---

Mr. Hyde:   Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime.

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

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

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

Mr. Hyde:   Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my dear friend, and he really is my dear friend, from New York that this Hamas situation is terribly unfortunate, it is very painful to me. But I would say to the gentleman, I know some Democrats who trusted the Sandinistas more than they trusted Ronald Reagan, who attended meetings in Nicaragua and ordered our embassy people out. There may be some present here today. So it happens on both sides and it is regrettable, in my opinion.

Mr. McCollum:   Mr. Speaker, I am very much concerned about the debate over this bill being misunderstood by the public. We have a very fine bill. It is not as good as some of us would like. That is, there are provisions that some of us think should have been in this bill. I concur with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] about some of them, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]. But this bill is extremely good.

On one hand we deal with terrorism specifically by forbidding foreign terrorist organizations who are named by the President from being able to come to the country and raise money. A provision that I offered that was adopted as an amendment to this bill would prohibit Americans from being able to go abroad and get money from a foreign terrorist country that has been named.

We do all kinds of things relative to terrorism and then, in addition to that, this bill contains three of the seven crime bills that were in the Contract With America, the most significant of which has been debated a lot today but been voted on many times by this Congress. Finally, when the President signs this bill into law after years and years of struggle, we will have limited the appeals that death row inmates can take and we will have assured that sentences of death in this country will be carried out expeditiously, as the American public wants.

Second, we have victim restitution in this law that will be signed by the President, which provides a mandatory requirement on judges to make victims financially whole at the Federal level. We have a criminal alien deportation provision that eases the ability of the United States, without an additional hearing, to deport a person who has completed a prison term who is an alien.

But on top of that we have a provision I have worked on for more than 10 years that, when it is signed into law, will mean that when somebody lands at New York's airport or any other airport in the country, or a Haitian that in Florida, in Fort Lauderdale, on a beach sets foot on the soil, it means they will no longer automatically be able to tie up themselves in our court system and stay here. There is an expedited exclusion process so that when they claim political asylum, that "I'm fearful I will be politically persecuted if I'm sent home," whatever, the asylum officers can handle that early without getting all tied up in a court system that often meant and means today that aliens who are here illegally end up disappearing into our society and staying here forever.

This bill is extraordinarily important for all of these reasons and a whole host of others. It is positive legislation that I know some think, very minor thoughts I hope, undermines some liberties we have. I do not think it does in any way. It balances what is required between the responsibility of the Government to protect its citizens against foreign terrorists and to protect its citizens in the cases where we have heinous crimes, and to expedite the carrying out of penalties when the decisions of our court systems have been made to do so, and the interests of the individual which have always under our Constitution been paramount.

That balance is in the Constitution. It is in no way destroyed here. In fact, it is perfected. It is something that we have debated hard and long, and is why the conference report and all the work that the gentleman from Georgia and the gentleman from Illinois and many others of us have spent hours doing to make sure that we have not encroached in any way on personal liberties.

This bill, though, will fight foreign terrorism. It will be meaningful to the victims of Oklahoma City, especially in the habeas corpus provisions that, as I said earlier, after so many years when it is signed into law in a few days will mean that after all this fight, finally we will end the seemingly endless appeals of death row inmates and carry out with swiftness and certainty the sentence of justice in this country.

I thank the gentleman from Illinois for all of his work.

Mr. Conyers:   Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez].

Ms. Velaquez:   Mr. Speaker, rushing this bill to the floor just to meet a publicity deadline is irresponsible. Once again we are sacrificing our people to play election year politics. Americans and their civil rights are too important to allow this.

The right of habeas corpus is a national treasure. It is fundamental for all Americans--black and white; liberal and conservative. This conference report severely limits that right--all to fuel a national frenzy.

My colleagues, the Constitution says we are all entitled to equal protection under the law, but in today's society some of us are more equal than others. The reality is, if you have the money to hire a good lawyer, you can make it through our legal system. But, if you are a poor minority, lacking those resources, you will lose and not have the opportunity to prove you are innocent.

By severely limiting this ultimate right to appeal more innocent Americans will unfairly die. Their blood will be on your hands. I encourage a "no" vote on this conference report.

Mr. Conyers:   Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] who only shortly ago was nominated by the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee to join the House Judiciary Committee.

Ms. Waters:   Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution. It simply says in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right of a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

That is the sixth amendment to the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, the tragic bombing is not a reason to repeal the sixth amendment to the Constitution.

The habeas corpus reform provisions in this bill which require Federal courts to ignore unconstitutional court convictions and sentences unless the State court decision, though wrong as a constitutional matter, was unreasonably wrong, innocent persons will be held in prison or executed in violation of the Constitution. The bill would impose unreasonable short time limits for filing a claim for habeas corpus relief, limit petitioners to only one round of Federal review, and mandates the petitioner meet an unreasonably high clear and convincing burden of proof in order to secure relief.

This business of the conviction or sentence may be a little bit unconstitutional, if so, that is OK, as opposed to unreasonably wrong or unconstitutional, is outrageous. Mr. Speaker, that is like saying one can be a little bit pregnant. You are either pregnant or you are not. The sentence or conviction either meet the constitutional muster or they do not.

