---

Mr. Hyde:     Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 405, I call up the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 735), to prevent and punish acts of terrorism, and for other purposes.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The Speaker pro tempore:   Pursuant to rule XXVIII, the conference report is considered as having been read.

(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of April 15, 1996, at page H3305.)

The Speaker pro tempore:   The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] will be recognized for 30 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. Hyde:   Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report on S. 735.

The Speaker pro tempore:   Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?

There was no objection.

Mr. Hyde:   Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.

(Mr. Hyde of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Hyde:   Mr. Speaker, 132 years ago, in a small cemetery in Pennsylvania, one of America's great presidents asked a very haunting question, whether a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal could long endure. Our answer to that question depends on how we legislate to protect a free people from those evil forces who seek our destruction through violence and terrorism.

The bill, the conference report that we have before us today, does that in exemplary fashion. It maintains the delicate balance between liberty and order, between our precious freedoms and defending this country, something we have sworn to do when we took our oath of office to defend the Constitution and the country behind it.

Now, this bill has had a stormy odyssey, and I think it is worthwhile to recapitulate a little bit. First of all, what has been added to the bill as it passed the House? Removal of alien terrorists. These provisions allow for the removal of alien terrorists fairly and with due process but also with protections adequate to safeguard sources and methods of classified information.

Under the conference report, the alien will be given a declassified summary of the classified information, and this summary must be sufficient to enable the alien to prepare a defense. If the district court judge presiding over the hearing determines that it is not adequate to prepare a defense, the hearing terminates and the alien goes free. But we must protect sources, we must protect methods. We must balance that with the need for a fair hearing.

So, we think this strikes the appropriate balance. There will be no secret proceedings or anything like that. Designation of foreign terrorist organizations, we got that back in the bill. It was taken out on the floor earlier. But we have provided that the Secretary of State, in cooperation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, can designate terrorist organizations.

We are not talking about countries now. That is under another law. They can designate terrorist organizations. They must notify Congress within 7 days. We have a chance to review that, and we can set it aside if we wish. With that authority, the Secretary of the Treasury can freeze assets in this country that belong to terrorist organizations.

Also back in the bill is the prohibition against terrorist fundraising. Raising money in this country is the lifeblood of many organizations, not excluding terrorists, and we put a stop to that with this bill.

We also, under this bill, we have a procedure for excluding alien terrorists. We authorize the State Department's embassy officials overseas to deny entrance visas to members and representatives of those same designated foreign terrorist organizations. The Washington Post had an editorial this morning talking about keeping out alien terrorists that we might want to come in so we can negotiate with them.

I suggest that the law has permitted that to happen, not this law but other laws. Yasser Arafat, Gerry Adams, people have come into this country under the law. And so this is not a hard and fast blanket exclusion. Prohibitions on foreign assistance, countries that do not cooperate with us in our antiterrorist acts will not get foreign assistance.

On foreign air carrier safety, the conference report requires foreign air carriers that come into our country and leave our country provide the same security and safety measures, the identical ones that American air carriers must follow under regulations promulgated by the FAA. Those are important antiterrorist laws that will help us protect ourselves in the future, and anyone who says that there are not serious antiterrorist measures in this bill as not read it.

Now, habeas corpus reform, that is the Holy Grail. We have pursued that for 14 years, in my memory. The absurdity, the obscenity of 17 years from the time a person has been sentenced till that sentence is carried out through endless appeals, up and down the State court system, and up and down the Federal court system, makes a mockery of the law. It also imposes a cruel punishment on the victims, the survivors' families, and we seek to put an end to that.

We are not shredding the Constitution. We are shaping a process to keep it within the ambit of the Constitution, but to bring justice to the American people. That is what we have done with habeas corpus reform, and I simply direct attention to quotations from President Bill Clinton, who has said in death penalty cases, it normally takes 8 years to exhaust the appeals. It is ridiculous, 8 years is ridiculous; 15 and 17 years is even more so. So heed the words of our President on this subject.

Now, we have a 1-year statute of limitations in habeas. Nothing wrong with that.

I would like to read. I have left the letter up there. Diane Leonard, who is the wife of a Secret Service agent who was killed in Oklahoma City, sent this letter, which I just received today:

Mandatory victim restitution, right now it is discretionary. Under this bill, it is mandatory. Think of the victims and think of the victims first. Criminal alien deportation improvements, allowing for district court judges to order the deportation of aliens convicted of Federal crimes, not just because they are aliens. They are in the slammer for Federal crimes. But at the end of their term, they can get deported with expedition rather than go through another and another and another hearing.

