John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, this is a very straightforward vote on whether or not we are prepared, finally, to include black and smokeless powder in a study by appropriate law enforcement authorities of the United States. A study to determine whether it can contain taggants so that we can investigate pipe bombs and other bombs in the United States. Law enforcement has sought this for 17 years. It is a very simple vote. There is an adequate offset in the IRS. They have cut the bills funding by $1 billion already. The most that this will cost is $21 million and of course we hope it will be less, but any argument to the contrary that suggests you cannot find the $21 million that have been offset here is simply unacceptable. So we ask colleagues to vote for this appropriate study.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent simply for 1 minute to explain.

Mr. KERRY. That is the only time remaining?

Mr. KERRY. Who is considered the opposition here?

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, is there any time remaining?

Mr. KERRY

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KERRY. I understood that.

Mr. KERRY. I should like to ask the majority leader, if I may, Mr. President, is it my understanding that it is the majority leader's intention to try to work through the amendments with the specific notion of bringing the convention, the treaty, back within the timeframe that we are here in September?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from California.

Mr. KERRY. I have no objection.

Mr. KERRY. And no second degrees. I understand, prior to the motion to table, no second degrees.

Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object. Mr. President, do I understand, according to the unanimous-consent request, the motion to table then would be on the Kerry amendment as submitted?

Mr. KERRY. I heard that, which is why, Mr. President, I was wondering whether we could have an up-or-down vote.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I inquire, can we have an up-or-down vote?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, can we suggest an hour equally divided?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, can I ask my colleague to yield for a moment? The manager asked if we were able to enter into a time agreement. I know he wants to do that. How much time does my colleague expect to consume?

