Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. We do have the motion to table.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me answer the distinguished Senator. There are people on both sides of the aisle over there who do not like this amendment. We have taken a year to get this done. It was done 1 month after we passed the Senate bill, which, by the way, was an excellent bill. The fact of the matter is, there are people over there who will kill this bill over any amendment at this particular point. Everybody knows that. This is not something new to us. We have had to fight our guts out to get this conference and get the conference report done. Frankly, there are a wide variety of viewpoints on this bill and on some of the aspects of this bill. Look, if somebody is making a bomb, it is very likely you could charge that person under conspiracy, or an attempt statute, or under a number of other statutes that have longer statutes of limitations. This is not--I do not want to call it a phony issue, but it certainly is not an issue that should allow a motion to recommit. Frankly, 3 years is plenty of time to get somebody who makes a bomb. If they do not get it under this statute, they will get it under something else. But if you expand it to 5 years, then all of these paperwork violations--which primarily is what is prosecuted under this statute, and some of them very unjustly so in the past--all of those become dragged out for another 2 years. Frankly, we want the law enforcement people, if they feel they have a legitimate reason to prosecute, to prosecute it, and do it quickly so the witnesses are available, so that a lot of other things can be done and the people can defend themselves. So there are a number of legitimate reasons why people do not like this amendment and why people in the House would not want this in the bill. The purpose of this is to give the bureaucrats a new lease on life without really stopping terrorism. That is what we are talking about here. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. We can wait until then.

Mr. HATCH. I certainly do.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, what is the current business?

Mr. HATCH. I yield back the remaining part of my time. What is the current business? Vote on Leahy Motion To Recommit

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HATCH. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, since these are two stacked votes, I ask unanimous consent that there be 1 minute for debate equally divided in the usual form prior to the vote on the motion to table the Biden-Boxer motion.

Mr. HATCH. This is a National Firearms Act and 3-year limitation. These are mainly paperwork violations. If someone violates beyond that--and for even paperwork they can get them for conspiracy. They can prosecute them under a whole variety of statutes that have longer statutes of limitation. This is not a serious issue to us in the Senate, but it is a very serious issue to those in the House. We have worked hard to fashion this compromise. It is a doggone good compromise. Our friends in the House have really worked hard to help us to get it done. Frankly, this motion, as well as others, would kill the bill. So I hope my fellow Senators will vote against this motion.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield the last 3 minutes to the distinguished senior Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished junior Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. HATCH. He did not. I am happy to then proceed with the vote on the Biden amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, what is the status of the bill?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I was under the mistaken belief that we would have some extra time, but I would like to give some time before final passage, equally divided. I would like to be able to give 3 minutes to the two distinguished Senators from Oklahoma. That would mean 6 minutes to the minority. I ask unanimous consent that we have 12 minutes, equally divided.

Mr. HATCH. Prior to the final vote.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, do we have motions to table on both of these amendments? And will they be back to back?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we stack the next two votes to occur immediately after the time expires on Senator Kennedy's amendment.