We also have maintained a taggant study. We put taggants in plastic which is used for bombs. But as for other substances, it is a fact, and this is not the NRA talking. It is a fact that we are not sure how safe and how efficacious, how efficient and how cost effective they are in things like fertilizer. We are going to have a study, and that study is going to be a scientific one, an objective one. Following that study, regulations may be promulgated and Congress will have a chance to look at them, 9 months of review to determine whether we should put taggants in other substances. I think it is sensible, a mainstream solution. On expedited asylum procedures, the conference report does not add any wiretap authorities that were not in the bill when it left the House. It does not give law enforcement any additional access to consumer credit reports or common carrier records. It does not give the military any increased role in civilian law enforcement. Now, these are here, some things I would love to have in the bill. I would love to have the multipoint wiretapping authority. I would love to use the technology and expertise of the military when chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are used in public, but that is not in the bill. We did not have the votes, and so we put that aside in the interest of getting a good bill. The survivors want the habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is tied up with terrorism because when a terrorist is convicted of mass killings, we want to make sure that terrorist ultimately and reasonably has the sentence imposed on him or her. It is not incommensurate with the Constitution, it follows the Constitution and due process. So let us answer Lincoln's haunting question yes, a country conceived in liberty can long endure. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following information:

section 806

By enacting section 806, Congress intends that the Commission examine closely the priorities and structure of Federal law enforcement as we head into the 21st century. The large proliferation of Federal agencies with law enforcement authorities, overlapping jurisdiction, nonstandardized policies and procedures among the various agencies, and separate training and administrative functions require examination to determine if Federal law enforcement effectiveness can be increased in an era of fiscal austerity. There are clear distinctions in procedures, planning, and capabilities of the various law enforcement agencies. This is especially so when, as has increasingly become the case, Federal and local officials are working jointly on investigations and operations. Congress intends the Commission to examine issues of coordination to ensure effective utilization of scarce resources and to ensure proper Federal support for State and local law enforcement. Accountability for law enforcement operations has increasingly become an issue before Congress. Congress specifically intends that the Commission examine who within the executive branch should ultimately be responsible, short of the President, for interagency coordination, uniform standards, ethical standards and the other issues common to all Federal law enforcement agencies. Congress believes the current proliferation of agencies, the confusion and dangers that result therefrom and the lack of clear accountability and responsibility has lead to an unhealthy level of competition fostering operations and inefficiencies that are not in the best interests of public safety.

Congress does not intend by the establishment of this Commission to create an oversight function separate from that already performed by Congress. Congress historically has always been very mindful of the dangers inherent in examining specific cases, of protecting raw investigative information and from ensuring that the political process does not impede or intimidate those line investigators and prosecutors charged with enforcing the law. The managers realize that having an outside Commission examining cases and the details of investigations could have a chilling effect on those who must protect our public safety.

Congress believes that to ensure the protection of the privacy and civil rights of people investigated but not charged, the Commission must not examine specific investigations or investigative or prosecutive strategies. Likewise, to ensure that investigations remain unimpeded and investigators and prosecutors remain free of the potential for influence or intimidation, the Commission must avoid examining specific cases, calling as witnesses line personnel or seeking information the disclosure of which would have dire consequences, for example, informant identities, confidential witnesses, sensitive techniques, et cetera. Even in closed cases, examination of discretionary investigative and prosecutorial decisions risk not only the appearance of political influence and chilling aggressive prosecution, it also threatens the due process rights of suspects and defendants. The Commission is not established to put specific cases under the microscope. To the contrary, it is intended to focus on macro issues that go to effectiveness, coordination, efficiency and public safety.

Congress does not intend the Commission to examine issues or cases involving national security.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Conyers:   Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Hyde:   Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].

The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Linder):   The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] is recognized for 4 minutes and 30 seconds.

(Mr. Conyers asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Conyers:   Mr. Speaker, we are here to discuss this bill. We have received the quotations from President Clinton and former Presidents, but let us look at what the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] is talking about.

He is proud of the fact that we implement the convention on marketing plastic explosives that was noncontroversial. Restrictions on biological and chemical weapons, hooray, that was uncontroversial. We got in the bill mandatory victim restitution. Do you remember anybody ever quarreling with that? Not hardly.

Mr. Speaker, now we come to all of the Barr provisions that were killed out of this bill by 246 votes, a majority. Remember that? That was not such a great day on the floor, because the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] thought we should not strengthen the criminal alien deportation procedure, so he kicked it out and it won. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] thought that we should not expedite the deportation of terrorists, and it won and we kicked it out. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] thought that there should not be a ban on fundraising by terrorist groups, and he won and we kicked it out. Now in the conference we got pieces of it back in.

