacity as the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I see a lot of problems which we cannot discuss openly, but we can move for the additional resources.
On law enforcement, the death penalty is the law of the land in 37 jurisdictions in this country. It is favored by more than 70 percent of the American people. If States do not want it, they do not have to have it. But the States that do have it ought to have it enforced. I think the overwhelming weight of authority is that it is a deterrent. These provisions are fair to the defendant. The European Court on Human Rights held it cruel and unusual punishment to impose a delay of more than 6 to 8 years.
So it is fair to the defendant. Certainly it provides closure for the victims' families, and it will reinvigorate law enforcement by taking out the habeas corpus provisions which really made the death penalty a laughingstock. So in total I think it is a good bill.
I commend all of my colleagues who have worked on it in the House. I think we will see passage of something which will be very, very significant for law enforcement in this country.
Mr. President, violent crime has been one of the worst problems faced by the people of our country for several years. Homicide rates, fueled by illegal drugs, spiraled upward in the 1980's. While the rate of violent crime has recently started to decline, there remains far too much violence in our society. And while the violent crime rates are down, the future is grim: the rate of murder and violent crime committed by children under 17 is soaring, and the number of youth in our society is increasing. Therefore, we may expect another surge in violent crime unless we take action.
There are many avenues to take to curb violent crime. We need a balanced approach that includes law enforcement, drug prevention and treatment, crime prevention programs and other means of steering juveniles away from drugs and crime.
Based on my personal experience as an assistant district attorney and as district attorney of Philadelphia, I am convinced that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to violent crime. Criminal justice experts agree that in order for any penalty to be effective as a deterrent, it must be swift and certain. When years pass between the commission of the crime and the carrying out of the sentence, the link between crime and punishment is broken.
The great writ of habeas corpus is the means by which criminal convictions and sentences in State court are reviewed in Federal court to ensure that the trial satisfied the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. It has been an indispensable safeguard of constitutional rights in this country, especially since the 1930's when the Supreme Court began reviewing State-court convictions in cases like the Scottsboro case. Unfortunately, the Federal courts have gone too far in habeas corpus cases. These cases drag on for years, and there is no end to them, as inmates, especially those on death row with nothing to lose, file endless rounds of petitions.
There is no statute of limitations for filing habeas corpus petitions. This leads inmates who have been sentenced to death to wait until they are facing their imminent execution before filing their habeas corpus petition in Federal court. An example of this abuse is the case of Stephen Duffey in Pennsylvania. Duffey murdered his victim in 1984. His conviction was finally upheld by the Pennsylvania courts in 1988. His death warrant was not signed until 1994, 10 years after the murder. It was only when the death warrant was signed by the Governor that Duffey first sought habeas corpus review in Federal court.
The requirement that all claims raised in Federal habeas corpus petitions be presented and fully adjudicated by State courts has also led to excessive delays and unsound rules as to whether Federal courts can even consider a habeas corpus petition.
The case of Michael Peoples, which I have discussed with my colleagues on numerous occasions, shows graphically how the exhaustion rule leads to excessive formalism and delay. People was convicted of a vicious robbery in 1981, and his conviction was upheld by the intermediate Pennsylvania appellate court in 1983. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied review by an order that did not make it clear whether it was based on the merits or on the court's procedural discretion not to hear cases that do not present a substantial legal issue. Peoples then filed a habeas corpus petition in 1986. The district court denied the petition for failure to exhaust his State remedies. The Court of Appeals for the third circuit then reversed on the ground that the exhaustion requirement had been satisfied when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied review. Peoples then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted review--making the case 1 of just 147 it heard that year out of over 4,550 petitions for Supreme Court review--and reversed the third circuit. On remand, the third circuit issued a complicated ruling finding that Peoples' habeas petition contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims and sent the case back to the district court. Years were spent considering just this initial procedural hurdle of exhaustion. I believe we would have been better served had the courts simply reviewed the substance of Peoples' claims.
