Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I do not disagree with my two distinguished colleagues on that side that this might be a useful provision. After all, I wrote it, and we put it in the Senate bill. I drafted the multipoint language in the Senate bill. However, since that time, some have raised, in their eyes, serious questions as to whether this expanded authority to wiretap American citizens and others is necessary. Because of that, we have worked out this bill through a long series of meetings for over a year, culminating Monday night in a conference where we put everything in this bill we could possibly get into it. We brought it very close to what the original Senate bill was. I think it is a darned good bill. We could not get the other side to agree on this provision. It comes down to whether we want a bill or we do not. To this end, because of that, then I insisted we at least put in a study, a balanced study to look at the excesses of law enforcement with regard to wiretapping and the needs of law enforcement with regard to wiretapping and the applications of it. The distinguished Senator from Connecticut and I both understand how important it is, and so does, of course, the ranking Democrat on the committee. We will require the Justice Department to review its law enforcement surveillance needs and report back to Congress. On that basis, I just want to say that I am committed to working with both Senator Biden and Senator Lieberman to craft legislation which will provide law enforcement with the electronic surveillance capabilities it needs, wiretap authority it needs. I am going to get this done one way or the other in an appropriate way, but the study is important in the eyes of those on the other side. It is important in my eyes. I do not want to go into this thing halfcocked, nor do I want to lose this bill because others feel we may be moving into it halfcocked without having looked at it in a balanced way. So I will work with both of my colleagues to craft legislation to provide law enforcement with whatever wiretap authority, expanded wiretap authority it needs beyond what it has today. I give my colleagues my assurance that we will move in this direction with dispatch. I think they both know, when I say that, I mean it. The truth, however, is that this provision would have done nothing--and I repeat nothing--to stop the Oklahoma bombing. This is not antiterrorism legislation that would have been necessary to stop the Oklahoma bombing. While multipoint wiretaps may be useful in crime investigation, we simply do not need to put them in this particular legislation at this time. Last evening, Israel was bombed in another bombing attack. I personally do not believe we should wait one more day--knowing that is going on over there and knowing that we have at least 1,500 known terrorists and organizations in this Nation, I do not think we should wait one more day, not one more hour in my book, in voting for final passage of this bill. We want to assure that terrorist funding is prohibited and stopped, and this bill goes a long way toward doing that. Let me mention for the record the letters of support that we have for this bill. They are wide ranging and across the political spectrum: The National Association of Attorneys General, the National Association of Police Officers, the National District Attorneys Association, the Anti- Defamation League, Survivors of the Oklahoma Bombing, Citizens for Law and Order, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs Association, the National Troopers Association, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, 34 individual State attorneys general including the California attorney general, California's District Attorneys Association, the National Government Association with regard to the habeas corpus provision, and various Governors, and so forth. It is okayed by the Governor of Oklahoma, who is a Republican, Frank Keating, and by the Democrat attorney general, with whom I have had a great deal of joy working, Drew Edmonson. I have a lot of respect for him, and he has been willing to work with us to try to get this done. Frankly, we do not have a letter, but we do have the verbal support of AIPAC, and I might say other attorneys general in this country who have written to us and want to be mentioned. We will put that all in the Record. This is important. This bill is important. I know my colleagues know I am sincere when I say I will find some way of resolving these multipoint wiretap problems. Unfortunately, they were called roving wiretaps when they came up, and just that rhetorical term has caused us some difficulties and has caused some of the people who feel, after Waco, Ruby Ridge, Good Ol' Boys Roundup, et cetera, that even law enforcement sometimes is too intrusive into all of our lives, and at this particular time of the year, at tax time, with the feelings about the IRS, there are some who literally feel this is going too far and it will kill this bill if we put it in. So I will move ahead. We will have the study, but I will move ahead even while the study is being conducted and do everything I can with my two colleagues here to get this problem resolved. I intend to do it, and we will get it done. I am going to move to table this. I hope folks will vote for the motion to table so that we can continue to preserve this bill and get it done, quit playing around with it and get it done. I yield the floor. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. The fact is that we have to pass this bill. Frankly, I think we can get this problem solved. It is kind of a world turned upside down. When I got here 20 years ago, it was the conservatives who wanted expanded wiretap authority and the liberals fought it with everything they had. But now all of a sudden we have the liberals fighting for wiretap authority and conservatives concerned about it. The fact is it is not just the rhetoric. There is some sincere concern on the part of some Members of the House who are crucial to the passage of this bill about putting this in at this time. I believe we can resolve this problem in the future, and I will work hard to do it with my colleagues, but it really cannot be in this bill if we want a terrorism bill at this time. I yield back the remainder of my time. On behalf of Senator Dole and myself, I move to table the motion and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I will not take long because, frankly, it comes down to one thing: that we have worked this bill out. We have worked hard with the House Members. It has been very difficult to do. They have made significant concessions to us, and rightfully so. We applaud them for doing so because we have our problems here, and they have their problems there. Anybody who has been in this process very long understands that once you reach a conference report like this--especially this one, which has taken a year to get here--any change is going to kill the bill-- especially this provision. Section 108 of the Senate bill, in part, would increase from 3 to 5 years the limitations period for commencing actions for violations of the National Firearms Act. The reason it is opposed by Members of the House, and the reason I oppose this attempt to increase the limitations provision, simply put, is because it is unnecessary. It does absolutely nothing with regard to terrorism. The 3-year Internal Revenue Code statute of limitation period for licensed firearms dealers violating the National Firearms Act is more than an adequate time to commence prosecutions. There is no sanguine reason to extend the period. This has nothing to do with terrorism. It may be a good idea in another context, but it is apparent that it would cause plenty of problems in this context because there are simply people in the House--and I suspect here--who disagree with the distinguished Senator from California, who is very sincere in putting this amendment forward. The statute of limitations period should be built upon fairness. These types of statutes of limitation must protect the Government's ability to prosecute claims and violations of the law. Yet, they also have to protect citizenry from stale claims and bureaucratic abuse. In this area there are a significant number of people on both sides of the floor here, and in the House of Representatives in particular, who have seen unfairness by various bureaucratic abusers and do not want to change this. The traditional 3-year limitations period here accomplishes this fine balance between public needs and private rights. If we look at the underlying National Firearms Act offenses subject to a 3-year limitations period, the violations either prohibit dealers from possessing or transferring illegal firearms, such as banned machine guns or sawed-off shotguns, or possessing or transferring them without the proper firearm identification serial numbers, or through fraudulent applications or records. The 3-year limitations period, historically, has been more than sufficient to prosecute claims under the act, some being substantive but many of an administrative or of a paperwork nature. Some are technical. And we have seen abuses. Extending the limitations period to 5 years does absolutely nothing except perhaps open the system up to abuse and unfairness. Frankly, that is why our colleagues in the House are against this amendment. That is why I am against it here today. I am prepared to yield, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, look, if the Senator's arguments are valid, why do we not make it a 100-year statute of limitations? I mean, we can make it that way. They can prosecute any time they want to prosecute. The fact of the matter is that we are trying to balance our law enforcement needs. Most of these are paperwork violations that are going to be automatically ascertained within a very short period of time, certainly within 3 years. If we make it 5 years, they will wait 4\1/2\ years before prosecuting on a paperwork violation rather than 2\1/2\ years, which is sometimes the case now. There is simply no reason to extend the statute of limitations for this act. Anyone who uses a bomb, as is the illustration by the Senator from California, or illegal weapon, under this act, will be prosecuted under the Criminal Code and receive far larger penalties than are under this act. The majority of these offenses are mere paperwork offenses and have little or nothing to do with terrorism. Essentially, it would permit bureaucrats, like I say, 4\1/2\ years to start an investigation instead of 2\1/2\ years. That is really sometimes what happens. Let us get back to where we were; that is, that we have arrived at a compromise here, and we have had to bring the House a long distance to meet the needs of the Senate. They have cooperated and have worked hard. Chairman Hyde and the other members of the conference have all worked very hard on this, and this is where we are. There are those on both sides of the floor over there who do not like this amendment, and, frankly, it would be a deal killer and a bill killer. If we want an antiterrorism bill, we have to vote down this motion to recommit. I am prepared to yield the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday April 17, 1996, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. What is the regular order, Mr. President?