Mr. HATCH. We have been doing this for a year. We are trying to pass a bill here that will make a difference against terrorist crimes. I can say categorically that there is virtually always a way to get wiretaps if the prosecution wants it, if the law enforcement people want it. To just add the word terrorism, that would be efficacious, but it still would not stop anybody--if you do not add it, it still would not stop anybody from getting the necessary wiretaps in the case of suspected terrorists. We can overdue these technicalities to the end of the doggone Congress. The fact is, this bill contains alien terrorist removal provisions that will make a real difference. It contains designation of terrorist organizations that we do not have right now, neither of these provisions, that will make a real difference today. We have Hamas people in this country who want to murder our Jewish citizens, just to mention a few. We have Abu Nidal people in this country who want to murder our Jewish citizens and others, do anything to disrupt our economy. We have other terrorist organizations in this country. We have at least 1,500 known terrorists and organizations in this country. And we are standing here debating whether or not we should put a word into the bill. Now, I agree I would love to put it in, but in this year-long set of negotiations and work with the other body, they did not want it put in that way. They are concerned that we are expanding wiretapping too far. It is a legitimate concern. This world is turned upside down. When I got here 20 years ago, the conservatives wanted the wiretapping because they wanted to stop all crimes. The liberals did not want it because they were concerned about civil liberties. I can remember the battles we had in the Judiciary Committee, and they were heated and intense. Today, it is the opposite. The conservatives, some conservatives, especially those on the far right--and I might add, the far left liberals still do not want wiretapping, but the far right conservatives are concerned because they feel like justice went awry in Waco and Ruby Ridge, the Good Ol' Boys roundup and other matters. Those are legitimate concerns that they bring. Let me just say this. I would not mind putting this in the bill if I could at this point, but I cannot and still have a bill. We have a bill that has alien terrorist removal provisions. It would help this country all over the world. It would help other countries all over the world. Designation of terrorist organizations, we start to put a stop to terrorist organizations. It would certainly stop the fundraising. We have language that will stop the raising of funds in the United States of America that are sponsoring terrorism all over this world. These are big provisions. These are things that can make a difference. We can get around these other technicalities, and we can get wiretaps if we need them. But we cannot get these things without this bill. Summary exclusion of alien terrorists, we have a right to do it because of this bill. These were provisions we had to fight to get back into the bill that we had written in the Senate, provisions that will make a difference, not some technicality that is important and I would like to have in, that the Senator from Delaware would like to have in, and rightly so. I do not have any problem with that. We have not been able to get those technicalities in, but there are ways around those technicalities today without having them in. There are no ways around these provisions, none. We cannot do these things without this bill. Without this bill we could not stop many major terrorist problems in this country that could happen in the future. We have language in here on biological weaponry, something that is critical. Every one of us is concerned about that, and rightly so. We succeeded in getting the House to tighten up and toughen up those provisions dealing with the transportation and sale of human biological agents. That needs to be done. We should not wait a day longer; we should not wait an hour longer to get that done. We have criminal alien removal procedures. When these criminal aliens get convicted, the minute their sentence is over, they are moved. We get them out of this country so they cannot just waltz out of the jail and go and start doing further terrorist activities. We have $1 billion in authorization money in this bill, to go to work tomorrow, if we pass this bill and as soon as the President signs it, to go to work to fight against this terrorist activity. We have language in here that goes a long way toward tagging explosives. I could go on and on. I could talk for 4 or 5 hours on what is in this bill and why it is going to make a difference against terrorism. I have to say my colleague from Delaware deserves his reputation as a very fine lawyer and somebody who is bringing up very good points here. Most of the language he has brought up, I wrote. Naturally, some of it I would like to have in the bill. But we can get around most of those problems with current criminal law. We cannot get around these problems I am discussing with regard to terrorism. Let me just say on wiretapping alone, just so people understand how serious this is, in 18 United States Code, section 2518, it says: Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any investigative or law enforcement officer, [any, by the way] specially designated by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General or by the principal prosecuting attorney of any State or subdivision thereof acting pursuant to a statute of that State, who reasonably determines that-- (a) an emergency situation exists that involves-- (i) immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person, (ii) conspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest, or (iii) conspiratorial activities characteristic of organized crime, that requires a wire, oral, or electronic communication to be intercepted before an order authorizing such interception can, with due diligence, be obtained. . . . I would like all this clarifying language in. I would not mind having it. We had it in the Senate bill and we have worked for a year to try to get it back in and almost every major, big provision we have gotten back in. Some of this we have not. But we have ways to get around those problems. I will repeat it. Talking in real terms, realistically, there is always a way to do it if it has to be done, to get a wiretap. But there is not always a way to remove terrorist aliens. There is not a way right now to designate terrorist organizations as terrorists and to start branding them for what they are all over the world and start using the force of American power and law against them. There is no real way to stop fundraising today for terrorist organizations in this country. I might say there is no summary exclusion of alien terrorists today. We do not have any aspects against biological weapons. I was the one who held the hearing just a month or so ago, showing where you could get--anybody if they were clever enough, could get human pathogens that could cause major diseases all over this country. I might add, we do not have any current criminal alien removal procedures. This bill grants all of that. We do not have habeas corpus reform, death penalty reform in this country. That alone, the people who have suffered, the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing would be enough to justify this bill. But I am giving you big-time stuff that will make a difference against terrorism. These other matters, we can get around those in most instances. I am telling you, I will just say one other thing. I am committing right here on the floor today I will do everything in my power, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee and as one of 100 Senators here, to try to correct some of these matters in the future, after we have these studies that help us to know how to correct them and after we can get rid of some of these perceptions that law enforcement is too intrusive and is not protective of the civil rights and liberties of people in this country. I believe it is. I believe our law enforcement people are the best in the world. We have occasional mistakes, but I think the FBI is the best in the world. I think our Justice Department is the best in the world. I think ATF does a very good job and they are cleaning up a lot of problems that have existed in the past in the eyes of most people who own guns in this country, and they are doing it, I think, in an expeditious and good way. I am proud of the law enforcement in this country. I want to give them the tools and I want to work hard to make sure we have them. But we have to give them these tools now. We have to start fighting terrorism, instead of really babbling, here, on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The longer we go the more difficult it is to get this through over in the House. If we change one word of this and go back to conference, I can tell you right now we are in danger of losing the bill. So, sure I can improve any bill. Just make me a dictator and let me write whatever I want to and I guarantee you it will be perfect. At least that is the idea of some people in this body. But we have to live in the real world of bringing 100 Senators, 435 Representatives--535 minds together and, by gosh, we have done a pretty good job. When the Senator read the Internet bomb description, had his idea-- and I might add even I would agree with the idea--been the law, he might have been in violation of his own law. The fact of the matter is, there are still ways of getting around that problem. We can go after bomb makers, under this bill. We can make a difference. I just wanted to mention a few things that we are really fighting for here, major issues, major issues that can help us against crime, against terrorism, that will help to prevent future terrorist activities. Do we have everything in this bill? I said from the beginning, no, we do not, because we have to bring together at least half of the 535 people serving in both Houses of Congress. But we have a lot of things in this bill I never thought we would get there, through 535 people. This is a bipartisan bill. It is a bill that both Republicans and Democrats have fashioned. Frankly, I am proud of it and I would like to get about passing it. In that regard, then, on behalf of Senator Dole and myself, I move to table the Senator's motion and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to conduct three (3) consecutive hearings during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 17, Thursday, April 18, and Friday, April 19, 1996, on the President's budget request for fiscal year 1997 for Indian programs and related budgetary issues from fiscal year 1996. The hearings will be held at 1:30 p.m. each day in room 485 on the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, like I say, I am sympathetic to what the Senator is trying to do. He knows that. But he also knows that we have gone through this and we have come up with this bill after a year of intensive battling, fighting. And it is not just the conservatives that were there; it is the far left. We have worked hard on this, and this is the bill we could come up with. Do we want to do something about terrorism or do we want to kill the bill? That is what it comes down to. Frankly, it is not just any one of these things. It could be any one of these things. We have worked it out. It is a good bill, and it will make a difference. It will start fighting terrorism right now. In the end, it seems to me if we can ever get to a final vote on this, we will have something of which virtually everybody who thinks about it will be proud. So I move to table the motion on behalf of Senator Dole and myself and ask for the yeas and nays.