Another problem causing the excessive delay in carrying out death sentences has been the ability of inmates to file repeated habeas corpus petitions. Once again, I turn to an example I have often discussed with my colleagues, the case of Robert Alton Harris. After being convicted of a double murder in a California court in 1980, Harris filed over the next 14 years 10 petitions for State post- conviction relief and five Federal petitions for habeas corpus. The Supreme Court of the United States considered 11 different applications relating to the Harris case. Many of the petitions Harris filed contained similar or overlapping claims, although none raised doubts about his guilt. Finally, after 14 years, Harris was executed. I regret to say that the Harris case is far from unique in its multiple habeas corpus filings.
Abuse of the writ of habeas corpus has led to the death penalty being not an effective deterrent, but a mockery. Inmates on death row spend an average of over 9 years awaiting execution. And may wait much longer, with some cases dragging on 18 or more years. During these periods of lengthy delay in carrying out death sentences, the families of the victims are left in a sense of suspension, unable to put the tragedy behind them.
Putting an end to these excessive delays will once again restore vitality to the death penalty as an effective deterrent to violent crime, which I know from personal experience it is. I have told my colleagues on numerous occasions over the past several years about the case of Cater, Rivers, and Williams, three young hoodlums who I prosecuted as an assistant district attorney. These three were planning on robbing a Philadelphia pharmacy. When Cater and Rivers saw that Williams was carrying a revolver, they told him they would not participate in the robbery if he took the weapon because they feared the death penalty. Williams put the gun in a drawer, but as the three were leaving, Williams sneaked it back into his pocket. Williams used the gun in the commission of the robbery to kill Jacob Viner, the pharmacist.
All three men convicted and sentenced to death because, under the law, Cater and Rivers were equally responsible for Viner's murder as Williams.
Ultimately, Williams was executed, but Cater and Rivers had their sentences commuted to life imprisonment because they were unaware that Williams had carried the gun. As a prosecutor, this case was just one of many I encountered in which burglars and robbers refused to carry firearms because they feared the death penalty.
In order to make the death penalty once again an effective deterrent, I have actively been attempting to streamline habeas corpus procedures since 1990. When the Senate considered anticrime legislation that year, I offered with Senator Thurmond an amendment to reform habeas corpus procedures to speed up and streamline the process. My amendment was adopted by the Senate, 52 to 46, and included in the final bill. Unfortunately, at the insistence of the House conferees, the provision was dropped from the conference report adopted the last day of the 101st Congress.
In the 102d Congress, I introduced legislation, S. 19, that was substantively identical to the 1990 amendment the Senate had passed. When the Senate considered anticrime legislation in 1991, however, Senators Hatch and Thurmond offered a slightly different habeas corpus reform amendment that was based on my legislation but included language limiting the scope of Federal review of State convictions. After careful consideration, I spoke at length in favor of that amendment and voted for it. This amendment also passed the Senate, 58 to 40, and included in the final bill that passed the Senate. When the bill went to conference, however, the House insisted on its habeas corpus provisions which, rather than reducing delays and streamlining the process, would have allowed for greater delay and more manipulation of the process. The conference report that contained that provision was filibustered in the Senate because of its habeas corpus provisions and never came to a vote.
Once again in the 103d Congress, I introduced legislation similar to my previous efforts. When the 1993 anticrime bill was debated in the Senate, the managers decided that habeas corpus reform was too tough an issue to resolve and remove the bill's habeas provisions. I strenuously objected and brought before the Senate a bill I introduced to streamline the process. While many of my colleagues wanted to see us take action on the bill, it was tabled in order to keep the habeas issue from interfering with efforts, which I also supported, to secure Federal assistance for police hiring and prison construction.
When Republicans took control of the Senate and House this Congress, I had high hopes that we would finally be able to resolve the issues that had previously derailed efforts to reform habeas corpus. Together with Senator Hatch, I introduced legislation, S. 623, to impose a statute of limitations on the filing of habeas corpus petitions, restrict the ability to file successive petitions, impose time limits on Federal court consideration of habeas petitions in capital cases, and encourage States to provide adequate counsel in capital habeas cases.
In the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, as the Senate developed antiterrorism legislation, I worked to ensure the inclusion in the bill of my habeas corpus reform legislation. As introduced and passed by the Senate, S. 735 includes in full the provisions of S. 623. When the House ultimately considered its antiterrorism bill, it included my habeas corpus reform language as well.