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have listened to my distinguished colleague and friend, and he would like to restore the Senate bill. We just cannot do that. I was very proud of that Senate bill. I wrote most of it and, frankly, I think our colleagues worked together to come up with a good bill. When it went to the House, the House enacted a bill which really was much less than the Senate bill. We have gone to conference and have brought most all of the Senate bill back. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts says that this bill we have today is a hollow shell. Now, come on. Let me just go through some highlights of this bill. We have most everything back, and the things we do not have back, we can probably, in the real world, solve anyway, under current existing law. I have to say, yes, I would prefer the original Senate bill, but let me give you one illustration. In the fundraising provisions, I might add that the Antidefamation League, and others of similar mind--and I am of similar mind--believe that our fundraising language is far superior in this bill than it was in the Senate bill. I know it is far superior. We were able to work that out with our colleagues in the House. That alone is a reason for preferring this bill over the Senate bill, plus the added promise that I have made here that I will try to work out these wiretap and other issues, or at least the wiretap issues, in the Senate Judiciary Committee. But just look at the highlights of this antiterrorism bill. Capital punishment reform, death penalty reform, something that has been needed for years, decades. It is being abused all over the country. There are better than 3,000 people who have been living on death row for years with the sentences never carried out, the victims going through the pain every time they turn around. This will solve that problem while still protecting their constitutional rights and every right of appeal that they really should have. It is written well. The international terrorism prohibitions, prohibitions on international terrorist fundraising. As I have said, the Anti- Defamation League, AIPAC, and a whole raft of others that are concerned in this area, like the language in this bill much better than the language in the Senate bill. This subtitle adds to Federal law prohibitions which provide material support to, or raise funds for, foreign organizations designated by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, to be terrorist organizations. We have the Terrorist and Criminal Alien Removal and Exclusion Act in this bill. We remove alien terrorists, and we provide very good language that was very much the same as the Senate language. We have the exclusion of members or representatives of terrorist organizations, the alien terrorists exclusion, if you will. This permits, as a new legal basis for alien exclusion, the denial of entry into the United States of any person who is a representative or member of a designated terrorist organization. We have a whole title on nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons restrictions. These are not picayune provisions. This is big-time stuff. This is something this country has needed for years and the whole world needs. We have it in this bill. We have the expansion of scope and jurisdictional bases of nuclear materials prohibitions and a report to Congress on thefts of explosive materials from armories. We require the Attorney General, together with the Secretary of Defense, to undertake a study of the number of thefts of firearms, explosives, and other terrorist-type materials from military arsenals. We will make them get on these things. We have biological weapons restrictions, enhanced penalties, and control of biological agents. We have chemical weapons restrictions, chemical weapons, and biological weapons of mass destruction. We provide for a study of the facility for training and the evaluation of personnel who respond to the use of chemical or biological weapons in urban or suburban areas. We have the implementation of the Plastic Explosives Convention in here. We have the marking of plastic explosives. We have studies on the marking of other explosives and putting taggants on them. We have made a whole bunch of modifications in criminal law to counterterrorism, increased penalties for conspiracies involving explosives. All this talk about explosives. We provide language in here that will help to solve those problems. Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries, we have language on that. We have criminal procedure changes in here that would make a real difference with regard to certain terrorism offenses overseas, the clarification of maritime violence jurisdiction, increased and alternate conspiracy penalties for terrorism offenses, clarification of Federal jurisdiction over bomb threats. The expansion and modification of weapons of mass destruction statute is in here, the addition of terrorism offenses to the money laundering statute. We have the protection of Federal employees in here mainly because it is needed now in this day and age with some of the vicious people we have to put up with in our society. We have the protection of current and former officials in here, officers, employees of the United States. We have the death penalty as an aggravating factor. We solve that and add multiple killings to the list of aggravating factors in the imposition of the death penalty. We have detention hearing language in here and directions to the sentencing commission. I have to say, we have a whole raft of other things that I do not have time to mention. Look, it is time to pass this terrorism bill. It is time to let the people in Oklahoma City know we mean business here. Is the time expired on both sides? On behalf of the majority leader and I, I move that we table the Kennedy amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the only remaining motions to recommit in order to the pending conference report be the following: Two additional Biden motions; further, that the motions be limited to the restrictions previously agreed to, and that following the debate on all motions and the conference report, the Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to the pending motions, to be followed by a vote on the adoption of the conference report, all without any intervening action or debate, with the exception of using 6 minutes, equally divided, for debate prior to the final passage vote.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, again, in the real world, in the case of the Unabomber or a terrorist where there is a real threat or an immediate concern, you do not need this provision to get an emergency wiretap. All the Senator's motion does is expand the number of crimes that would trigger the wiretap statute. This amendment was offered during the Senate debate. It was defeated. It was not a part of the Senate bill. It was not a part of the House bill. It is not a part of our conference report, and rightly so. I oppose this provision that could expand emergency wiretap authority to permit the Government to begin a wiretap prior to obtaining court approval in a greater range of cases than the law presently allows. I personally find this proposal troubling. I am concerned that this provision, if enacted, would unnecessarily broaden emergency wiretap authority. Under current law, such authority exists when life is in danger, when the national security is threatened, or when an organized crime conspiracy is involved. In the real world, we do not need this amendment to get emergency wiretap authority, and that is a fact. Let me also say that this authority is constrained by a requirement that surveillance be approved by the Court within 48 hours, but that authority already exists in those areas I have addressed. Now, this proposal of the distinguished Senator from Delaware would expand those powers to any conspiratorial activity characteristic of domestic or international terrorism. I do not think that expansion is necessary to effectively battle the threat of terrorism. You can get that emergency authority now. In the Unabomber case, no question; when terrorist acts are threatened, no question. I think that the opinion of many, many experts would agree with this analysis. Now, it is also very important to note that it is not 35 conservatives over in the House that are against this. The vast majority of people against this amendment happen to be liberals who are very concerned with an unwarranted expansion of wiretap authority and surveillance authority. I have to say now there is an increasing number of libertarian conservatives who are becoming more concerned over law enforcement and some of the approaches that have been taken. I personally believe that those concerns are not justified. On the other hand, they are legitimate concerns, and they arise primarily out of the Waco and Ruby Ridge and Good Ol' Boys Roundup, and other types of law enforcement mistakes that really were made. I have called them mistakes. Some people have felt that they should be characterized a little stronger than that. Frankly, I am proud of the law enforcement agencies of this country. I know these people. I know what wonderful people they are. I know how much they risk their lives for you and me. But we do not need this authority in order to do emergency wiretaps in these particular areas. At this point, I should like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from California, who has asked me for some time.