I am very happy that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary wishes that we had wiretap authority for terrorists, not for stealing cars, not for hijacking, not for simple felony crimes, but terrorism, this one thing that we are dealing with so completely here this afternoon. But we do not want wiretap authority extended. Oh, yes, we got it already, but we do not have enough and it is not directed at terrorists, of all people.

What about identifying explosives, which could have stopped at least one bombing I know about? Well, we do not want to include powder and things that are used in great quantity around the country. We will exclude that. We will put in taggants, but we will leave out the two kinds of powder that are used most. What about cop killer bullets? Oh, do not bring that up. We will deal with that separately. Let us study the armor-piercing ability of the jackets that policemen wear. Do not worry about the bullet.

Why not make it easier to sue foreign governments? Well, we do not want to get into that. That is foreign policy. What about cooperation with the Federal law and the U.S. military? Oh, no, let us not do that. So what we have is a bill that has taken out the guts of everything that should have been in it, and everything that could have been agreed on 1 year ago is in it and we are real proud of that.

This is a gutless bill, and how dare those tough crime fighters suggest that this is going to stop something? Oh, yeah, and then we throw in habeas so that a suicide bomber is going to read the new habeas law and he will get executed quicker. I say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], he is willing to blow himself up. He does not need your law to help him get executed.

Mr. Hyde:   Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Conyers:   I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Hyde:   Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman aware that at the World Trade Center there were no suicide bombers? Is the gentleman aware that at Oklahoma City there were no suicide bombers?

Mr. Conyers:   Then that makes it OK then to bring in habeas?

Mr. Hyde:   No. That is an easy question to answer. Just yes or no.

Mr. Conyers:   Mr. Speaker, yes.

Mr. Hyde:   Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr], the distinguished gentleman who played a key role in the shaping of this bill.

Mr. Barr of Georgia:   Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for yielding time to me.

The gentleman from Illinois, the chairman, has done tremendous service to the people of America in his work on this piece of legislation, this historic piece of legislation, and I am proud to have been associated with him and with this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today the American people have much to be proud of, much to be optimistic about for the future credibility, integrity and ability of our law enforcement system to seek out, prosecute, prevent, and sentence, and carry out sentences effectively, efficiently, and within the bounds of our Constitution in a reasonable period of time.

When I met earlier this year, Mr. Speaker, with the number of individuals who represented the families of victims in Oklahoma and Lockerbie, they did not come to us in the Congress and say the Government needs more wiretap power, give them whatever they need. They did not come to us, Mr. Speaker, and say the Government needs in order to bring justice to us, more power to gain access to personal records without a court order, so give them whatever they need or whatever they want. They did not come to us, Mr. Speaker, and say despite the fact that for over a hundred years we have held a very bright and fine and important line between the functions of our military and protecting our borders and domestic law enforcement, and we need to blur that line, and we need to have the military involved in domestic law enforcement, so give them whatever they want.

No, Mr. Speaker, the families of those victims, of those people who have lost loved ones, colleagues and friends to acts of terrorism, came to us and said give us justice, give us habeas and death penalty reform because the very credibility, all of the confidence that we want to have in our criminal justice system, is being eroded by the failure to deliver that to the American people.

And that is what this bill is about, and I also say, Mr. Speaker, that to those warped minds who might today or tomorrow or 1 year from now or 10 years from now contemplate, irrationally as it may be, an act of terrorism against one of our citizens, against one of our Federal employees, against one of the greatest institutions of this Federal Government, let them think longer and harder about it, as I believe they will, knowing that we have passed this legislation, because it will tell them in no uncertain terms, and they do listen to this; this thought process goes on in their mind. They will know that no longer will they be able to, within our borders or come into our country, and kill our citizens, and destroy our government institutions and know that they will be able to spend the next 25 years laughing at us, thumbing their nose at the families of victims, because they will know because of the work of the gentleman from Illinois and our colleagues on both sides, 91 strong in the Senate, has stood up this day and said no more, never again, enough is enough.

That is the importance of this legislation, and there is no clearer link, no stronger link, Mr. Speaker, between effective antiterrorism legislation and deterring criminal acts of violence in this country than habeas and death penalty reform. The American people are demanding it. Future generations who will have to face the constant problem of terrorism demand it. They know that it will work. They know we must have it.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, this legislation, with the important civil liberties guarantees enshrined in it, is so very important, and that is why I am proud to stand here today as a Representative of the American people, shoulder to shoulder with Mr. Hyde, with Senator Hatch in the other body, and say, yes, we have heard the cries of the American people, we have heard the needs of law enforcement, the National District Attorneys Association, attorneys general all across this country, police chiefs, and sheriffs all across this country that say, contrary to what the gentleman from New York keeps saying, oh, we want more wiretap authority. They have come to us, in writing and in person, on the phone and over the fax machines of this country, and said we need habeas reform. That is the one thing, that most important element, the crown jewel here, that we must have. Let us today give it to the American people.