We cannot and must not shred and defy our Constitution little by little, bit by bit. We American public policymakers are better than that. We love and respect the Constitution more than that. We cannot in the name of expedient politics disrespect the world's greatest document, the Constitution of the United States.

Terrorism is wrong. My sympathy is with the victims, but we must maintain our integrity and support the Constitution of the United Sates. I ask for a "no" vote on this measure.

Mr. Conyers:   Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].

Mr. Abercrombie:   Mr. Speaker, I ask that this bill be defeated, and I am sorry to say that I have to disagree with my friend from Illinois, Mr. Hyde, on this. I speak to him personally now and request this, a reconsideration with respect to habeas corpus.

This past weekend I saw a student production, in an attic in a home in Honolulu, of "Death and the Maiden," Ariel Dorfman's play about Chile. The principal theme was when habeas corpus is absent, there we have authoritarianism and dictatorship. It leads to torture.

In Dorfman's essay on political code and literary code, and I am quoting from it:

Terror then has a public character. As such it leads to a great ideological operation which authorizes, in the name of Western Christian values, a purifying crusade against the forces of the devil and of the anti-Nation.

He goes on to say:

The principal obsession of authoritarian politics is to suppress history and those who could modify it, postulating an unchangeable and superior reality, God, father, and family, to which one owes loyalty.

This is the difficulty. If we abandon habeas corpus, we abandon one of the foundation stones of the United States of America.

You have heard me on this floor expound before on the right to a trial, the right to be able to vote freely, the right to sue, and the fourth leg of that foundation is habeas corpus, the right to be brought before a Federal court to say that your rights have been violated. If we take that away, then we are succumbing to terrorism. We are terrorizing the Constitution.

The time lapses. But the Constitution goes on. I ask, please, Mr. Hyde, reconsideration on the habeas corpus part of this bill, and then perhaps we could vote on the terrorist bill with full meaning.

Mr. Hyde:   Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Lucas], in whose district the Federal building rests that was bombed.

Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma:   Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report to S. 735, the Terrorism Prevention Act.

A year has passed since downtown Oklahoma City was ravaged by the worst domestic terrorist attack our country has ever endured. Yes my friends, a year has passed since we as a nation watched in horror the images of the pain and suffering that this heinous act brought. The name Alfred P. Murrah will be etched in our minds for many years to come, and most assuredly April 19 will never be the same.

As you vote today and reflect on the events of tomorrow, I implore you to remember those who perished and have long since been laid to rest. Our citizen's scars are deep and open wounds still abound. Oklahoma City is an innocent slowly rebuilding itself back to the greatness it strives to attain. Although we cannot turn back the clock and prevent this horrendous act from occurring, we must pass this antiterrorism conference report.

This bill will bring an end to the abuse of our Nation's appeals process. It will ensure this country has an effective and enforceable death penalty. It means justice will be served, and that the guilty will receive their punishment in a swift manner.

Further, the measure provides for closed-circuit broadcasting of court proceedings in cases where a trial has been moved out of State, more than 350 miles from the location in which the proceedings would have taken place.

This provision is timely in light of the upcoming bombing trial. I believe all Americans who must endure such a tragedy, like the people of Oklahoma, deserve the opportunity to view the trial in their State. This measure provides the best way to ensure that those most severely impacted by this tragedy will have access to the court proceedings of those accused in this case.

I would like to thank Chairman Hyde and his staff for their assistance on this measure. You have done a great service for Oklahoma City and the entire country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report to S. 735. It is truly the right thing to do.

Mr. Conyers:   Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 3 minutes.

Mr. Conyers:   Mr. Speaker, this has been an important debate, and I think that it has become clear that this is a politically motivated bill, driven first by the National Rifle Association and Mr. Barr, and then finally by the 73 galloping freshmen Republicans who would not allow a deal to be made, and finally we were able to patch a little bit together.

We are dealing with a bill now that started off with no habeas corpus, we do not need it. But then, because there was nothing in the bill, we needed it.

So what do we have here? What we have is a bill that is missing, missing. Wiretaps for terrorist offenses, not in the antiterrorist conference report before this House. The current law allows for wiretaps for everything from fraud, embezzlement, destroying cars, numerous felonies, but the bill rejects on careful consideration the proposal that we be able to wiretap for crimes of terrorism and crimes where weapons of mass destruction are used.

Are you serious that this is an antiterrorist bill?

So while a Federal agent can get a wiretap if he believes a car is to be destroyed, he may not be able to get a wiretap if he believes an act of terror or mass destruction or murder is going to take out a building or someone is planning to gas the New York subway.

How silly and how unserious.

Similarly, while current law allows for emergency exceptions to the requirement of a court order for a wiretap in instances where the agent learns a criminal act is imminent, this bill refuses to extend that constitutionally permissible emergency circumstance exception to terrorism cases.

So, there you have it. Taggants? Oh, well, we put it back in, but we exempted black and smokeless powder. I wonder why? Well, it does not take a scientist to figure that one out.

So I guess you guys have proved your point. I mean, you are going to show that we got a terrorism bill on an anniversary and that, further, we put the President of the United States in a tremendously embarrassing position where he has to swallow a compromise of habeas corpus.

Mr. Speaker, reject this bill and let us in Committee on the Judiciary go back and do it right.