Mr. HATCH. Is there any other time remaining?

Mr. HATCH. I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. HATCH. Then we will both yield the remainder of our time. Can we proceed to the next amendment? Motion To Recommit

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this Commission will explore issues surrounding the future and mission of Federal law enforcement as we enter the 21st century. Among other things, the Commission will assess our efforts to prevent and investigate future acts of domestic and international terrorism. It will consider the pressing issues facing law enforcement as crime rates rise and as criminals become more sophisticated. I appreciate the fact that the law enforcement community is sensitive to this sort of review, but this Commission is different in focus, and we made it different in focus in the conference from the House-passed version. What was once a Waco-Ruby Ridge Commission with subpoena power is now a Commission to help Congress set Federal law enforcement priorities for the 21st century. It is a Commission which, in my opinion, will help law enforcement. I must say to my friends in the law enforcement community that I only learned of their concerns after the report was filed. If there are specific areas of the Commission's scope which are truly troublesome, I will work with them to try to address their concerns. It should be noted that the last time a Commission looked at Federal law enforcement was over 60 years ago in 1931. In that year, the Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement, established by President Hoover, better known as the Wickersham Commission, made public its recommendations to Congress. In a report signed by its chair, former Attorney General Wickersham, the Commission concluded that the growth of interstate crime, an interstate organized crime network, and interstate property and economic criminal activities, mandated the need for an increased Federal role in law enforcement. At that time, the findings and recommendations of that Commission were truly a major contribution to the fight against crime in this country. There is more I have to say on this. At the appropriate time, I will move to table both of the Biden motions, because this Commission is thought to be extremely critical by people in the House. We have bona fide it to make it more palatable to those who object to it, and I believe we bona fide it to a degree that it can be acceptable. On the other hand, we will continue to look at this language after this bill is passed, and I will continue to listen to law enforcement and others who are concerned and see what we can do to resolve their concerns. I am pleased to yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. I yield back my 2 minutes. I understand the time of the minority is also expired.

Mr. HATCH. On behalf of Senator Dole and myself, I move to table both of the Biden amendments, with the understanding that these votes are stacked.

Mr. HATCH. Could I also ask unanimous consent that the first vote be 15 minutes in length, but the last two votes be 10 minutes each?

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Would the Senator withhold that?

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I think it is time to vote on the antiterrorism bill. I have to say that I do not think anybody denies the minority a right to bring up irrelevant amendments. But it is happening on everything. It has happened now for 2--actually better than 2--solid years. When you get something as important as the immigration bill--and I have to say, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, we worked our guts out to get that bill here because it is such an important bill. It is a bill that every border State in this country and every State in this country is concerned about. Senator Simpson has just plain worked for years to get this up. I do not agree with Senator Simpson on every aspect of that bill, but I sure admire him. I admire the effort he has put in. I just think it is a tragedy that we cannot move and get the thing done. It is something that every Democrat and every Republican wants to do. Also, as a former member of and former chairman of the Labor Committee, we have had these minimum wage fights year after year, time after time, and, frankly, to bring it up on immigration, it is a matter of great concern to me that they would do that. These are a couple of bills--the immigration bill and the antiterrorism bill--that literally ought to be bipartisan every step of the way. We can have our differences, but we ought to be working to resolve these bills. Sometimes I think this body does not seem to care about what is important for the people out there. I have to admit that there are very sincere people on the minimum wage. On the other hand, there are other opportunities to bring that up, I suppose. These two bills really should not have a bunch of irrelevant amendments. Today, the Senate begins consideration of the conference report on S. 735, the Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This is a particularly relevant time to begin this debate because we are fast approaching the 1-year anniversary of the heinous crime that claimed the lives of so many men, women, and children in Oklahoma City, OK. Indeed, this Friday, the 19th, marks the 1-year anniversary of that tragedy. I hope we can in an orderly, decent way get this bill done today so that we can send it to the House and they can do it, so that we can at least do what the Senate ought to do in commemoration of the lives of those who died last year--and those who died in the Lockerbie airline crash, those who have been terrorized all over this world, but especially those who have been and will yet be terrorized in this country. Although many of the physical wounds endured by the survivors of that blast in Oklahoma City have healed, the wounds to their hearts continue to bleed. We met with a number of them yesterday. Those folks really want this bill. During this past year, as I have spent time with my own family-- Elaine and I have 6 children; all 6 of them are married now, and we have 15 grandchildren--my thoughts have often turned to the survivors of the Oklahoma City tragedy and to the families of those who lost their loved ones on that terrible day a year ago this Friday. I cannot imagine what it would be like to have my family taken from me by the acts of evil men and perhaps women. I have to say my heart went out to these survivors yesterday who came back here at their own expense to stand with us at that press conference and announce that we finally have arrived at a bill after this full year of effort. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet with some of the families who lost loved ones on that fateful day. The one thing that the survivors of that tragedy and the victims of that tragedy requested was that we try to provide justice to the memories of those who lost their lives in that terrorism blast. I want to quote the family members of the victim of the bomb who spoke to the Nation yesterday about the need for this bill. Dianne Leonard lost her husband Don, an agent of the U.S. Secret Service. Despite her pain, she came here yesterday, along with other victims of terrorism, and made one of the most eloquent statements I have ever heard on the issue. She said: In an effort to be caring and honorable human beings, we have granted perpetrators of violent crime much more than their constitutional rights. Our caring and honorable intentions have been misdirected. Instead, we as a society have been cold and heartless, because we have forgotten the innocent victims of crime. We have forgotten the sheer terror of the victims immediately prior to their death. We have forgotten that anyone who could murder an innocent human being has relinquished his rights for compassion. That is what Dianne said. Mr. President, that is what this is all about. It is not about whether this bill is weaker. We all know that it is not. It is about whether we will stand with the victims of terrorism and violent crime or not. I am not sure we can ever provide justice to those families in this life. I hope, however, that we can, perhaps, bring some peace to the survivors of that tragedy in that we can enact this antiterrorism legislation in their memory. For once, just once, I hope we can put aside the partisan wrangling that often occurs here and simply do what is right--just once, on a bill like this. It is my firm belief that passing this conference report represents the right thing to do. The legislation that Representative Hyde and I have negotiated represents a landmark bipartisan effort to prevent and punish acts of domestic and international terrorism. Indeed, the Republican Governor of Oklahoma and the Democratic attorney general of Oklahoma both support this legislation--strongly support it. I would like to note the efforts of Representative Chuck Schumer, Charles Schumer, of New York, in working with us to craft this legislation. Representative Schumer, who signed the conference report as a Democrat, made significant contributions to the final product. We tried to accommodate our colleagues on the other side to the extent that we could--in fact, on both sides of this issue, as we negotiated this measure. Our majority leader, Senator Dole, was instrumental in moving negotiations on this bill forward. With Senator Dole's leadership, we were able to put back into the bill many of the provisions that the House had removed. Without Senator Dole's able leadership, I do not think we would have been able to have a bill that is as tough on terrorism as this one is. Let me just give a few of the major areas we were able to agree on and get back into this bill that made it much closer to the Senate bill. The terrorist alien removal provision: We restored the terrorist alien removal provision which allows courts to expeditiously deport alien terrorists. The court can consider classified evidence without disclosing that evidence to the alien. We put back in designation of terrorist organizations. This has greatly pleased a number of civil liberties organizations, and I have to say the Anti-Defamation League. We worked with the