Mr. KERRY. We will touch base with a couple of offices and ascertain their intentions. Mr. President, again, I want to emphasize that we passed and the President signed legislation that begins to deal with this question of taggants and the feasibility of using taggants as a means of tracking explosives in the aftermath of a bombing. As I think most of our colleagues know, a taggant is a plastic tracing device--or metal--which can be placed in the explosive material and, after an explosion, these taggants can actually be scooped up either by magnetic or other means so that you can gain enough of them to be able to determine from the taggant code precisely where it was sold, when it was sold, and where it was manufactured, and begin to be able to track the person who committed the crime. There are millions of different codes that are capable of being created, so you have this enormous ability to be able to determine when and where a particular explosive might have been made. If the study results that we have ordered already are positive, then the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to begin to issue additional regulations that will enable us to use these taggants in explosives manufactured or imported into the United States. Unfortunately, this provision in the anti-terrorism bill did not include all dangerous materials in the study. It explicitly excluded black and smokeless powder. One can ask why we chose to leave out these substances when they are used in 90 percent of the pipe bomb attacks in the United States. I regret we did not include these. I think the public has been, all too often, denied, for various reasons, its ability to try to maximize law enforcement's ability to move forward. I am not suggesting that we ought to do anything that says we are going to absolutely mandate the use of taggants, but we would like to have the study to at least analyze whether or not adding taggants to black and smokeless powder will provide us the ability to fight terrorism and safely--and I emphasize ``safely''--deal with the problem of black and smokeless powder in bombs. All we are asking for is a study. Let us study whether or not that can be done in a safe way. Why anyone would want to object to law enforcement being able to study something that they say they definitely want and need, and that they know works, is beyond me. My hope is that we will not have objection to it, that we will be able to proceed forward with the Congress unanimously saying: In the United States of America, common sense will rule. It is appropriate to have a study, an analysis independently done, of whether or not it is safe to have taggants in black and smokeless powder. I have heard opponents suggest that taggants might not be safe because they might destabilize the powder. I personally believe this is a red herring. Taggants have been used in black powder previously without a stability problem. But that is the purpose of the study. If, in fact, it is unsafe, let the study come back and tell us it is unsafe. The purpose of the study is to determine the safety, the feasibility, and the effectiveness of adding the taggants. Why should we do this? I was a prosecutor, and I gained great respect for the forensic laboratory during that experience. Today, it is even more extraordinary what forensic experts are able to tell us about the things which just escape the naked eye or which escape all of us who are not experts. But the experts tell us they want this technology to enable them to determine the origin of explosives and to help them work their way back to the perpetrator of a bombing. When Pam Am 103 crashed over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1989, the authorities determined almost immediately that the cause was a bomb, but it took them a year to find the tiny clue that led to the Libyan suspects. If the explosives in that bomb had been marked with taggants, the source of the material would have been immediately known, and the investigators would have gained a tremendous advantage. We have recently witnessed again the horrific spectacle of a massive explosion in the air of a still as yet undetermined source, as a 747 went down. We know there was some kind of explosion of undetermined origin. We have watched the painstaking process of an effort to try to rebuild the airplane itself, recouped from the floor of the ocean, and that makes it even more difficult. But if investigators do determine that a bomb triggered the crash of TWA 800, they will then have an even more difficult investigation to find the bomber. This time the problem is exponentially more difficult because the wreckage is under water. But it does not take a forensic scientist to understand that a mechanism to determine the origin of explosive material would be a tremendous value in this explosion, too. This investigation has already indicated evidence of holes blown through the back of seats that show the direction of that explosion. But they do not have taggants. They do not have the ability to quickly draw a conclusion of its type or origin or, even yet, whether that came from a bomb. Attacks of the magnitude of Pan Am 103 obviously cause devastating impact. They grab our attention. So did the TWA flight. But attacks using pipe bombs are actually a much more common experience in the United States, and these devices also cause death and destruction. This was demonstrated all too vividly in July when just such a bomb exploded at the Olympic Centennial Park, causing two deaths and spreading terror through an event that was supposed to celebrate the triumph of the peaceful human spirit. Unfortunately, the Olympic bombing was not an isolated incident. From 1990 through 1994, there were 4,095 pipe bomb attacks in the United States. Let me repeat that. From 1990 through 1994, there were 4,095 pipe bomb attacks in our country. These bombs killed 44 people, injured 384, and they caused property damage of almost $10 million. In 1994 alone, there were 862 incidents. Of these, 86 percent used smokeless and black powder. Taggants have already proved to be a useful tool for law enforcement. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms conducted a pilot project in the late 1970's. They added taggants to dynamite and other blasting- cap-sensitive explosives. In 1979, Nathan Allen, of Baltimore, was killed by a bomb hooked to his car ignition. The subsequent investigation found that the explosive used in that bomb contained taggants. The investigators identified the specific batch from which the explosives came. The police then used the sales records to track down and convict Mr. Allen's killer. That should have become a routine investigative practice, post-1979, but 17 years later, here we are still talking about it. Here we are, 17 years later, and law enforcement, which managed to convict a killer by the use of taggants, is still asking us: Let us have taggants. All we are asking today is, let us analyze and study the benefit of adding taggants to explosives so we can make an informed decision. If the study finds them to be safe, then it seems the benefits are obvious. The ability to track the origin of explosive materials is an invaluable tool for criminal investigations, and I hope my colleagues will join me in adding black and smokeless powder to the study and providing the necessary funding. It seems to me, despite any group's opposition for reasons that they understand but which, frankly, do not bear up to scrutiny when measured against where most people in this Senate or Congress are prepared to go, we ought not delay further this analysis. So I hope that colleagues will join with Senator Feinstein, Senator Kennedy, myself, and others in an effort to provide law enforcement with the tools that they need to combat terrorism and to track down those cowardly individuals who see bombs as a way to achieve their misguided goals. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. I will be happy to enter into an agreement if we can determine who wishes to speak.

Mr. KERRY. I want to inquire of my colleagues for a moment. I know the Senator from California wants to speak, and I want to see who else might like to speak. I know Senator Kennedy may. If the Senator will allow me, I will continue my opening comments.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this is an amendment which attempts to deal with a problem that has long been identified within the law enforcement community and which many within the law enforcement community feel is an essential ingredient in our ability to be able to improve our antiterrorist activities and our ability to be able to bring people to prosecution for terrorist acts. Earlier this year, Congress took a very important and long overdue step toward making it easier to track the origin of explosives that are used by terrorists and other criminals when we passed the antiterrorism bill. That legislation, which was signed by the President in April, directed the Secretary of the Treasury to study the feasibility of tagging explosives for the purposes of detection and identification. We passed the provision asking for a study that would identify how we can possibly put taggants into explosives so that if there is----

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am delighted to yield.

Mr. KERRY. I move that the pending business be temporarily laid aside.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I understand the pending business is the amendment of the Senator from the State of Oregon. Is that correct?