Mr. Hyde:   Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The Speaker pro temporeL   The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Hyde:   Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] for his cooperation. He has been very helpful on this bill, and I did not want to let the time pass without doing that.

Mr. Speaker, we do not abolish habeas corpus. I keep hearing that. We strengthen habeas corpus by forbidding its abuse. That is what we do.

Now, I am the last one to instruct the newest member of the Committee on the Judiciary from California on the Constitution. I am the last one. I am not going to instruct her. I am going to instruct the world that the sixth amendment does not apply to deportation proceedings. That is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. I just thought I would throw that in the hopper.

There are no secret trials. There is classified information which will remain classified, but a fair summary of that is given to the alien and that has to be adequate to prepare a defense. If it is not, the proceedings are over.

Now, groups supporting this legislation are Citizens for Law and Order; the National Troopers Coalition, 45,000 members; the Christian Coalition; the Anti-Defamation League; the Leon and Marilyn Klinghoffer Foundation; Families of Pan Am 103 Lockerbie; Survivors of the Oklahoma City Bombing; International Association of Chiefs of Police; National Association of Police Organizations; the Law Enforcement Alliance of America; National Sheriffs' Association; National Rifle Association; International Association of Fire Chiefs; the Governor of the State of Oklahoma, a Republican; the attorney general of the State of Oklahoma, a Democrat; the National Association of Attorneys General passed a resolution that was unanimous; and the National Association of District Attorneys.

All of these folks love the Constitution and would not do anything to damage it or brutalize it.

Mr. Speaker, I urge an "aye" vote.

Ms. Pelosi:   Mr. Speaker, tomorrow this country will pause in sorrowful remembrance as we observe the 1-year anniversary of the tragic bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. This incident shook the fabric of our Nation and illustrated the threat posed to us all by terrorism. Oklahoma City is the driving force behind the renewed push for anti-terrorism legislation. I believe we need an anti-terrorism bill. I do not believe that the conference report before us today is the anti-terrorism bill we need.

We, as Members of Congress, have a particular responsibility to be the guardians of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That responsibility is not always easy and it is not always popular. It is, however, always necessary. I oppose this anti-terrorism bill because I believe some provisions in it violate the Constitution. If we pass it, we are ignoring our duty to guard the basic principles upon which our great Nation is founded.

I oppose a number of provisions in this bill but will focus my remarks on my concerns about the habeas corpus reforms contained in it. To many people, habeas corpus sounds like an obscure legal phrase with minimal relevance to their lives. This misunderstanding could not be further from the truth. Habeas corpus is the mechanism by which a citizen in this Nation who is deprived of liberty can petition an independent court to test the legality of his or her detention. Habeas corpus safeguards our individual liberty and the bill before us today restricts habeas corpus appeals.

The habeas corpus provisions in this bill are dangerous to ordinary citizens. They increase the risk that innocent persons could be held in prison in violation of the constitution, or even executed. For the first time, a use it or lose it approach is being applied to a basic constitutional right. Constitutional rights are not time-bound, they are timeless or they are worthless.

The bill before us mandates strict habeas corpus filing deadlines that ordinary citizens, especially those lacking financial resources, may not be able to meet. It limits their right in almost all cases to only one round of Federal review, and severely limits the power that Federal courts have to correct unconstitutional incarceration. It cuts off most opportunities for incarcerated citizens to appeal to higher courts for relief.

The habeas corpus provisions in this bill are reason enough to oppose it. They are certainly not the only thing wrong with this bill. I would also like to note for the record my concern about the bill's changes to asylum law which severely threaten our country's rich history of providing refuge for people fleeing persecution in their homelands. The bill eliminates the suspension of deportation for anyone who enters this country without inspection. It also establishes summary removal at ports of entry if people lack valid documents. Valid documents are often difficult to find or to protect in war-torn countries.

As some of my colleagues know, I have been particularly concerned over the years about the plight of victims of rape, torture, and domestic violence. I am pleased that the Justice Department has a heightened sensibility to the particular problems faced by women who have experienced these crimes in their homelands. Rape is being used as a tool of terror and war in civil conflicts around the world. In many of these countries, rape victims may be unable to articulate immediately their fear of persecution, especially to a stranger who is usually a man. As a result of the provisions in this bill, these women, lacking documentation, will be summarily returned to their homelands.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the need to fight terrorism and I can support anti-terrorism legislation which does so while preserving our precious constitutional rights. This conference report does not meet that test and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:   Mr. Speaker, I applaud the members of the House Judiciary Committee and other Members of the House who have worked diligently to get an antiterrorism bill passed in this Congress. As we commemorate the 1 year anniversary of those 168 Americans who lost their lives in the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City, it is fitting and proper that we consider this bill.

This bill, however, is really a weak antiterrorism bill. It does not give law enforcement officials all of the tools that they need to combat antiterrorism. For example, they will not have the emergency wiretapping authority and the ability to engage in multipoint wiretaps. Moreover, the bill's provisions relating to a cop-killer bullet study have been severely watered down. The study would only focus on reviewing the quality of police armor instead of concentrating on the types of bullets used to kill police officers.

It is important to point out that the perpetrators of the World Trade Center bombing were successfully prosecuted under existing law. While the intent of this bill was good, it focuses on many matters unrelated to preventing international terrorism.