House on language to allow the President to designate foreign terrorist organizations. This provision was not in the House-passed bill. A weaker version than this one was in the Senate bill. This tougher version eliminates an entire level of judicial review and allows the Government to freeze the assets of foreign terrorists before the designation becomes public. On the issue of fundraising, we make it a crime to donate or accept funds for foreign terrorist organizations. The House had removed this provision. The Senate bill contained that provision. It is a big, big provision. We have summary exclusion of alien terrorists. The Senate prevailed in including a provision which creates a new legal basis for automatic alien exclusion from the United States when the person is a representative or member of any designated foreign terrorist organization. On biological weapons, we also succeeded in getting the House to toughen up regulations dealing with the transportation and sale of human biological agents which could be used as weapons of mass destruction. The criminal alien removal procedures--the Senate bill made it much easier for an alien who had been convicted of an aggravated felony to be deported. The House bill was definitely weaker on that point. We prevailed. We put the Senate language back in. These are big concessions by our colleagues over in the House, some of whom have problems, some of whom are worried that Government is too intrusive in all of our lives--and I think rightfully so, in many ways. But we got these things in. On authorizations, the House bill had virtually no funding for Federal law enforcement on this antiterrorism area. The Senate bill had a little over $2 billion over 5 years. We agreed on $1 billion in funding for Federal and State law enforcement over 4 years. We have already spent almost a half billion dollars this year--maybe a little more than that. So, in essence, we got the Senate funding into this bill. On taggants, we have put taggants on plastic explosives, which are the primary explosives used by terrorist organizations and by terrorists. There will be taggants on there so we can determine the source. With regard to other explosives--because even the OTA, even ATF, admit that there may be some danger involved in putting taggants in other explosives--they are not sure of being efficacious for law enforcement, or even cost effective to do so, and to mandate that--we provided for a study for a year. Then we provided for a means whereby the regulators can come up with their regulations--if that study shows that it is environmentally sound, economically sound, law enforcement efficacious, and that it is not dangerous--then the regulators can come up with regulations on taggants, and then the Congress will have to make a determination whether they accept those regulations or not. Those are just a few of the things that we put back into this bill. We were able to craft legislation that adds important tools to the Government's rights in the Government fight against terrorism, but we do so in a temperate manner that is protective of civil liberties. Most important, this conference bill contains the habeas corpus reform proposal contained in the Senate terrorism bill. The House adopted it word for word. The present habeas corpus allows those who are convicted of brutal, heinous crimes to delay the imposition of just punishment for years. The habeas reform proposal contained in this legislation will end the ability of those heinous criminals, those violent criminals--those murderers, if you will, those justly convicted--to delay the imposition of their sentence. Habeas corpus reform is the only substantive provision in this bill that will directly affect the Oklahoma bombing situation. If those being tried for the bombing are convicted, our habeas corpus reform language will prevent them from delaying the imposition of their penalties on frivolous grounds. And we have all seen that year after year in every jurisdiction in this country. In Utah, we had one case that went 18 years, the ``hi-fi murderer,'' where he and his buddy went in there, where they tortured these people, rammed pencils through their eardrums, poured Drano down their throats, and murdered them in cold blood. No question of guilt, no question of any prejudice against them, they were convicted and justly sentenced to death. Mr. President, 18 years later, 28 appeals all the way up through the State courts to the State supreme court, all the way up to the Federal courts to the Federal Supreme Court--28 appeals, millions of dollars spent before that just sentence could be carried out. And that is going on in a myriad of cases all over this country. Rather than exploit it, the devastation of the Oklahoma City bombing, I believe that by including this provision in the antiterrorism legislation, we are protecting the families of the victims. Comprehensive habeas corpus reform is the only legislation Congress can pass as a part of this terrorism bill that will have a direct effect on the Oklahoma City bombing case. It is the one thing Congress can pass now to ensure that President Clinton's promise of swift justice is kept. President Clinton recognized this fact during his April 23, 1995, appearance on the television program ``60 Minutes,'' when, in response to a question about whether those responsible would actually be executed without the adoption of habeas corpus reform, he said, ``I do believe the habeas corpus provisions of the Federal law which permit these appeals sometimes to be delayed 7, 8, 9 years, should be changed. I have advocated that. I hope the Congress will pass a reform of the habeas corpus provisions because it should not take 8 or 9 years and three trips to the Supreme Court to finalize whether a person, in fact, is properly convicted or not.'' That is the President of the United States. Last Sunday, he called me. I was grateful for that call. It was late at night, and he called me at home before he left for Alaska. He wanted to have me bring him up to speed on what we were doing in the conference, what we were doing in the negotiations on this bill. And he said to me, ``I wish we could shorten the time. If I had my way, I would shorten the time, shorter than what you have in this bill.'' I said, ``That will be great, but I don't think we can do that at this point. This bill is fair.'' I pretty well acknowledged that. He noted he would not veto this bill based on the habeas corpus provisions. I explained some of the other changes we made, and he seemed pleased, because he knew we made great strides in trying to get a better bill that will really do the job, and this bill will. It does not solve every problem, but it sure goes a long way toward solving problems in the past and, above all and even more important perhaps, in the future. The claim that habeas corpus reform is tangential or unrelated to fighting terrorism is ludicrous. We can be confident that those responsible for the bombing in Oklahoma will be brought to justice. The American people do not want to witness the spectacle of these terrorists abusing our judicial system and delaying the imposition of a just sentence by filing appeal after meritless appeal. A system which permits such a result does not provide justice for the victims of terrorism and simply has to be changed, and this bill will do it--one of the most important changes in criminal law in this century, and we are going to do it. Although most capital cases are State cases--and the State of Oklahoma can still prosecute this case--the habeas reform proposal in this bill would apply to Federal death penalty cases as well. It would greatly affect the Government's prosecution of the Oklahoma bombing case. No. 1, it would place a 1-year limit for the filing of a habeas petition on all death row inmates, State and Federal inmates. No. 2, it would limit condemned killers convicted in State and Federal court to one habeas corpus petition. In contrast, under current law there is currently no limit to the number of petitions he or she may file and no time constraints. We have a case where a person waited 9 years to file a habeas petition on the eve of the carrying out of that person's sentence, clearly abusing the system. No. 3, it requires the Federal courts, once a petition is filed, to complete judicial action within a specified time period. Therefore, if the Federal Government prosecutes this case and the death penalty is sought and imposed, the execution of sentence could take as little as 1 year if our proposal passes. This is in stark contrast to, in the Utah case, an 18-year case of delay we are so used to under the current system, and there are cases that are longer than the 18-year case. President Clinton said justice, in the wake of the Oklahoma tragedy, would be ``swift, certain and severe.'' We must help President Clinton keep this promise to the families of those who were murdered in Oklahoma City by passing comprehensive habeas corpus reform now. Unfortunately, while habeas corpus reform is the single most important issue in this bill and will directly affect the Oklahoma City bombing, there are some who would urge the President to veto the bill on the basis of this reform proposal. I sincerely hope that this does not happen, and the President told me it would not happen on that proposal. We should not put our concern for convicted killers above our desire to see that justice is done and carried out. The Senate and House also worked together to restore many important provisions to the conference bill. For example, we restored the terrorist alien removal provision that allows courts to expeditiously deport alien terrorists. The Department of Justice requested this provision, and we worked with our House colleagues to ensure that this provision would be an effective means of removing alien terrorists from our shores, while at the same time protecting due-process concerns. Second, we adopted tough new procedures that would permit the Secretary of State to designate certain foreign organizations that commit acts of violence as terrorist groups. The designation procedure adopted in the conference report is much stronger than that contained in the original Senate bill. We