Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Michigan to proceed.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. HYDE. I understand that, and there are more people who support the death penalty overwhelmingly than oppose it.

Mr. HYDE. I would hate to think that the gentleman would never ask me again.

Mr. HYDE. I would like to state, Mr. Chairman, that the majority accepts the amendment of the distinguished gentleman from Maryland. We find it is useful, and it makes a contribution to this generic problem. We are pleased to accept it.

Mr. HYDE. I am going to have to reclaim my time. Again, I have been illuminated by the gentleman, although I totally disagree. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from San Diego, CA [Mr. Cunningham].

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, this bill comes to us against the background of domestic and foreign terrorism that has caused countless murders of innocent men, women, children, and the elderly. So bloody, and so cowardly, a series of crimes that to ignore them and to ignore the frightening potential for future atrocities amounts, in my humble opinion, to a dereliction of duty. The World Trade Center bombing in New York prompted this legislation. That cost 6 lives, and it was a miracle that it did not cost 600. Had the bomb been placed differently, it might have knocked the entire building down. Mr. Chairman, this bill is spurred by the Pan-American 103 tragedy, which cost 270 lives. It was spurred by Leon Klinghoffer's murder on the Achille Lauro; by the American hostages in Lebanon; by the use of chemical warfare in mass transportation in Japan; by the Oklahoma City bombing that cost 168 lives; by the bombings in Tel Aviv and in Jerusalem, and by the IRA in London. Mr. Chairman, as the tragedies mount, as the efforts at international intimidation mount, what is our response? We are told by some that we do not need any new laws. After all, we caught McVeigh, did we not? Yes, we did, we caught him speeding. Talk about lucking out. There is an old saying, ``God takes care of drunks, children, and the United States of America.'' I hate to rely on that for our future national security. I do view our sworn duty, and upholding our Constitution, not to prefer the criminals and criminal aliens, but to provide for the common defense within the four corners of our Constitution. All I ask, Mr. Chairman, is that the Members do not consign their common sense to certain groups who belittle what we are trying to do. In the end, we have to live with ourselves and how we vote on this life and death issue. What is in this bill, I would ask, Mr. Chairman? There are three things that ought to be of interest to all of us: the effective death penalty provisions, H.R. 729 recapitulated, and which has been passed by the Senate; that is habeas corpus reform. There is the Criminal Alien Deportation Improvements Act. That is, after a criminal alien has served his time, an expedited deportation of that person. There is mandatory victim restitution. That brings the criminals to justice and brings justice to the victims. Mr. Chairman, we have taken out, after months, and I mean 3 months at least and more of negotiation with people out of sympathy with every aspect of this bill, we have taken out emergency wiretap provisions, although I wish they were in. We have taken out the roving wiretap authority, because criminals go from one phone to another. God forbid that we should be able to tap into the person's conversations, rather than specifically to the phone, but we took that out. We took out military involvement in civil law enforcement provisions. That is where they use chemical warfare in mass transportation. We take that out, even though the military is probably the only organization available that has the technology and know-how to cope with that. We have taken out a definition of terrorism that they complained was overly expansive. We have taken out the funding for a domestic counterterrorism center that the FBI and the CIA wanted, and the Justice Department wanted. We have taken out funding for additional FBI personnel, as though we have enough FBI agents. We have taken out provisions to pay for digital telephony that will permit our law enforcement people to tap into fiber-optic wires. We will not have that capacity. We took out machine- readable visa provisions. What is left in the bill? As I said, there is habeas corpus reform, criminal alien deportation, and mandatory victim restitution. Those are largely crime, rather than antiterrorist, but we do require the marking of plastic explosives with chemicals to aid in detecting their presence before they explode. If we had had that capability, we could have prevented PanAmerican 103 and the loss of life. We prohibit unlawful nuclear material transactions. There is a serious threat of nuclear terrorism from diverted stockpiles from the former Soviet Union. This is deterrence by legislation. We do not repeal the sixth amendment's protection of our right to confront our accusers in criminal cases. But, in deportation cases, under certain circumstances, when to confront the accused by the source of the information would reveal the source and compromise our security, there is a very useful and, I think, justifiable process in the bill to protect justice and at the same time protect America from alien terrorists. That is taken out by an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr]. Mr. Chairman, this bill bars representatives and members of designated foreign terrorist organizations from entering the United States. That is taken out by the Barr amendment, which we will debate later. This does include a provision that was part of the Contract With America that provides a good-faith exception to the statutory exclusionary rule. If the court finds a law enforcement officer's violation of the wiretap statute was a good-faith error, the evidence will not be suppressed. That was taken out by the Barr amendment, which we will debate latter. This bill incorporates the Criminal Alien Deportation Improvements Act, which already passed the House and we are going to try and pass it again. It has not passed the Senate. This bill changes asylum laws to avoid manipulation by terrorists. This bill prohibits fund-raising in the United States by designated foreign terrorist groups. That is stripped out of the bill by the Barr amendment, which we will discuss later, by way of stripping the designation process of who is a terrorist or a terrorist organization. Parenthetically, this morning's Washington Post has an interesting story on page A-18: ``Freeh,'' meaning Louis Freeh, the director of the FBI, ``Says Hamas Raising Money Here.'' That seems to me to be outrageous, but we will come to grips with that later in the debate over the amendments. But the people of the United States should not bankroll terrorist activity. The effective death penalty provisions are habeas corpus reform, a major plank in Republican anticrime policy. I can only say when a John Wayne Gacy murders 27 young boys and it takes 14 years from the time of his sentencing to the time he is executed, something is seriously wrong with justice. We try to correct that. The widow of the Secret Service agent who died in Oklahoma City, Diane Leonard, told us the other day, that for victims there are no indictments, no pretrial hearings, no trials, no appeals, no chances for remorse and no doubt of their innocence. Yet for those who commit these crimes, where there is no doubt of guilt, there is only appeal after appeal after appeal. We have the Victims' Restitution Act in here, another Contract With America anticrime item that previously passed 431 to 0. Mr. Chairman, we have a good bill here, a bill that I think is helpful in a situation where danger lurks internationally and domestically. As Israel's best friend in the world, it would be naive in the extreme to assume that we will not be targeted by those forces that are cowardly and promiscuously bombing in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, where buses and public places get bombed. To me it is, I hate to use the word insanity, but it is, not to be prepared for this. There are things we can do and we ought to do. I respectfully urge Members to listen to this debate. It will not be pleasant, it will not be easy, but it involves our national security. I commend it to Members' preferred attention. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. I certainly thank the gentleman for his vote of confidence in my persuasive ability.