I have some further concerns about the impact of this bill on the fundamental rights of all Americans. It dramatically expands the powers of the Federal Government by granting authority to the Secretary of State and Secretary of the Treasury to designate certain organizations as terrorist organizations. While this designation is subject to congressional and judicial review, it still would result in a chilling effect on the rights of freedom of assembly and freedom of association that Americans enjoy today, because this bill may encourage false accusations against certain groups.

Additionally, the bill modifies the current application of the habeas corpus doctrine by requiring Federal courts to ignore unconstitutional court convictions and sentences by State courts unless the State court decision was unreasonably wrong. Four former U.S. Attorneys General, both Republicans and Democrats, have argued that this provision is unconstitutional. Federal courts would lose the power to correct unconstitutional incarceration. If this bill becomes law, it could result in innocent persons being held in prison in violation of the Constitution and--even executed--because the bill imposes unreasonably short time limits for filing a claim of habeas corpus relief. All of us can cite instances in which innocent persons were released as a result of a comprehensive and fair review of their cases through the habeas corpus process in Federal courts.

The petitioner must also file the petition within 1 year after conviction becomes final. It limits almost all petitioners to only one round of Federal review and requires the petitioner to meet an extremely high clear and convincing burden of proof in order to secure relief.

What this bill does is provide selective due process and selective civil liberties. It allows the Government to arbitrarily designate those who are terrorists, and infringes the fundamental privacy rights of all Americans. We must punish to the fullest extent of the law those who commit terrorist acts against our Nation, and innocent citizens. However, I equally believe that we must carefully consider the bill before us and firmly support the constitutional rights of all Americans.

This bill is not as strong on measures that would prevent terrorism but it is filled with special loopholes that will not effectively help law enforcement officials in their fight against terrorism.

I urge my colleagues to carefully review this bill and its potential impact on the real issue to fight against terrorism and how it would strike a balance in preserving the rights of our citizens.

Mr. Smith of Washington:   Mr. Speaker, today, I was inadvertently recorded as a "yes" vote in favor of final passage of the House- Senate conference report for S. 735, the Terrorism Prevention Act. After voting, I did not check to see how the machine had recorded my vote. My vote should have been a "no" vote for reasons that I will enumerate below.

Presently, there are more than 270 Federal laws that address domestic incidents of terrorism including penalties for specific types of murder, kidnapping, and assault committed with political intent. I am not convinced that adding additional laws will do anything to prevent another Oklahoma City tragedy from occurring.

The expansion of Federal law enforcement agencies via an additional authorization of $1 billion is fiscally imprudent and only gives a rubber stamp to agencies like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms [BATF] that have come under close scrutiny in recent years.

While the multiple wire tapping provisions are not in this legislation, provisions are in place for intercepting wireless data through e-mail and document transmission when done by a wireless modem or through a laptop connected to a cellular phone. Specifically, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act [ECPA] provided these protections which have now been eliminated in section 731 of the conference report. With the phenomenal growth of communication via the Internet and on-line services, I am concerned about the violation of privacy rights of law abiding Americans.

Finally, it is important to keep in mind that there is a very valid argument negating the need for any counterterrorism legislation or at least in its present scope and scale. We live in a very free society that places a high premium on civil liberties.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to clarify the record on this legislation.

Mr. Martini:   Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report to S. 735, the Terrorism Prevention Act, and to honor the victims and salute the survivors of the Oklahoma City bombing. Those 168 innocent people who died in the most heinous act of terrorism committed on American soil; 19 children and 149 adults perished. The destruction does not end with these haunting figures. Hundreds of lives have been altered and the mindset of the entire Nation has changed because of one irrevocable act. The entire country has been suffering together for 1 year.

The events of April 19, 1995, are ingrained in all of our minds, hearts, and souls. We no longer look at our lives through the prism of safety and rationality, rather we have been forced to confront the evils that lurk in the dark and manifest themselves in the light. It was at 9:02 a.m., in the full light of a spring day that our perceptions of civility were shattered.

The rise of extremism and militant fundamentalism within our borders is horrifying and sickening. We must not surrender to terrorism, we must conquer it. We cannot allow the seeds of destruction to be sewn in our country. We must send the message loud and clear that the United States will act decisively against those who attempt to undermine civility. While the antiterrorism bill is not a panacea, it is a step in the right direction.

The Federal building in Oklahoma City no longer stands, but the U.S. Constitution and the laws that govern our great Nation are our iron shield. We must strengthen the death penalty for terrorist crimes which result in the death of an American citizen abroad or at home, we must improve current law to facilitate Government deportation of criminal aliens, and we must allow U.S. citizens to bring suit against a sponsoring terrorist nation in Federal court. The Terrorism Prevention Act accomplishes these necessary goals.

The site of the Federal building in Oklahoma City is now an empty, fenced-in field but the memory of what occurred on that soil on April 19, 1995, will live on forever. On this day, let us remember those innocent men, women, and children whose lives were ripped out from underneath them. We cannot bring these innocents back, but we can work to assure that the perpetrators of violent terrorist acts will themselves be judged.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that the conference committee included the Martini amendment death penalty language in this legislation. On March 21, 1995, in the early evening a man walked into the Montclair, NJ, postal substation in my congressional district and summarily killed two postal employees and two customers. I offered the Martini amendment because I wanted to ensure that criminal acts like the Montclair postal shooting would be covered by the death penalty.