Mr. Conyers:   Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].

Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island:   Mr. Speaker, the notion that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr], as he was saying, represented the interests of law enforcement here in this bill, that they were adequately represented when it was his amendment and his work that has allowed for a study of cop killer bullets to me is utter hypocrisy. That is all.

Mr. Conyers:   Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Letter to Chairman Orrin Hatch, who has just distinguished us with his presence on the floor, from one of the surviving victims of the Oklahoma City bombing:

"I am sorry I missed you,"the writer says to the gentleman from Utah [Senator Hatch], when I was in Washington a couple of weeks ago. As the father of someone murdered by the Oklahoma City bomb, I write to urge you to reconsider the habeas corpus package in the bills you are being called into conference on.

"It utterly galls us as a family so devoted to my daughter that we and our loss should be used as a political football for politicians eager to posture themselves as tough on crime in order to reap some political advantage and to do the bidding of already powerful agencies who have demonstrated their inability to responsibly exercise enormous powers that they already possess. The habeas reform provisions in particular are not known or understood by the families who have used them to lobby on behalf of the bill. One family member even told me recently that she understood habeas corpus to be an antiterrorism investigation tool. Sincerely, Mr. Bud Welch."

Now I ask the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], yes or no, is not it true that only 1 percent of the habeas cases involve the death penalty.

The answer the gentleman knows and I know.

Mr. Hyde:   Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Conyers:   I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Hyde:   I do not know.

Mr. Conyers:   The gentleman does not know. Ah, the chairman is not sure, or he is not even not sure. He just does not know.

Mr. Hyde:   That is right.

Mr. Conyers:   I will help the gentleman along the way.

Now I will go to a quote of the gentleman's, and I am not picking on the gentleman. He is just my chairman on the wrong side of an important bill.

When the issue came up during the hearings the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] said: "I don't really see the wisdom of revisiting the whole habeas argument again in this committee on this bill."

Now it is the keystone of the antiterrorist legislation.

I know the gentleman does not remember that either.

Mr. Hyde:   As you get older.

Mr. Conyers:   I know, I know, I know.

Check the committee hearings.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Hyde:   Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer], a valued member of the committee.

Mr. Buyer:   Mr. Speaker, I have several remarks I would like to make. One is, I have enjoyed being a conferee on this particular bill, moving matters of substance. Also, I think we have to be very careful here when we are talking about family victims, of acts of terror or acts of violence, whether it is the ranking member that has his particular letter that gives, espouses one position, or I have a letter also from victims who espouse another position.

Matters of statecraft have to be based on the intellect and not giving to the emotions of the moment, and that is what is important here.

So let me say another comment I would like to make is that with regard to the acts of terrorists, especially international terror, the world and the dynamics of the world in which we live in have drastically changed. These international organizations have changed the lethality and increased the lethality of their actions. They used to rely upon their carjackings, and now what they have done are these bombings that are in public places, that are cowardly acts of terror that actually move the emotions of people because their actions are so outrageous.

So what we must do in order to combat those outrageous forms of terror is, in fact, give law enforcement the necessary tools.

Now, what is so difficult here is, in a free society, how we balance the protection of individual civil liberties with that of promoting public safety, and in this bill I believe that, in fact, has been achieved. It is not as strong as what some would like, perhaps the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], for example, but the bill is that balance that I just discussed.

The bill also addresses, though,the need to insure the United States does not become the haven for international terrorists. Well, this legislation, members of terrorist organizations can be denied entry into the United States; that is extremely important. An alien terrorist discovered in the United States can be deported expeditiously. Our silent proceedings will not be perverted to let international terrorists slip into our country, as happened with the mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing. Known terrorists organizations cannot take advantage of the generosity of American citizens to bankroll their heinous activities.

This bill includes mandatory victim restitution in Federal cases.

Finally, the victims of crimes are going to be seen not by Federal courts as deserving of compensation. Not only will the criminal have to pay a debt to society, the criminal will also have to make amends to the victim.

Finally, the essence described as that crown jewel of this bill is the reform of habeas corpus for an effective death penalty. The bill sets time limits on the application and considerations of habeas writs; I think that is extremely important. No longer will petition after petition be filed with the courts, delaying endlessly the carrying out of sentences handed down by judges or juries.

We have a paradox in our society whereby someone serves on death row for life. If, in fact, we are going to have a strong deterrence, retribution so that the victim can actually feel as though they have been vindicated, we need an effective death penalty. This bill will give it for America.