As I mentioned, there are several aspects of the habeas corpus reform provisions that I would prefer were different. Most glaringly is the restrictive standard of review. The bill continue to require deference to State courts' findings of fact. Federal courts will owe no deference to State courts' determinations of Federal law, which is appropriate in our Federal system. However, under the bill deference will be owed to State courts' decisions on the application of Federal law to the facts. Unless it is unreasonable, a State court's decision applying the law to the facts will be upheld. I am not entirely comfortable with this restriction, but upon reflection I believe that the standard in the bill will allow Federal courts sufficient discretion to ensure that convictions in State court have been obtained in conformity with the Constitution.
I also believe that the formulation in the bill is too restrictive in limiting successive petitions when the inmate raises a claim as to innocence. For this reason, I supported Senator Levin's amendment when the bill was initially considered by the Senate. That amendment, however, was tabled.
Finally, I am disappointed by the absence of two provisions from the habeas corpus reform sections. Since 1990, I have been convinced that we can improve the process by eliminating the exhaustion requirement. I have tried repeatedly to do so. Both prosecutors and representatives of the defense bar have strenuously objected to these efforts, albeit for different reasons. Despite my certainty that the bill would be improved had we eliminated the exhaustion requirement, I am willing to move forward without its elimination in the interest of getting habeas corpus reform. I am also concerned that the bill does not establish standards for trial counsel in capital cases. In my previous efforts I had sought to ensure that the States provided adequate counsel in capital cases at both trial and in the post-conviction process. Improving trial counsel in capital cases is a critical step to making the trial rather than the habeas proceedings the central event in death-penalty cases. This bill, while seeking to ensure adequate counsel for habeas proceedings, does nothing to strengthen the minimal constitutional standard for ensuring adequate counsel at trial.
Despite the provisions that concern me and the failure of the habeas reform to include two elements important to a fair and comprehensive scheme of habeas reform, I support the habeas corpus reform provisions of this bill. In politics, one learns that the best is the enemy of the good. Since the restoration of the death penalty in 1976, we have seen its effectiveness as a deterrent sapped by delays attributable to defects in the habeas corpus system. The reforms included in this bill, while not perfect, will go a long way to restoring vitality to the death penalty as an effective deterrent to violent crime. I was therefore willing to sponsor these provisions in conjunction with Senator Hatch and am please to see them enacted. They are the culmination of many years of effort, and I am deeply satisfied by their adoption.
We are, of course, dealing with an antiterrorism bill, and there are several provisions of the bill in addition to habeas corpus reform that I want to address briefly. As chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, I have long been interested in combating terrorism and have been very active in the area. In 1986, I introduced legislation that made it a Federal crime to commit a terrorist attack against a U.S. citizen anywhere in the world. I have also been active in seeking to limit diplomatic immunity for terrorist acts and for punishing acts of terrorism before an international criminal court. Earlier this Congress, I joined Senator Biden and Senator Kohl in introducing S. 390, the fist omnibus counterterrorism bill introduced this Congress, 2 months before the tragic Oklahoma City bombing that gave the issue such currency,
I am pleased that the conference report retained my amendment to the Senate bill to authorize assistance to U.S. allies to support the purchase of counterterrorism technology if U.S. interests are at stake. My original amendment authorized $3 million for this assistance, but in the wake of the recent terrorist bombings in Israel that have put the peace process at risk, the amount authorized in the conference report has been increased to $20 million.
I also want to express my support for the provision to require the Attorney General to study the availability of bombmaking manuals, evaluate whether current laws are adequate to address the problem, and determine whether anything else can be done constitutionally. My Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism and Technology held a hearing on this subject in May 1995. We were deeply troubled by what we heard. I am skeptical that the Government can do anything to restrict such information without violating the first amendment. I am pleased that the Attorney General, whose representative testified at our hearing, will study this matter and make appropriate recommendations.