Postal workers Stanley Scott Walensky and Ernest Spruill and Montclair residents Robert Leslie and George Lomoga had their lives cut short in a senseless crime. We cannot bring these victims back, but we can send a strong, clear message to criminals like Christopher Green that their actions will not go unpunished.

The Martini language, formally known as the Death Penalty Clarification Act of 1995 (H.R. 1811), would expand the Federal death penalty statute to include situations in which a defendant, "* * * intentionally kills or attempts to kill more than one person in a single criminal episode." This provision sends a clear message to the criminal that execution style multiple killings will not go unpunished because of a loophole in Federal law. It will ensure that just and fair punishment is administered to individuals who fail to live by society's rules.

My heart goes out to the survivors of the Oklahoma City bombing, and I wish them good health and happiness in their futures. We, as a nation, must continue to help each other in the healing process.

Mr. Poshard:   Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on S. 735, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.

As the people in the 19th Congressional District know, I voted against the House version of the antiterrorism bill. I was concerned that it was overly broad in scope and encroached on individual rights of law-abiding citizens.

As the conference committee worked to merge the House and Senate versions of the bill, I noticed a number of important changes which led me to the conclusion that I could support this bill, and hopefully provide a meaningful response to the threat of terrorism.

The final bill allows the State Department to designate foreign groups as terrorist organizations, bars members and representatives of groups designated as terrorists from entering the United States, and prohibits such groups from engaging in fundraising in this country. It prohibits U.S. aid to countries providing assistance or military equipment to terrorist nations, unless the President waives those provisions. It includes provisions taken from the House bill which will allow deportation of immigrants who are or may be engaged in terrorist activity, and allows the Government to use classified information to deport terrorists.

Importantly, the conference report did not increase investigative powers such as extended wiretap authority for Federal law enforcement officials. We all have a mutual interest in making sure that our law enforcement agencies and the men and women who put their lives on the line in performance of their duties are adequately trained and equipped. But our rights as individual citizens must not be compromised, and I opposed efforts to expand certain powers which I saw as too invasive. That is why I supported the Barr amendment during House deliberation, and why I am able to support the final version before us today. The final version is also stronger on issues of compensating victims of terrorist attacks.

I note today the strong, bipartisan support for the bill which is before us, and take note of the overwhelming vote in favor of the bill in the U.S. Senate. This has been a process of careful consideration, not a rush to react, and as we near the 1 year anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, I believe we have before a vehicle to move ahead with an appropriate law enforcement response which does not infringe on rights we hold dear as citizens of a free nation.

Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island:   Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. I do so with deep regret because I would have hoped that this Congress could do something meaningful to respond to the dangerous threat of terrorism. Americans need to be safe here and abroad, and if we are to fight this new threat to our security, we need new tools in the battle. But when it comes to the fight against terrorism, this bill does too little. Sadly this legislation does not confine itself to the fight against terrorism, and it is here where the bill goes too far.

Sacrificing our Constitution and the integrity of our judicial system is too high a price to pay for an antiterrorism bill that, sadly, does not do enough. The right of every American to a fair hearing in court will be severely undermined by this legislation. No punishment should be dispensed in a manner that violates an individual's right to a fair hearing. This bill jeopardizes that right, not just for those on death row, but also for those who face other punishments.

This bill increases the risk that innocent persons would be held in prison in violation of the Constitution--and possibly even executed-- because the bill imposes unreasonably short time limits for filing a claim of habeas corpus relief, limits almost all petitioners to only one round of Federal review, and requires petitioners to meet clear and convincing burden of proof standard in order to get relief.

This is not right and I will not support such a move.

The bill leaves out provisions which would have: added terrorism crimes to the list of those for which wiretaps can be approved, included terrorism crimes under RICO statutes, and have permitted our law enforcement agencies to draw upon the expertise to address the threat of chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction.

When we need to give law enforcement officials new powers to investigate these new threats, we fail to produce.

As well, this bill caves in to the demands of the gun lobby when it comes to confronting the threat posed by cop killer bullets. I have joined many of my colleagues in calling for a ban on these bullets which have only one purpose--piercing body armor. We could not achieve this victory this year, but hoped that a study of this ammunition would alert the public to the need for action. But now even this study has been disarmed. Rather than study the bullets that can pierce armor and kill law enforcement officers, this bill dances around the subject to the tune called by the NRA.

We face a serious threat from terrorism. We need to respond in a meaningful and comprehensive way. Unfortunately this bill is not up to the task at hand. It makes too many compromises on the fundamental issues and threatens the rights of all Americans to a fair hearing in our judicial system.

This is not the way to fight terrorism and that is why I will vote against the measure before us.

Mrs. Kennelly:   Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this antiterrorism legislation.

Those conversant with our Constitution know that, in almost its first words, it speaks of the duty to "insure domestic tranquility." That is a difficult task--especially in a country that values freedom as highly as our own. Yet it is a duty we must carry out, because, as our Founders understood, freedom requires tranquility to flourish.