Mr. Conyers:   Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], one of the hardest working members of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Watt of North Carolina:   Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I hate terrorists. They are the scum of the Earth. There is nothing lower than a terrorist. They are worse even then people who shoot folks in the back. And if this bill were limited to terrorists, emotionally I would be doing exactly what my colleagues are proposing to do here. But this bill is not limited to terrorists; it goes well beyond terrorists to common ordinary citizens.

I read recently with horror a story of parents who, because their child got involved in something they did not like, they locked the child in the room for days at a time. And I got outraged by it. I think a number of us read that story and got outraged. This goes beyond that because what we are doing is locking other children, who had nothing to do with what we are here to talk about, in our constitutional closet with unconstitutional means today, and we are doing it in the name of combating terrorism when we know full well that there is a significant dislike between the two things.

Only 100 out of 10,000 habeas corpus issues come from death penalty cases. Even less come from terrorist cases. Yet this bill is not limited either to death penalty cases or to terrorist cases. It is depriving every single American, every single child, every single one of us, of our constitutional protections of habeas corpus.

The chairman asked the question that Abraham Lincoln asked: Can a country conceived in liberty long endure? The ones that do not endure, Mr. Speaker, are the ones who concoct secret courts and deny their citizens the right to confront their accusers, and deny their citizens the right to contest unjust imprisonments, even in the face of compelling evidence of innocence. That is what this bill does. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves today for the American people.

Mr. Conyers:   Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], the second- ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Frank of Massachusetts:   Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking minority member for yielding time to me.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against this bill. I voted for it in committee. I believe we ought to be strengthening our defenses against terrorism. But I do not believe we ought to be doing it in a fashion that misleads people.

This bill, unfortunately, is excessively harsh where it ought not to be, and much too weak where we need toughness. Essentially what has survived in the assault of the Hamas wing of the Republican Party on this bill is virtually all of the added tools for law enforcement within the United States by which they could detect and prevent this kind of activity, those have gone out. We are very tough on foreigners. Once we catch you, we are going to be even tougher than we used to be.

By the way, as to habeas corpus and the threat to our safety that is presented, remember, by definition, you are not eligible for habeas corpus unless you are locked up. We are not talking, when we talk about habeas corpus, about anybody walking around. We are talking about people who are locked up and who are a danger, presumably, to other prisoners, but certainly not to general society. But here is what was knocked out of this bill by the Hamas wing of the Republican Party, and their price apparently for letting the bill come back was to keep this out.

Mr. Hyde:  Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Linder):   The gentleman will state his point of order.

Mr. Hyde:   Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talked about the Hamas wing of the Republican Party. I think that is a little extravagant. Does the gentleman want to withdraw that?

Mr. Frank of Massachusetts:   Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. I would modify that to the wing that expressed they trusted Hamas more than the American Government.

Mr. Hyde:  It was not a wing, I would tell the gentleman. Wing implies more than one.

Mr. Frank of Massachusetts:   Mr. Speaker, I would say that the gentleman was the one who said this on the floor, and he said it in a context that said it was representative of more than just one person. The gentleman from Illinois, in explaining why an amendment passed to weaken this bill, suggested that this was a person who was representative of a broader spectrum.

Here is what they did. Here is what remains. As a result of the changes that were made when the bill left committee and came here, if there is an attack of a terrorist nature involving a major explosion anywhere in the world, and the U.S. military has the expertise to help analyze the cause, not arrest anybody, not prosecute anybody, not pursue anybody, but if we need the expertise of the U.S. military in analyzing the cause of a terrorist explosion, that expertise can be tendered to any government in the world except one.

What is the one government in the world that is considered ineligible to benefit from the law enforcement expertise of the U.S. military? The American Government. The American Government, as a result of the appeasement of the right wing of the Republican Party, they are in control, and the U.S. Attorney General cannot get that expertise.

Similarly, the FBI and other Federal law enforcement agencies get no significant expanded powers for detection. We retard, here, the ability to use taggants. It is not as bad as it was, but it is still substantially weakened. As a result of the need to pacify the right wing of the Republican Party, this bill has been substantially weakened where it ought to be tougher, and law enforcement simply does not have the authority it ought to have to be able to protect us.

Mr. Conyers:   Mr. Speaker, I am delighted now to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].

Mrs Chenoweth:   Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a fair degree of hesitation that I rise in opposition to this bill, not that I am not fully committed in my opposition to this bill, but because of my deep and abiding respect for the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].

However, Mr. Speaker, this bill I feel does not just affect habeas corpus procedures for death row inmates, but it actually affects all of our rights to protections under the Constitution, that which habeas corpus has afforded. The rights to speak and assemble freely, to be ensured of due process of law, and to be protected against false imprisonment belong to all Americans. We cannot allow ourselves to be frightened into giving up these freedoms.