have also criminalized fundraising efforts on behalf of designated foreign terrorist groups and provided for the exclusion of representatives or members of terrorist groups. I think that the recent bombings in the Middle East and in England are a tremendous problem, and they bring out the necessity of preventing fundraising in this country on behalf of organizations bent on killing innocent persons for political gain. This bill also includes provisions making it a crime to knowingly provide material support to the terrorist functions of foreign groups designated by a Presidential finding to be engaged in terrorist activities. We also succeeded in adopting tough new measures to regulate the transport and sale of human biological pathogens that could be used as weapons of mass destruction. This legislation increases the penalties for acts of foreign and domestic terrorism, including the use of weapons of mass destruction, attacks on officials and employees of the United States and conspiracy to commit terrorist acts. That has not been in the law up till now, and we are going to put it there, and it is going to be a tremendous prosecutorial tool against terrorist activity. It gives the President enhanced tools to use as foreign policy powers to combat terrorism overseas, and it gives those of our citizens harmed by terrorist acts of outlaw states the right to sue their attackers in our courts. Our bill also provides measured enhancements to the authority of Federal law enforcement to investigate terrorist threats and acts. In addition to giving law enforcement legal tools they need to do the job, our bill also authorizes increased resources for law enforcement to carry out its mission. The bill provides $1 billion over 4 years for an enhanced antiterrorism effort at the Federal and State levels. The bill also implements the convention on the marketing of plastic explosives. It requires that the makers of plastic explosives make their explosives detectable. I note that many of the provisions in this bill enjoy broad bipartisan support, and, in several cases, it passed the Senate on previous occasions. Indeed, we have worked closely with the administration during the development of this legislation, and many of the provisions in this bill have the administration's strong support. The people of the United States and around the world must know that terrorism is an issue that transcends politics and political parties. Our resolve in this matter has to be clear. Our response to the terrorist threats and to acts of terrorism will be certain, swift, and unified. I think we have to redouble our efforts to combat terrorism and to protect our citizens. A worthy first step would be the enactment of these sound provisions to provide law enforcement with the tools to fight terrorism. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support this conference report. Let me just also say there are some matters that we were not able to work out with the House that the distinguished Senator from Delaware and I would have preferred to have in this bill. We would have put in-- and we did have it in the Senate bill--multipoint wiretaps. It would be a more modern way of going at this matter. Of course, we have people who move from post to post, and it should not be the obligation of our law enforcement people to have to go and get a warrant for every telephone that they move to. I would prefer to have had that in here. We had it in the Senate bill. We were unable to get it in. I will tell you why. Because, frankly, there are people in the House who basically believe that the Government is too intrusive and that there needs to be a study done on the abuse of wiretapping and done on the needs of law enforcement for wiretapping before we make that step. I have to say, I do not particularly agree that it should not be in this bill. On the other hand, the study will do well. And I have committed myself, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and as a leader on that committee, to get that study done and to make sure that ultimately we resolve these problems in a way satisfactory to our law enforcement people. There are some other matters that may not be in this bill. We have not been able to put everything in here that the distinguished Senator from Delaware and I would put in this bill. But it is a terrific bill. We have a lot more in this bill than in the original bill filed by the President before the Oklahoma City bombing, and I might add in the original bill filed by the Senate through Senator Biden after the Oklahoma City bombing. By the way, there were no multipoint wiretap provisions in either of those President's bills. And so, you know, it is easy to see that some may try to make political hay out of that. But what the legislative process is is the art of the possible. There are other things we would like to have in this bill. They are not there. But we have both parties together, both bodies together. I think we have a bill that basically will make a real dent in the matter of terrorism. Let me just say this. One of our problems with regard to the multipoint wiretaps was that when the bill came up they called them roving wiretaps. Just that semantic term caused angst in the hearts of a lot of people around our society. I might add that the roving wiretap provisions were, I think, in the second bill filed by Senator Biden on behalf of the President. And if we called them multipoint wiretaps at that point, we might have been able to keep them in. I would prefer that they be in. But I do not think that the fact that they are not in should stop us from passing that which can pass now, that which is needed to fight terrorism, that which we have done and that which we can have done, and can do at this time. Let me just say in closing, that this is one of the most important bills in our country's history. It is not perfect, but it goes a long way toward preventing terrorist activities in the future. It goes a long way toward attacking these criminals the way they need to be attacked. It is a tough on crime bill. Could it be improved? Sure. I want to also say that without the leadership of our majority leader, Senator Dole, this bill would not be here today. He stood with us every step of the way. He worked with recalcitrant Members in both the Senate and the House in both parties. He has handled the matter well. And, frankly, I think he deserves an awful lot of the credit when this bill passes, if not the lion's share of the credit. So I would just plainly like to make these points and just say this in conclusion, that I really want to pass this bill this week, hopefully tonight, if not tomorrow, and then get it through the House, so that we can say to the people in Oklahoma City on Friday that we, as a Congress, in a bipartisan way, both Democrats and Republicans, with nobody really trying to take the credit for it, have done what is right for them. Frankly, when we pass this bill we will have done what is right for them. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to permit Nick Altree, Sammy Linebaugh, and Christina Rios privilege of the floor during the pendency of the terrorist bill.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have enjoyed my colleague's remarks. Senator Biden made some good points; some are not good, in my view. The most important issue in this debate happens to be habeas corpus reform. The one thing--the only thing--the one thing and the only thing that the Oklahoma victims have asked for, the only thing they mentioned and they asked for was habeas corpus reform. The survivors of that tragedy know that habeas is the most important issue for them. Habeas is particularly relevant here because the district attorney for Oklahoma City has promised--he has promised--that the perpetrators of the bombing will be tried for murder in State court. Thus, habeas corpus reform applies, because this bill applies to both Federal and State proceedings. Moreover, there is evidence that delay exists in the Federal courts, contrary to what my dear friend and colleague has said, and this habeas proposal places limits on Federal petitions for habeas corpus as well. The game is going to be over. The victims understand it. Thank God the rest of us are not victims of that bombing, but they understand it. They know darn well this is the only provision that really will make a difference in their lives. So habeas clearly applies to this situation. The point is that justice delayed is justice denied. It is impossible to stop a terrorist attack that is motivated by political fanaticism, and that appears to be what we have here and it appears to be what occurs in almost every terrorist attack. But it is possible to ensure that the perpetrators are punished. Justice delayed is justice denied. I also point out to my friend and colleague that the bill does contain tough antiterrorism provisions, contrary to what he indicated that this is the only provision this bill is all about and it is the whole bill. It is not at all. No. 1, we have the designation of foreign organizations as terrorist groups provision. It is a very, very important change in criminal law. It is a tough thing. The bill includes provisions making it a crime to knowingly provide material support to terrorist functions of foreign groups. This provision is aimed at cutting off the dollars and, thus, the lifeblood of foreign terrorist organizations that are wreaking havoc and destroying lives all over the world. The United States provides a lot of that money. People do not realize that here. They do not even realize we have up to 1,500--and I am just using very modest figures, these are figures from 10 years ago--at least 1,500 known terrorist groups and people in this country that we are watching and monitoring. Most people in this country do not realize how important this is, but the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, the World Trade Center, the Lockerbie bombing, they all know what is involved here, and that is what they asked for yesterday, and the reason they did is because they know it is going to make a difference. I worked hard to ensure that this provision will not violate the Constitution, that is the provision