The conference report adds a provision to make it a crime to misuse human pathogens and other biological agents. The terrorist threat from such agents is very real. My Terrorism Subcommittee is conducting a study on this issue and the threat from chemical agents as well. I know that the Governmental Affairs Committee has also held hearings on this subject. Recently, the full Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the threat posed by the wrongful use of human pathogens. After that hearing, I joined several other members of the committee in writing the President to express our concern over the gaps in Federal regulation over the distribution of human pathogens. I am pleased to see the conference report include this provision.
The conference report deleted the Senate-passed provision to authorize the broader use of multipoint wiretaps. I opposed the inclusion of this provision in the Senate bill and am pleased to see that the conferees deleted it. Current law strikes the appropriate balance, and I feared the Senate-passed provision went too far in threatening privacy interests.
I want to note that, while the conference report alters the expedited deportation provisions of the Senate bill, adopted as part of an amendment I offered with Senator Simon and Senator Kennedy, it preserves the requirement that if classified information is used to deport an alien suspected of terrorist activity, an unclassified summary adequate to permit the alien to mount a defense must be provided to the alien. This requirement is the absolute minimum that due process will permit. Anything less could not have survived constitutional scrutiny, and I am pleased that this aspect of my amendment was retained.
I am also troubled by the restrictions on domestic fundraising for foreign terrorist organizations. The Senate bill had allowed entities designated as terrorist to seek judicial review. That review would have accorded no deference to the administration's designation and allowed full and searching judicial review. The conference report, while retaining judicial review, establishes a deferential standard for that review. I am far less satisfied with this level of scrutiny. I am also concerned about the first amendment implications of this provision, restricting the ability of U.S. citizens to support favored causes. I acknowledge that the United States is a fertile ground of financial support for foreign terrorist organizations, but am nonetheless concerned about these infringements on U.S. citizens.
Finally, I want to express my strong disappointment over the limited scope of the provision allowing U.S. citizens injured by foreign terrorist attacks to sue foreign nations who supported the attack in which they were injured. In 1993, I introduced the first bill in the Senate to allow U.S. victims of foreign terrorism to sue foreign countries they suspected of supporting the terrorists who injured them. My bill was favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee.
When the Senate considered this bill, it included a provision similar to but narrower than my bill as reported by the Judiciary Committee in 1994, allowing suits against foreign nations for supporting terrorism only if the State Department had previously listed the defendant nation as a sponsor of terrorism. The House bill contained a broader provision allowing suit in the U.S. against any foreign country that did not provide due process in its own courts to remedy the injury to an American citizen.
As the conference on this bill began, I wrote to each of the Senate conferees urging them to accept the House-passed provision. As the conference proceeded, I had thought that an acceptable compromise would be reached. I deeply regret that the conference report rejected any compromise and adhered to the Senate's provision, which allows the State Department to manipulate those foreign nations that are subject to suit in U.S. courts for injuring U.S. citizens. Giving the State Department this role is contrary to the rationale of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and will allow impermissible foreign policy consideration to affect the ability of Americans to seek redress for their injuries caused by foreign governments. I will continue to work on this issue to remove this unfair limitation.
This conference report is not all that could be hoped for. It does, however, represent a significant advance in our Nation's ability to fight terrorism without unduly compromising the rights and liberties of our citizens. As a result, I support the conference report and urge my colleagues to do so as well.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Utah has 2 additional minutes.
Mr. Hatch: I yield back my 2 minutes. I understand the time of the minority is also expired.
The Presiding Officer: That is correct.
Mr. Hatch: On behalf of Senator Dole and myself, I move to table both of the Biden amendments, with the understanding that these votes are stacked.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Hatch: Could I also ask unanimous consent that the first vote be 15 minutes in length, but the last two votes be 10 minutes each?
Mr. Ford: Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I am not sure. Could you give me just a second?
Mr. Hatch: I will withhold that unanimous-consent request.
Mr. Dole: Were the yeas and nays ordered?
The Presiding Officer: The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
Mr. Dole: Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The Presiding Officer: Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. Dole: The first rollcall will be 15 minutes, and the next will be 10 minutes.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Ford: The third will be 10 minutes. The first vote is 15 minutes, the next two votes will be 10 minutes each.