As Thomas Payne said in 1795, and true as ever today, he says: ``He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression.'' This, Mr. Speaker, is a line-on-line runout by the Congressional Research Service of all the Federal antiterrorist criminal laws. I asked for CRS to run this out. Mr. Speaker, this is 17 pages long. We have enough laws on the books already. The problem is that we are not enforcing the laws we have. This law abridges some of our very precious freedoms.

Right now we have at least 353 Federal entities who already have police powers to enforce these kinds of laws. Mr. Speaker, it was Edmond Burke who said: ``Seldom are men disposed to give up their liberties unless under some pretext of necessity.'' The Oklahoma City bombing was a tragedy that we never want to see repeated, but this bill will not add to our protections against that kind of horrendous terrorism.

Mr. Conyers:   Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] who refused to sign the conference report.

(Mr. Berman asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Berman:   Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on the antiterrorism bill. Because the issues addressed in this legislation have been a major focus for me throughout the entirety of my career in Congress, I want to lay out very clearly the reasons why I will vote against the conference report, despite my strong support for many of its provisions.

I emphatically do think the case has been made that Federal law enforcement agencies must be granted expanded means to attack the scourge of terrorism, both international and domestic.

I believe that our freedoms, as well as those enjoyed by the citizens of other democratic nations, cannot survive if we do not create new tools to apprehend and punish those who engage in domestic and international terrorism. Our ultimate objective must be, of course, to prevent such crimes from being committed in the first place.

I want to acknowledge the fact that certain antiterrorism measures which I strongly support but which were ignominiously stripped from the House bill by the Barr amendment have now been restored in the conference report. It bears noting that valiant efforts were required to restore these provisions, for which I salute my colleagues on the conference committee.

In particular, I strongly support the prohibition on fundraising for terrorist organizations, and the expedited removal of alien terrorists, though as to the latter, I prefer the version in the substitute offered earlier by my colleagues Mr. Conyers and Mr. Nadler, which more clearly protected the right to counsel and the ability to confront evidence.

I also strongly support the provision in the conference report which deletes impediments in current law to the ability of Federal law enforcement organizations to initiate investigations of suspected material support to terrorists, because I believe that the scourge of terrorism requires a careful recalibration from time to time of the balance between civil liberties concerns and law enforcement authority.

But despite my strong support for many provisions in this bill, I am compelled to vote against it because of my strenuous objection to title I, the habeas corpus provisions.

A decision was made by the Republican majority to jam into this bill, in the name of fighting terrorism, their long-sought objective of--for all intents and purposes--abolishing the ancient writ of habeas corpus. As former Attorneys General Levi, Katzenbach, Richardson, and Civiletti have written to us, ``Nothing is more deeply rooted in America's legal traditions and conscience.'' The writ of habeas corpus is the guarantor of our constitutional rights, the bedrock of our Federal system, which has always provided an independent Federal court review of the constitutionality of State court prosecutions.

Indeed, the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867 was the first civil rights law enacted after the Civil War, intended to flesh out the habeas clause of the Constitution and thereby protect the rights of the newly freed slaves by giving Federal judges the power to hear ``all cases where any person may be restrained of his or her liberty in violation of the Constitution.''

Until very recently, only once did the Supreme Court undercut this authority, in the tragic case of Leo Frank, a Jewish man wrongly convicted and sentenced to die for the rape and murder of a Christian woman in Georgia. As too often happens when a brutal crime occurs, the cry went up in the community to find the perpetrator--or should I say, a perpetrator--and Leo Frank, a member of a despised minority, became a second victim in this case.

Leo Frank was unable to present a defense, because an anti-Semitic mob chased him from the courtroom. But when he filed a writ of habeas corpus to the Federal courts, the Supreme Court held that even though his trial was dominated by a mob, it would not order a new trial because the Georgia Supreme Court had held that the mob-dominated trial did not deprive Frank of due process, and the State supreme court's review was not corrupted by a mob.

The standard in the Frank case was overturned by the Supreme Court only a few years later, and has been deplored by Americans of conscience in the years since Leo Frank's execution and the subsequent emergence of an eyewitness to the crime who established Leo Frank's innocence, but who had been afraid to come forward in light of the hysteria that surrounded the crime and the trial.

Let me point out that according to reliable data, since 1978, 40 percent of the habeas petitions heard by Federal judges in capital cases resulted in the reversal of the conviction or death sentence because of constitutional violations. One can be dismayed by the number of State court trials impaired by constitutional error, as reflected in this statistic, but heretofore, we could be heartened that life-tenured Federal judges, shielded by constitutional design from local political pressures, could restore constitutional rights.