This legislation will help us protect our freedom and tranquility at a time when violence is a fact of daily life. We have seen the scars left by terrorists in countries around the world, and now, tragically, in our own. So it is high time we take these steps to strengthen law enforcement and protect Americans. I will support this conference report, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Deutsch:   Mr. Speaker, as we get ready to vote on the Anti- Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, I would like to focus on the fundraising provision of this legislation. Ever since the bombings at the World Trade Center and in Oklahoma City, exhaustive efforts have been made to curtail fundraising activities of terrorist organizations here in the United States. It is completely unacceptable that a terrorist organization like Hamas can establish a fundraising center just down the road from the United States Capitol.

The fundraising provision in the anti-terrorism bill serves as a crucial first step at ending extremist fundraising operations here in the United States. It enables the United States Government to designate those organizations, such as Hamas, that serve solely as agents of violence and destruction, and prevents them from raising money here in America. Additionally, it prohibits individuals from providing material resources to designated terrorist organizations.

But this is only a first step. During the House debate, I drafted an amendment that would have created an even stronger fundraising provision. It would have closed several of the loopholes that allow nondesignated organizations from serving as fundraising conduits for the benefit of outlawed terrorist groups. It would have broadened the scope of individuals prohibited from assisting these violent and ruthless organizations. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the near future to strengthen the current fundraising provision and pass legislation that would force violent extremists to leave the United States and look elsewhere to find their blood money.

Mr. Smith of New Jersey:   Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to section 422 of the conference report on S. 735, which provides for the summary exclusion of persons attempting to enter the United States without proper documentation.

It is important that we exclude persons who would abuse our generous immigration laws, and it is important that the process of exclusion be a speedy one. It is also important, however, that the process be fair-- and particularly that it not result in sending genuine refugees back to persecution.

Section 422 provides that no person shall be summarily excluded if, in the opinion of an asylum officer at the port of entry, he or she has a credible fear of persecution. Unfortunately, the definitions of asylum officer and of credible fear of persecution are not as clear as they might be.

In particular, the definition of asylum officer requires professional training in asylum law, country conditions, and interviewing techniques, but does not state how much training or what kind. I am informed that assurances have been given from the staff members who worked on drafting the conference report that there is absolutely no intention that officers should be put in these positions who are not genuine asylum officers. Mr. Chairman, the INS now has a professionally trained corps of asylum officers, who have had substantial training in handling asylum cases. It should be clear that when we in Congress speak of asylum officers, we mean these professionally trained officers--people who by training and experience think of themselves as adjudicators rather than as enforcement officers--not some other officer who has been given a short course in asylum law and then given this extraordinary power to send people back to dangerous places.

Mr. Speaker, I think it should also be clear that our asylum officers will need to be very careful in applying the credible fear standard. In a close case, they must give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant. There are also some countries--such as Cuba, China, North Korea, Iran, and Iraq--in which persecution is so pervasive that any credible applicant would have a significant chance of success in the asylum process. Asylum applicants should not be returned to these totalitarian regimes without a full hearing.

I hope that regulations will be promptly adopted that explicitly provide for these and other safeguards in the summary exclusion process.

Mr. Allard:   Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report.

Today I am going to vote in favor of S. 735, the Terrorism Prevention Act conference report. As I stated throughout debate on the antiterrorism bill I have had concerns that the bill might be used as a vehicle to expand Federal power over law-abiding citizens. This was my reason for opposing the original House bill, I was concerned that a House-Senate conference would add a number of undesirable Senate provisions. A number of bad ideas were in play, including expansive Federal wiretapping authority, included in the Senate bill, excessive power for certain Federal law enforcement agencies, and excessive spending.

I have followed the conference closely, and I am now satisfied that the civil liberties of law-abiding citizens are protected, and that Federal authority is appropriately restricted. The bill focuses on international terrorist organizations, a matter of Federal jurisdiction.

I want to strongly commend the death penalty reform measures of this conference agreement. I have always supported and cosponsored legislation to limit frivolous, repetitive appeals of convicted murderers on death row. I also strongly support mandatory victim restitution provisions included in this bill. For far too long we have ignored the rights of victims.

This bill helps focus our criminal justice system to where it should be, on swift and certain punishment for criminals and justice for victims.

Mr. Nadler:   Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise in support of this conference report because despite some defects which, quite frankly, could easily have been fixed without compromising the fight against terrorism, it will give law enforcement important and overdue tools in the fight against international terrorism.

Thankfully, the conferees put back many important anti-terrorist provisions that were stripped out by a majority under the sway of the extreme right. I commend the conferees for their vision and courage.

This bill will give law enforcement the ability to crack down on fundraising by international terrorist organizations in the United States. No act of terrorism, anywhere in the world, should have a return address in the United States.

It will allow victims of terrorism to receive restitution from their victimizers whether the terrorists are governments or organizations.

It will add new criminal jurisdiction and penalties for terrorist acts so that law enforcement can reach the terrorists wherever they are.

It will give our Government an enhanced ability to deport alien terrorists.

It will enable law enforcement to battle terrorists who use chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons or who use plastic or other more conventional explosives.

It provides new resources to those law enforcement agencies charged with fighting terrorism.