on habeas corpus reform. We have worked hard to make sure it does not violate the Constitution or place inappropriate restrictions on cherished first amendment freedoms. Nothing in the habeas provisions of this bill prohibits the free exercise of religion or speech or impinges on freedom of association. We are talking now about material support to terrorist functions of foreign groups. Moreover, nothing in the Constitution provides the right to engage in violence against fellow citizens or foreign nations. Aiding and financing foreign terrorist bombings is not constitutionally protected activity. Additionally, I have to believe that honest donors to any organization want to know if their contributions are being used for such scurrilous terrorism purposes. We are going to be able to tell them after this bill. This is an important provision. It is a major provision that we would want to pass whether we have habeas corpus in here or not, although the habeas provision is extremely important. Inextricably linked to this provision on being able to deter alien financing of foreign terrorist organizations is the related issue of the designation of certain foreign organizations as terrorist organizations to which the fundraising ban would also apply. I sympathize with the concerns that have been raised on this issue. However, I believe that there can be no effective ban on terrorist fundraising unless the Government is given limited power to designate which foreign groups are, indeed, engaged in terrorist activity. The United States has a responsibility to its own citizens and to the world community to help cut off funds flowing to terrorists. I am convinced we have crafted a narrow but effective designation provision which meets these obligations while safeguarding the freedom to associate, which none of us would willingly give up. So that provision of financing of foreign terrorist organizations is very important. No. 2, we provide a provision in here for the exclusion of members of terrorist organizations. We will not even let them come into this country. Right now they can and they do. We are going to get tough on that, and this legislation provides that type of law. It is important stuff. This is not just habeas corpus, although that is important in and of itself. It is the only thing that the victims yesterday called for. They said it is the one thing they want more than anything else. But these other provisions are important, too. No. 3, we have a prohibition, like I say, on terrorist fundraising activities in this society. No. 4, we prohibit financial transactions with terrorists, and we provide the language that will help to do that. No. 5, we adopt regulations on human pathogens to prevent terrorists from using deadly human pathogens to harm our citizens. By enhancing penalties for and restrictions on the use of biological agents, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 would decrease the opportunities for terrorists to perpetrate their crimes with biological weapons. It may surprise even the American people to know that very dangerous, even deadly, organisms that cause diseases and death in human beings are available for purchase, not only by legitimate users, but also by those who may use them with criminal intent. We have had instances where a phonied-up letterhead, looking like a research institution, has applied for human pathogen problems and biological agents that could cause death to humans. Because these agents cause such devastating diseases as bubonic plague and anthrax, it is crucial that the Federal Government more closely regulate, monitor their movement over both interstate and foreign channels of trade. While I strongly favor a reduction in the Government's overall regulatory posture, there is a clear and present danger with respect to the threat of biological terrorism. To give you just one example, the Washington Post recently reported that in May 1995 an Ohio man, using letterhead that appeared to be a legitimate laboratory, faxed an order for three vials of the bubonic plague agent from the American Type Culture Collection, the ATCC, in Maryland. After a series of events, the FBI later discovered that this individual already possessed deadly microorganisms in addition to a cache of rifles, grenades, and white separatist literature. Although the man was prosecuted under mail and wire fraud statutes, these charges might not otherwise have been available had he not sent the bogus letterhead. For example, gaps exist in the current regulations that allow anyone to possess deadly human pathogens. Thus, in turn, it makes prosecution of people who attempt to acquire them, even for illegitimate purposes, very difficult indeed. Under current law then, law enforcement authorities must wait until human pathogens are actually used as weapons before criminal prosecution may be pursued. In response, this bill strengthens law enforcement's hand by prohibiting conspiracy, threat, or attempts to use biological weapons, in addition to their acquisition and their possession. The fact that human pathogens are available to several legitimate groups poses unique regulatory problems which our bill has, I think, successfully overcome. In addition to the lack of interagency coordination in this area, the relevant regulations have not kept up with advancing science. So it is important, and, accordingly, the legislation here authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to regulate the transfer of harmful biological agents. However, when promulgating regulations and the listing of biological agents subject to these regulations, the Secretary is to ensure the continued viability of the use of such agents for legitimate purposes. So we are attacking these problems before they result in tremendous tragedies. This bill will do that. My colleagues and I believe that the American people deserve better than the current regulations and criminal statutes we have in this area which have left us vulnerable to the potential use of human pathogens as terrorist weapons. Since we have not kept pace with science and technology and recognize that we live in a more dangerous world than we once did, this legislation takes strong action and makes a strong response right now. That is another reason why it is important. No. 6, we restrict the transfer of nuclear materials and chemical biological weapons. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, this bill, gives Federal law enforcement officials the tools necessary to combat the threats of nuclear contamination and proliferation that may result from the illegal possession of and trafficking in nuclear materials. It is in the vital national security interests of the United States that we take every conceivable step within our power to restrict the flow of nuclear materials around the world. With this simple truth in mind, this legislation recognizes that the threat that nuclear materials will be obtained and used by terrorists and other criminal organizations has increased since the enactment, some 14 years ago, of the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. Accordingly, this bill proposes to give Federal law enforcement officials the maximum authority permissible under the Constitution to address this increased threat. One of the ways the legislation provides new tools to law enforcement is through the expansion of the scope and jurisdictional basis of nuclear materials prohibitions. This is accomplished in part by recognizing that nuclear byproduct materials, in addition to nonderivative nuclear materials, poses a major threat, not only to our military and commercial assets, but also to the environment. This broader definitional scope is essential if law enforcement is going to have the kind of prosecutorial reach necessary to keep up with the technological developments in the field. Ironically, the increased threat of terrorist nuclear activity is to some extent a result of our, the United States, success in obtaining agreements from other countries to dismantle nuclear weapons. While we all applaud these efforts, they have resulted in increased packaging and transportation of nuclear materials, which has created a more difficult security environment because it has provided greater opportunities for unlawful diversion and theft. Although we have traditionally thought of nuclear terrorism in terms of the detonation of nuclear bombs against civilian or military targets in the United States, we are also acutely aware of the threat of environmental contamination as a result of nuclear material getting into the wrong hands. The nature of nuclear communication is such that it may affect the health, environment, and property of U.S. nationals both here and abroad even if the illegal conduct is directed at foreign nationals. This is why increasing the scope of prohibitive materials is so important. Because there is currently no Federal criminal statute that provides adequate protection to U.S. interests from nonweapons grade, yet hazardous, radioactive material, this is all in this bill. This is important stuff. This is not just a habeas bill. But even if that were all it was, it is worth passing because that is the one thing that the victims of these criminal activities and terrorist activities have called for. Frankly, it was the only thing they called for yesterday, although I am sure that they recognize these other matters and are very happy to have them. No. 7, we require tagging devices in plastic explosives. This bill will tag them. It does tag the devices in plastic explosives. Now, there is, in my opinion, a reason to tag other things as well, but I have to say there are reasons not to at this point. Let me make this point. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, this bill, fulfills the obligation of the United States to implement the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection, entered into in Montreal in 1991 in the tragic wake of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103. It required that detection devices be placed in all devices imported to or exported from the United States and provides criminal penalties for violations. It should be noted that criminal provisions with respect to the incorporation of detection agents in plastic explosives do not apply retroactively to any Federal agency performing military or police functions or to the National Guard of any State, only if such incorporation occurs within 15 years of enactment of the Montreal Convention. Furthermore, governmental transfer or possession of such nonconforming devices will not be considered a criminal act nor will transfer or possession by private citizens of nonconforming devices manufactured prior to this legislation if this occurs within a 3-year grace period of its enactment. These provisions in this bill affecting the manufacture, distribution, and use of plastic explosives are absolutely critical given the likelihood that without them plastic explosives will continue to be used with even less certainty of detection for acts of unlawful interference with civil aviation, maritime navigation, and other modes of transportation. The purpose of this bill really is very simple. By marking or requiring the marking of plastic explosives, not only will we effectively deter future terrorist acts, but we will also substantially improve our chances of bringing to justice those who place innocent lives in jeopardy, endanger our national security, and disrupt international commerce by the use of these stealthy, deadly devices. The distinguished Senator from Delaware raises a good point when he desires, and we in the Senate enacted--it was a Hatch provision again. These are provisions I worked on. These are provisions I wanted in the bill. There is no question about that. We put mandatory taggants on all explosives, in a certain sense. The fact is that the explosive used in Oklahoma City was the result of a fertilizer. But the fact, also, is that before we put taggants on those, we have been cautioned by the mining industry, which has to use explosives throughout its processes, by the stone industry, which has to use explosives, by other industries that are prone to use explosives, that they are afraid that mandatory taggants could be very dangerous to their workers and to their efforts. Frankly, in order to solve that problem and in order to solve some of the worries and concerns of those over in the House, we then did what is the next best thing--frankly, probably is the best thing under the circumstances--since we have had these matters brought to our attention by ATF, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, which handles the explosives matters and has been studying it for years, by OTA, which as of a few years ago said these may be dangerous. We do not have the answers as of yet, so we provide for a study to determine just how dangerous it is, and whether we can put taggants in, that will be safe and will protect the workers in these industries. It is a serious concern. It is one that we can resolve. We resolve it by giving a year for that study and allowing the regulatory agencies to enact regulations and allowing time for Congress to review them and finally resolve them. It is a reasonable approach. Yes, it is not as far as I want it to go, that we did go in the Senate bill, but it is a reasonable compromise. That is what we have had to do here. This is not just a habeas bill. This is a lot of things we have had to compromise with the House to get it done. Let me go to No. 8. We enhance penalties for many terrorism crimes. We do not enhance them for every crime that the distinguished Senator from Delaware wants us to. I do not disagree with him. Look, we have gone through in the last few years, Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Good Ol' Boys Roundup, we have gone through other types of law enforcement matters. There are people who are terrified of the IRS, people who are afraid of their own Government. If you look at the polls, the vast majority of them are afraid of their own Government today because of some of these things. We have looked into these and there have been some mistakes. Because of these fears and the perceptions that arise from these fears, we have had to go gently on some of the areas where, yes, the distinguished Senator from Delaware and I probably would agree. We worked together a lot in these areas. I have tremendous respect for his abilities in this area. I do not agree with him that this is just habeas corpus and it does not have much else. Give me a break. This bill has a lot besides habeas. Even if it was only a habeas bill, that is the most important criminal law change in the century. It is important. Anybody who understands it and who wants to get tough on crime, who wants sentences carried out without delay, without unreasonable delay, wants this bill. That is the vast majority of people. Let me say there is probably not one thing in this bill--I cannot think of one thing in the bill that my colleague from Delaware really opposes other than habeas corpus. And he is willing to accept that. Because he disagrees with habeas corpus reforms, he and others, it looks to me like they are willing to delay this bill. I hope they do not. I hope we can move ahead with his motions here today and get this matter done. I suggest that we pass this report and return to many of the issues that Senator Biden outlines in subsequent legislation. I will work closely with him and with others to be able to do that, to make sure we know what we are doing when we do it. In fact, I promise Senator Biden once this bill is signed, I will work with him to draft legislation looking at enhancing wiretap authority, or any of the other issues he has raised. We try to solve these problems with study and with other approaches in this bill so we can bring both sides of the Hill together. Yes, I agree with him on a number of things. I wish we could put them in this bill. In the perfect world that he and I believe in, we would do that. On the other hand, this is an imperfect world, and there are a significant number of people--both Democrats Republicans, by the way, over in the House--who literally do not agree with us. I think we have to put these things in perspective. Now, rather than exploiting the devastation of Oklahoma City, I believe that we are protecting the families of the victims from additional unwarranted victimization. Comprehensive habeas corpus reform is the only legislation Congress can pass as part of the terrorism bill that will have a direct effect on the Oklahoma City bombing, or the Lockerbie bombing or the World Trade Center bombing. It is the one thing that Congress can pass to ensure that President Clinton's promise of swift justice is kept. Like I say, President Clinton recognized this fact during his April 23, 1995, ``60 Minutes'' appearance when, in response to a question about whether those responsible would actually be executed without the adoption of habeas reform, he said, ``It may not happen, but the Congress has the opportunity this year to reform the habeas corpus proceedings and I hope they will do so.'' The claim that habeas corpus reform is tangential or unrelated to fighting terrorism is just plain ludicrous. Indeed, habeas corpus reform has far more to do with combating terrorism than many of the proposals contained in the administration's own antiterrorism package, such as the proposals to enhance FBI access to telephone billing records and to loosen standards for the use of roving wiretaps in felony cases. I would like to do those but habeas has more meaning than they do. Most capital cases are State cases. The State of Oklahoma could still prosecute this case, and the district attorney says it will. Our habeas reform proposal would apply to Federal death penalty cases, as well. It would directly affect the Government's prosecution of the Oklahoma bombing case. Indeed, several people were killed just outside the Oklahoma Federal building, the terrorists who destroyed the Federal building could thus be tried in State court for the murder of those citizens. The district attorney for Oklahoma City, as I said, is planning those prosecutions. The provisions of this bill demonstrate the relationship of habeas reform to the terrorist bombing. No. 1, it would replace a 1-year limit for the filing of a habeas petition on all death row inmates, State and Federal inmates; No. 2, it would limit condemned killers convicted in Federal and State court to one habeas petition, to where under current law there is currently no limit to the number of petitions he or she may file; No. 3, it requires the Federal courts, once a petition is filed, to complete the judicial action within the specified time period. Clearly, by passing these provisions, we ensure that those responsible for killing scores of United States citizens will be given the swift penalty that we as a society exact upon them. Let me just say this: My friend and colleague from Delaware said without the crime bill there would be no Federal death penalties. I commend him for that. I worked hard with him to get that. I think it was a good thing. The fact is that every State, almost every State does have a Federal death penalties. Senator Biden makes the case that these are State cases for the most part. That is true, involving habeas corpus. Where is the Federal habeas corpus problem, he says? I have to say one of the biggest problems, loony judges in the Federal courts who basically will grant a habeas corpus petition for any reason at all. Because they do not have the teeth in the law to stop it, it goes on all the time. We have judges who do not like the Federal death penalties. They do not like the State death penalty, so they do anything to grant a habeas corpus petition. That game will be over once this bill passes. This bill requires deference to court action unless there is some very good reason not to defer, and I have to say that is a major, major, change in criminal law. It is important. My colleague says, how does changing habeas corpus have anything to do with terrorism? I think he outlined it pretty good and indicated it has nothing to do with State courts. Of course it does. If it is in a State court he said it has nothing to do with Federal crime. Well, what happens under current law is these people try to get into the Federal courts where they figure they have more liberal judges who are