In this bill, in an action ill-befitting Members of Congress sworn to uphold the Constitution, we are about to obliterate the only effective means of vindicating those rights. It is not the bill's accelerated deadlines or limits on second or successive applications with which I differ. I believe that meritorious objections have been raised to protracted appeals which deprive families and communities of closure in heinous criminal cases. But to require deference by the Federal courts to State court determinations of Federal constitutional law, I cannot countenance.

Shame on those who invoke the names of innocents slaughtered in Oklahoma City and over the skies of Lockerbie in their quest to effectively abolish the writ of habeas corpus. We know that those charged with terrorism will invariably be tried in Federal court. Extinguishing the right to a writ of habeas corpus will have no bearing whatsoever on these cases.

A letter from the father of an Oklahoma City victim was recently shared with me. Mr. Bud Welch states,

The habeas reform provisions . . . are not known or understood by the families who have been used to lobby on behalf of this bill. . . . Our family knows that meaningful, independent habeas court review of unconstitutional convictions is an essential fail-safe device in our all too human system of justice. And we have learned that this package of "reforms" you are being asked to vote for would raise hurdles so high to such essential review as to effectively ensure injustices of wrongful conviction will go unremedied. . . . We consider this a direct threat to us and our loved ones still living who may well find themselves the victim of abusive or mistaken law enforcement and prosecutor conduct and unconstitutional lower court decisions. Two wrongs have never made a right.

There is another provision in the bill to which I strongly object, and several which have not been restored to the bill which I support.

The summary or expedited exclusion provision of the bill applies to all asylum-seekers entering the United States with false or no documents, and has nothing whatsoever to do with our efforts to combat terrorism. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees is "deeply concerned," as am I, that this provision "would almost certainly result in the United States returning refugees to countries where their lives or freedom would be threatened."

Missing from the bill are several provisions which the Justice Department views as essential law enforcement tools if our fight against terrorism is to be successful, including adding terrorism- related crimes to the list of crimes which can be the basis for seeking a Federal wiretap order, and authorizing multipoint wiretaps. I deplore the absence of these provisions from the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the American Constitution is a living document which has thrived for two centuries because in its strength and vibrancy it has accommodated the realities of American life. And one of those realities, tragically, is terrorism--not a mere threat, but a reality. Because I believe that strong new measures are essential to combating terrorism, I support many of the provisions of this conference report.

But I cannot in good conscience vote for a bill which guts the historic means by which Americans enforce the Bill of Rights. That is why I will vote against the conference report.

Mr. Conyers:   Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bobby Scott.

Mr. Scott:   Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves on the anniversary of the Oklahoma bombing with a bill with the title "antiterrorism." Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the conference report because it will do little, if anything, to reduce terrorism, while at the same time it will, in fact, terrorize our Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, we have a situation where the Secretary of State and Attorney General can designate terrorist organizations. In effect, politicians can designate which organizations are popular and which are not popular. The ANC in South Africa could be designated as a terrorist organization, and support of that organization would be in violation of the law. Politicians can choose which side in El Salvador we ought to be supporting or not supporting by designating one or the other as terrorist.

Mr. Speaker, what happens to our rights if we have secret trials where people can be deported, based on evidence presented in private, without the opportunity to be heard? The so-called crown jewel of the bill, the habeas corpus provision, Mr. Speaker, we have heard of the frivolous appeals. Forty percent of these appeals are in fact successful. People have been denied a fair trial. People are in fact sentenced to death who are factually innocent. These are not frivolous appeals. Those who have bona fide appeals will have their rights denied.

Mr. Speaker, we have a system where the innocent and the guilty are tried by the same procedure, so those who are guilty in fact may have a little more time on death row, but those who are innocent have an opportunity to present that evidence. If this bill is enacted, we will find that those who are factually innocent and can present evidence of innocence will in fact be put to death.

Mr. Speaker, that is not an effective death penalty when we put innocent people to death. Those who could show that they are probably innocent will not even get a hearing, under this bill. I would hope we would defeat this conference report.

Mr. Hyde:   Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], and ask that he yield to me in return.

Mr. Schiff:   Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Hyde:   Mr. Speaker, there is so much said here that is not so. There are no secret hearings. Nobody gets deported. Even an alien terrorist does not get deported unless the evidence that convicts him is introduced in trial; in open trial, no secret trials, no secret hearings.

In addition, talking about shredding the Constitution, the National Association of Attorneys General has sent us a letter signed by 34 attorneys general of 34 States supporting habeas in the bill. The National Association of District Attorneys has a unanimous resolution. So the talk about shredding the Constitution is just far of the mark.