At the same time, the conferees have repaired many of the dangerous and unnecessary civil rights violations in the bill reported by the Judiciary Committee, and which the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from California and I sought to correct in our substitute. I am pleased that the conferees have responded to some of our concerns.

This bill no longer allows asylum officers summarily to send refugees back into the hands of their oppressors without review.

This bill no longer allows individuals to be deported without knowing the charges or basis of that deportation. They will now be allowed to select their own attorneys and those attorneys will have the ability to consult fully with their clients about the case.

This bill provides clearer standards for designating organizations as terrorist organizations and court review of that designation.

Unfortunately, this bill still guts the rules governing the writ of habeas corpus in ways that I am confident the courts will ultimately rule are unconstitutional and unenforceable. I wish we had the votes to strip these provisions from the bill, but I know we do not.

We will prevail in court on habeas, but today we prevail over terrorists and their cowardly and bloody handiwork whether they are in Cairo or Jerusalem or in Oklahoma City. We also prevail in the protection of many civil liberties that had been threatened by earlier versions of this bill. As with any compromise, I am unhappy with parts of this bill, but I am also pleased at the important progress we have made.

I urge my colleagues to vote "yes" on the conference agreement.

Mr. Packard:   Mr. Speaker, today we will take up the most pro-victim bill Congress has considered in almost a decade. H.R. 2703 establishes tough new statutes to allow Federal law enforcement officials to combat and punish acts of domestic and international terrorism. This measure combines crime legislation from the Contract With America and additional provisions designed to bring criminals to justice while getting justice for victims.

H.R. 2703 makes the death penalty an effective and certain punishment by ending interminable delays and endless appeals. Further, the victim restitution act ensures that our judicial system pays victims of crime the utmost attention by implementing compliance standards for court ordered payments to crime victims as a condition for probation or parole.

For my district, where illegal immigration's impact is felt more than in any other region, the bill includes essential initiatives to improve criminal alien deportation. This provision will expedite the immediate removal of aliens convicted of Federal offenses after they serve their prison terms. In addition, the bill will deny asylum procedure for such aliens.

Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues and I are committed to ensuring the safety and well being of every American. The Effective Death Penalty and Public Safety Act of 1996 guarantees Americans the protections they want and deserve while providing tough penalties on those who would break our laws. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. Smith of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the terrorism prevention act, and want to commend our distinguished Judiciary Committee chairman, Henry Hyde, for his excellent work on this issue.

The escalation of criminal and terrorist activity in our country is robbing Americans of the freedom to walk their neighborhood streets, the right to feel secure in their homes, and the ability to feel confident that their children are safe in their schools.

We cannot protect American lives and safety or preserve national security without preventing alien terrorists from entering the country. Alien terrorists are often able to enter the United States despite the fact that their entry violates our national interests. In several cases, the Department of Justice has spent many years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to remove terrorist aliens from the United States.

Terrorist organizations have developed sophisticated international networks that allow their members great freedom of movement and opportunity to strike. The need for special procedures to adjudicate deportation charges against alien terrorists is evident.

An increasing number of crimes are being committed by noncitizens: both legal and illegal aliens. Over one-quarter of all Federal prisoners are noncitizens--an astounding 42 percent of all Federal prisoners in my home State of Texas. Recidivism rates for criminal aliens are high--a recent GAO study revealed that 77 percent of noncitizens convicted of felonies are arrested at least one more time.

Mr. Speaker, too few criminal aliens are being deported today. The deportation process can be years in length. S. 735 streamlines the deportation process by eliminating frivolous challenges to deportation orders; expanding the list of aggravated felonies for which aliens can be deported; and closing the gap between the end of an alien's criminal sentence and the date the alien is deported from the United States.

Americans should not have to tolerate the presence of those who abuse both our immigration and criminal laws. S. 735 ensures that the forgotten Americans--the citizens who obey the law, pay their taxes, and seek to raise their children in safety--will be protected from the criminals and terrorists who want to prey on them. I urge my colleagues to vote "yes" on the terrorism prevention act.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The Speaker pro tempore:   Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference report.

There was no objection.

The Speaker pro tempore:   The question is on the conference report.

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. Hyde:   Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The Speaker pro tempore:   Evidently a quorum is not present.

The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 293, nays 133, not voting 7, as follows:

Roll No. 126
YEAS--293
Ackerman	Allard	Andrews	Archer	Armey
Bachus	Baesler	Baker (CA)	Baker (LA)	Baldacci
Ballenger	Barr	Barrett (NE)	Bartlett	Barton
Bateman	Bentsen	Bereuter	Bevill	Bilbray
Bilirakis	Bishop	Bliley	Blute	Boehlert
Boehner	Bono	Borski	Boucher	Brewster
Browder	Brown (CA)	Brown (FL)	Brownback	Bryant (TN)
Bunning	Burton	Buyer	Callahan	Calvert
Camp	Canady	Cardin	Castle	Chabot
Chambliss	Chapman	Christensen	Chrysler	Clement
Clinger	Clyburn	Coble	Coburn	Collins (GA)
Combest	Condit	Costello	Cox	Cramer
Cremeans	Cunningham	Danner	Davis	de la Garza
Deal	DeLauro	DeLay	Deutsch	Diaz-Balart
Dicks	Dingell	Dixon	Dooley	Doolittle
Dornan	Doyle	Dreier	Dunn	Durbin
Edwards	Ehlers	Ehrlich	Emerson	Engel
English	Ensign	Everett	Ewing	Fawell
Fazio	Flanagan	Foley	Forbes	Fowler
Fox	Franks (CT)	Franks (NJ)	Frelinghuysen	Frisa
Frost	Gallegly	Ganske	Gejdenson	Gekas
Gephardt	Geren	Gibbons	Gilchrest	Gillmor
Gilman	Gingrich	Gonzalez	Goodlatte	Goodling
Gordon	Goss	Green (TX)	Greene (UT)	Greenwood
Gunderson	Gutknecht	Hall (OH)	Hall (TX)	Hamilton
Hansen	Harman	Hastert	Hastings (FL)	Hefley
Hefner	Heineman	Hobson	Hoke	Holden
Horn	Houghton	Hoyer	Hunter	Hyde
Inglis	Istook	Jefferson	Johnson (CT)	Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.	Johnson, Sam	Kanjorski	Kasich	Kelly
Kennelly	Kim	Kingston	Kleczka	Klink
Klug	Knollenberg	Kolbe	Lantos	Largent
Latham	LaTourette	Laughlin	Lazio	Leach
Levin	Lewis (CA)	Lightfoot	Lincoln	Linder
Lipinski	Livingston	LoBiondo	Longley	Lowey
Lucas	Luther	Maloney	Manton	Martini
Mascara	Matsui	McCollum	McCrery	McDade
McHale	McHugh	McInnis	McIntosh	McKeon
McNulty	Meehan	Menendez	Meyers	Mica
Miller (CA)	Miller (FL)	Mink	Moakley	Molinari
Montgomery	Moorhead	Moran	Morella	Murtha
Myrick	Nadler	Neal	Norwood	Nussle
Ortiz	Orton	Oxley	Packard	Pallone
Parker	Paxon	Payne (VA)	Peterson (FL)	Petri
Pickett	Pomeroy	Porter	Portman	Poshard
Pryce	Quillen	Quinn	Ramstad	Reed
Regula	Richardson	Riggs	Roberts	Roemer
Rogers	Rohrabacher	Ros-Lehtinen	Roth	Roukema
Royce	Salmon	Sawyer	Saxton	Schaefer
Schiff	Schumer	Seastrand	Sensenbrenner	Shaw
Shays	Shuster	Sisisky	Skelton	Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)	Smith (TX)	Smith (WA)	Solomon	Spence
Spratt	Stearns	Stenholm	Stupak	Talent
Tauzin	Taylor (MS)	Taylor (NC)	Tejeda	Thomas
Thornberry	Thornton	Thurman	Tiahrt	Torkildsen
Torricelli	Traficant	Upton	Vento	Volkmer
Vucanovich	Walker	Ward	Watts (OK)	Weldon (PA)
Weller	White	Whitfield	Wicker	Wolf
Young (AK)	Young (FL)	Zimmer
Nays--133
Abercrombie	Barcia	Barrett (WI)	Bass	Becerra
Beilenson	Berman	Bonilla	Bonior	Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)	Bunn	Burr	Campbell	Chenoweth
Clay	Clayton	Collins (IL)	Collins (MI)	Conyers
Cooley	Coyne	Crane	Crapo	Cubin
DeFazio	Dellums	Dickey	Doggett	Duncan
Eshoo	Evans	Farr	Fattah	Fields (LA)
Filner	Flake	Foglietta	Ford	Frank (MA)
Funderburk	Furse	Graham	Gutierrez	Hancock
Hastings (WA)	Hayworth	Herger	Hilleary	Hilliard
Hinchey	Hoekstra	Hostettler	Hutchinson	Jackson (IL)
Jacobs	Johnston	Jones	Kaptur	Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)	Kildee	King	LaFalce	LaHood
Lewis (GA)	Lewis (KY)	Lofgren	Manzullo	Markey
Martinez	McCarthy	McDermott	McKinney	Meek
Metcalf	Millender-McDonald	Minge	Mollohan	Myers
Nethercutt	Neumann	Ney	Oberstar	Obey
Olver	Owens	Pastor	Payne (NJ)	Pelosi
Peterson (MN)	Pombo	Radanovich	Rahall	Rangel
Rivers	Roybal-Allard	Rush	Sabo	Sanders
Sanford	Scarborough	Schroeder	Scott	Serrano
Shadegg	Skaggs	Skeen	Slaughter	Souder
Stark	Stockman	Stokes	Studds	Stump
Tate	Torres	Towns	Velazquez	Visclosky
Walsh	Wamp	Waters	Watt (NC)	Waxman
Weldon (FL)	Williams	Wilson	Wise	Woolsey
Wynn	Yates	Zeliff
NOT VOTING--7133
Coleman	Fields (TX)	Hayes	Jackson-Lee (TX)	Rose
Tanner	Thompson

Ms. Furse, Ms. McKinney, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Graham changed their vote from "yea" to "nay."

Mr. Chapman changed his vote from "nay" to "yea".

So the conference report was agreed to.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Continue to Terrorizing Habeas Corpus in the Year 2006