going to find any excuse they can to overturn a death penalty, and my friend indicated, ``Well, it does not get them out of jail.'' Sometimes it does. If a habeas corpus petition is granted and a Federal death penalty is overturned, it is 18 years down the pike, all witnesses are dead or gone, and you cannot put a case on in the courts, that creates tremendously complicated problems. This is not as simple as some would make it out to be. You can get into that on both sides of that issue, I suppose, ad infinitum. I have to say that justice delayed, as I said before, is justice denied. There are crazy people out there that no amount of wiretapping, no amount of any kind of predisposition toward law enforcement is going to stop them. These people are crazy. These people have no sense about them. They have no sense about them. They are not disciplined. We have to have some way of resolving these problems. I have to say, I do not disagree with my distinguished colleague and friend. There are things, yes, I wish were in this bill. Again, this is the art of compromise. This is the art of the doable. This is the art of having to bring both bodies together. I think the Senate can do a better job on this bill than the House. I have to say, having said that, I think the House has come a long way towards the Senate bill, and we got them to go as far as we can, and the areas we cannot, we have studies or other approaches to help solve the problems. Let me name some provisions in this bill that were not in the original bill filed by Senator Biden on behalf of the administration: Pen registers and trap and trace devices on foreign counterintelligence and counterterrorism investigations. That was in the second bill. It is not in this bill. Disclosure of information in consumer reports to FBI for foreign counterintelligence purposes. That was in the second bill filed for the President. Let me just go down the list here. Civil monetary penalty surcharges. It was in the first bill. Nobody has it in this bill. Increased penalties for certain crimes. We have a number in the Senate bill we passed, and they are in this conference report. They were not in the two bills filed for the President. Enhanced penalties for explosives or arson crimes. They are in this conference report but not in the two bills filed for the President, to my knowledge. Study and report on electronic surveillance. That was not in either of the President's bills, but they are in this bill. It was in the Senate bill. Expansion of territorial sea. It was in the Senate bill and it is in this bill. The prohibition on distribution of information relating to explosive materials for a criminal purpose. It was not in the President's bill; it was in the Senate bill, and it is in this bill. Foreign air traffic safety and travel safety was in the Senate bill, and it is in this bill. Proof of citizenship. That was in the House bill, and it is in this bill. It is a strong provision. We did not have it in our Senate bill. Cooperation of fertilizer research centers. That was in the Senate bill, and it is in this bill, but not in the President's bills. Special assessments on convicted persons. Not in the President's two bills, but it was in the Senate bill, and it is in this bill. Prohibition on assistance under Export Control Act for countries not cooperating fully with the United States. That was not in the President's two bills. It was in the Senate bill, and it is in this bill. Authorization of additional appropriations for the U.S. Park Police. Not in either of the President's bills. It was in the Senate bill and is in this bill. Authorization of additional appropriations for the Customs Service. In the Senate bill and this bill, but not the President's bills. Study and recommendation for assessing and reducing the threat to law enforcement officers from the criminal use of various matters. That was in the House bill, and we adopted it in the conference report. Mandatory penalty for transferring explosive material knowing it will be used to commit a crime of violence. That was not in the President's bills, but it was in the Senate bill and it is in this bill. Directions to the sentencing commission. We have that from the House, which we put in the conference report. There are a number of other provisions we have put from the House bill into the conference report that range from exclusion of certain types of information, from wiretap-related definitions, detention hearings, protection of Federal Government buildings in the District of Columbia, study of thefts from armories, report to the Congress, et cetera, et cetera. There are a lot of provisions that literally were not in the President's bills that are in this bill and were in the Senate bill and we were able to talk the House into putting in here. So it is not just a habeas bill. If that is all this is, it is worth everything we can put into it. It will be one of the most impressive and important changes in criminal law in this century. Frankly, the other provisions will go a long way toward stopping and penalizing terrorist activity in America. I have gone on and on. I know the Senator from California wants to speak, as do others. You can go on with this because there are so many other matters I would like to talk to. I heard the distinguished Senator from Delaware, for instance, saying the NRA and ACLU agree on a number of things here, or are opposed to a number of aspects of this bill for different reasons. Frankly, the reasons are pretty much the same. They are concerned about an oppressive Government, and they are concerned about Government activity that goes far beyond where it should go. They are concerned about civil liberties and, whether they are right or wrong, they both are concerned about those matters. They may look at things a little bit differently, but their concerns are pretty much the same. For those who want to make this out as an NRA bill, that is just fallacious. Let me make some points. They were not happy with the Terrorist Alien Removal Act we put back into this bill. NRA did not want the designation of foreign organizations as terrorist groups. They were afraid some of their people might be designated. Exclusion of alien terrorists. They did not want that. These are major provisions that we put in here, and we did it in conference. We did it with House Members who are good people trying to do the best for the country. Funding for the ATF. They hate the ATF [Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] the agency of Government regulatory authority for the Secretary to impose taggants at all. The fact is, we have the authority to do that in this bill. I think these are all matters that need to be brought up. There is one other thing I will bring to the attention of everybody. I believe that some of the major organizations in this country are certainly going to support this. I was really pleased to see the help that we have had and the positive work that we got from the Anti- Defamation League. They deserve a lot of credit. They have been very, very concerned about this. There are some who will not like this bill just because we do not have their particular ideas. Well, I have made a commitment here to see that we resolve those programs in the future. We cannot do it in this context. It does not mean they will not be resolved. We have four State attorneys general of the various States who support this bill explicitly. The National District Attorneys Association supports this bill with everything they have. The Anti-Defamation League supports this bill. As far as I know, APAG supports this bill. They know the Jewish people have been targets of these terrorist activities, and they know it is not going to stop, and they know this bill will make a difference, and it could solve some of these problems. We have all of the survivors of the Oklahoma City bombing, and we have the Oklahoma Attorney General, who appeared at the press conference yesterday and made some of the most eloquent, hard- hitting, and strong remarks with regard to the support of this bill. We have the National Association of Attorneys General supporting this bill. Citizens For Law and Order support this. And you can go on and on. There are those, I am sure, who may oppose this bill for one reason or another. But we have put together a very bipartisan, acceptable bill that will really make a difference against terrorism in this country and really will help this country to breathe a little bit easier--and, frankly, many other countries throughout the world, too, because of the provisions we have here. This is not just a habeas corpus bill. But I will say it one more time. If that were all that it was, it is worth supporting. It would be a tremendous change, a really tremendous change in criminal law that I think would make a difference in the lives of many victims throughout the country, and I think it would stop some of the ridiculous approaches to law that have gone on far too long in a country where, really, the great writ was a great writ to allow people to get to a trial. The writ of habeas corpus we are talking about is a statutory writ. That statute needs to be modified by this bill so that we can stop the foolish game of frivolous appeals just because people do not like the death penalty. I can understand if people do not like the death penalty. But they can make legitimate arguments against it. If they can convince a majority of the American people that the death penalty is a bad thing, I could live with that. But they cannot. The American people sense that it is a deterrent. They sense that it is something that has to be done, and they also sense that if the death penalty is imposed, it ought to be carried out, and it should not be made a charade as we have through these frivolous habeas corpus appeals through the years. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I will only take a moment, with regard to posse comitatus. In true emergency situations the President has full authority to resolve those and use the military if he wants to. The reason the President would want us to put posse comitatus language in there is because it takes him off the hook. The fact is, the President has that authority.