Mr. Schiff:   Mr. Speaker, first, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say, first, I rise in support of the conference report. I hope it will pass the House by an overwhelming margin. I want to compliment the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], for putting this bill together, and I want to particularly thank the conference committee for keeping two amendments that I wrote into the bill back in the Committee on the Judiciary. One extends victim compensation to victims of terrorist crimes. We hope there will not be anymore terrorist crimes, but if they do occur we think the victim compensation laws should apply.

The second amendment that I introduced allows the sharing of our antiterrorist technology to detect explosives, to set them off safely if they are detected, and to detect firearms and so forth. We are allowed to share that with other countries. We are allowed to share that for two reasons: first of all, to protect Americans who go overseas. Americans could have been the victims of terrorism, as I understand a number of Greek citizens were the victims of terrorism in Egypt just this week.

Second of all, the fact of the matter is that terrorists have more in common than they would like to admit to themselves. Regardless of whether they are terrorists from the extreme left or terrorists from the extreme right, they all have a hatred of democratic governments, and they will all attack any democratic government that they have the opportunity to attack. Therefore, efforts to stop terrorists in one country ultimately benefit the United States, and vice versa.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I think the civil liberties objections, that were raised in part to the bill at the beginning, I believe have been adequately addressed by the chairman and the other members of the conference committee. The objection that still remains is the maybe Members who have already said they think this bill should be stronger.

I think in certain respects they may be right. There are certain areas where, upon further inspection, law enforcement may deserve further authority. But that is not a reason to vote against this bill. This bill gives law enforcement a number of tools that law enforcement has requested to fight terrorism. This is a good bill. This is a bill that should pass. It does not have to be our last word on the issue.

Mr. Conyers:   Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].

Mr. Watt of North Carolina:   Mr. Speaker, I just need 10 seconds for the truth.

The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], I am sure will admit that there is a provision in this bill that allows the consideration of secret evidence that the defendant will never even know about and can never refute. That is absolutely counter to everything that our country stands for.

Mr. Conyers:   Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime in the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Schumer:   Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his generous yielding of time, and for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. In all honesty, I have to say that we are faced with a glass that is only half full, which means that it is also half empty. Yes, we have made some good, solid improvements in this conference. I want to congratulate our conference managers, the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hyde, and Senator Hatch, and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. McCollum, for the leadership they displayed. Without their having stood up to extremists in their own party, this glass before us today would be empty, not just half full. They deserve to be congratulated for it.

But I also must say that this report is still not tough enough. It does not fully meet America's needs. The conference report has been whittled down to satisfy the small-minded fears of extremists, not beefed up to stop terrorism before it starts, and to swiftly track down those who commit it.

Ironically, the managers of this very conference agree that we need the tough measures that the President, the Attorney General, and the Director of the FBI asked for. They admitted publicly that this report leaves out the single most important thing that the FBI needs to fight terrorism, effective surveillance through multipoint wiretaps to keep up with the new technology of cellular phones.

But the majority still left them out just like they left out a long list of other good tough ideas. Why? Why, I ask? Because the Republican majority simply cannot bring itself to stand up to extremism, particularly domestic extremism that it has bred and pampered from some within its own ranks, and to do the right thing for America.

Mr. Speaker, in America there have always been paranoid extremists, but the fact that their arms are so long that they had enough reach to influence this body and strike out provision after provision that law enforcement considers essential in the war against terrorism is profoundly troubling.

I have sat face to face with the victims of terrorism and the families of the victims of terrorism, from Pan Am 103 through the World Trade Center bombing to the atrocity in Oklahoma City. I have met them all. When I compare that pain and that danger to the exaggerated rhetoric I hear from extremists about this bill, I fear for America and I fear for the lives of ordinary Americans.

I wonder can it really be that a Member of this body said during our last debate that he trusts the bloody terrorists of Hamas more than he trusts his own democratic Government? Can that really be, I ask myself? Can anyone be that foolish?

Mr. Hyde:   Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. Schumer:   I do not have much time. I would like to finish my point. I am sorry. On his time I would like to hear what he has to say about it because I respect him so.

But what I was saying was all of us here, we are part of that Government. If any Member really said it, I invite him to come to this floor today and explain that remark and tell the American people why it was said and what was meant by it.

Let me finally say this. Even though I think this report should be tougher, I will vote for it. The hour is late. I am convinced we cannot delay further.

Tomorrow is the anniversary of the terrible, bloody terrorist bombing in Oklahoma City that took the lives of 168 men, women, and children. We all hope and we pray that such a senseless and cowardly event will never again stain our country. But we cannot depend on hope, we cannot wait for perfection. We must act, and I urge that we act today.

Continue to Part Two of House Debate April 18, 1996