Mr. HYDE. Does the gentleman mean I am persuading him?

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I claim the 30 minutes in opposition.

Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]. (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas]. (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the New York Times editorial was wrong, and I will be happy to show my colleague where they are not quite up to speed. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indian [Mr. Buyer].

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Lucas].

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself this time simply to express my profound appreciation for being instructed by the distinguished gentleman from Michigan. I always learn when he talks. However, I beg to disagree. I think terrorists who kill ought to die, and they ought not to linger for 16 or 17 years. That is why habeas corpus is in there. I commend the text of the bill to my friend. He said one cabinet officer can come up with a list of terrorist organizations. No, it is the Secretary of State in conjunction with the Attorney General. That is two, the last time I looked. They come up with the evidence, they submit it to Congress, the facts behind it, and a judicial review is available to the organization or the person. So I commend the text to my friend. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the learned gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is moving to strike the enacting clause and to kill this legislation. I know that would please him and it certainly would not disappoint the gentleman from Michigan, but I think it would disappoint a lot of people, such as the families of the victims at Oklahoma City whom I have met, such as the families of the victims of pan Am 103 whom I have met, such as the hostages who returned from Lebanon who were here the other day, such as the daughter of Leon Klinghoffer, who was murdered by thugs on the Achille Lauro. These are people who would like to see us pass this legislation. You may think there is nothing left, but there is substantial good left in the bill, despite the Barr amendment which I deplore. One of the things left is the ability of the victims' families to sue terrorist countries and perpetrators of terrorist acts in this country and get a judgment, because some of their assets are here have been frozen. So that alone makes this worthwhile.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]. (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, the remark made by the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] that habeas corpus has nothing to do with terrorism; I have heard that several times, and I am kind of at a loss as to the logic behind that because a terrorist who murders somebody, and that is what they do, that is their business, deserves the death penalty, and if they get the death penalty, they ought not hang around like John Wayne Gacey did for 14 years, or like William Bonner did for 16 years, or like Kermit Smith did for 14 years, or like Robert Alton Harris did for 13 years. Justice ought to be imposed surely and swiftly. Now this amendment simply maintains the status quo on habeas corpus by striking the entire title. We are not ignoring due process for the convicted. We seek closure and finality for the judgment that has been rendered and some compassion for the families of the victims who wait years and years and years. And that is the name of the game: Stretch it out, and then maybe get a new trial 10 years later where there are no witnesses to be found. We understand that. These things ought to be adjudicated reasonably swiftly, reasonably with dispatch, fairly. But 14 years is an absurdity; it makes the law a joke. Diane Leonard, the widow of a Secret Service agent who died in the Oklahoma City blast, said this: For victims there are no indictments, no pretrial hearings, no trials, no appeals, no chances for remorse, and no doubt of their innocence; yet for those who commit these crimes where there is no doubt of guilt there is only appeal after appeal after appeal. The same provisions in the bill, our bill, passed the Senate in June 1995 as the vote was 91 to 8. This is a major plank in the Contract With America anticrime policy. Now under our bill it simply requires that all claims be brought in the single petition. The time period for filing is 1 year after the U.S. Supreme Court rejects a direct appeal. Subsequent petitions will be allowed if the convicted defendant can show cause for not including the claim in his first petition. Government suppression of evidence, newly discovered evidence proving innocence, are also grounds for a new appeal. Deference is given to State courts' legal decisions if they are not contrary to established Supreme Court precedent. The prisoner can rebut any presumption by clear and convincing evidence. But now it takes more than a decade to carry out a death sentence, and that is an injustice. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the amendment of the gentleman and the gentlewoman be defeated, and that we proceed with habeas corpus reform. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.