```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 90 (Monday, June 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7656-S7658]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                 COMPREHENSIVE TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 735) to prevent and punish acts of terrorism, 
     and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Hatch Amendment No. 1199, in the nature of a substitute.

                           Amendment No. 1199

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me say to my colleagues that we hope to 
complete action on this bill very quickly, and I am asking my 
colleagues on each side--I think there are 67 amendments on the 
Democratic side, 30-some on the Republican side--to see if we cannot 
limit the number of amendments. We will also file cloture today and try 
to get consent to vote on that cloture motion tomorrow in an effort to 
expedite this bill.
  Immediately after the tragic events in Oklahoma City, I wrote to 
President Clinton expressing my hope that we could put aside 
partisanship and develop an antiterrorism plan all Americans could 
support. Just as partisan [[Page S7657]] politics stopped at the 
water's edge during World War II, it has always been my view that 
partisan politics should stop at ``evil's edge'' in our war against 
terrorism.
  During the past several weeks, I have had the opportunity to discuss 
this issue directly with the President. Our staffs have shared ideas. 
We have introduced our own legislative plans. And Senator Hatch, 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has had several important 
hearings. The proposal now before the Senate is a culmination of all 
these efforts: Democrats, Republicans, the President, staff input. This 
is a bipartisan plan. It reflects many Republican ideas, and it 
contains many of the initiatives endorsed and sought by President 
Clinton himself--prohibitions on fundraising for foreign terrorist 
organizations; the Alien Terrorist Removal Act, which is designed to 
deport alien terrorists in a prompt manner without disclosing vital 
national security information; and increased funding for the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation and other law enforcement agencies.
  Now, last week we brought this up before the recess first, I think, 
for the record. So we had this almost filibuster on the budget with 
tons of amendments that took, I do not know how many, 10, 20 hours to 
vote on the amendments. That lost us 24 hours in the process. By 
design? I do not know, but it happened and we wasted a lot of time.
  I told the President I wanted to pass this bill on the Senate side 
before the Memorial Day recess, and we did bring it up. And then we 
were flooded with amendments, again maybe by design and maybe not. But 
the President is the leader of the Democratic Party. He said last week, 
``There are too many amendments (to the Senate bill) that threaten too 
much delay.''
  I happen to agree with the President on that, but I have not seen any 
evidence of any active engagement by the White House in the legislative 
process on the other side of the aisle. The last count was, as I said, 
67, 69.
  The bottom line is that words of complaint will not be enough. 
Complaining about delay may make for good politics, but what we need 
from the President is not words but leadership.
 I want to fulfill the President's request. I want to pass the 
antiterrorism bill promptly, without delay. But if we are going to 
accomplish this goal, the President will have to move off the sidelines 
and get into the game, as we need his help. It is not enough to make 
the speeches, not enough to make the radio addresses, not enough to say 
whatever. We ought to pass it. But particularly in the U.S. Senate, 
where any group of Senators can slow things down--and we have had 
almost a record performance this year by my colleagues on the other 
side--this happens to be a bill that is not partisan. It is bipartisan. 
It is something that the President claims credit for. It seems to me it 
would be in his interest to have somebody up here trying to make 
certain that we pass the bill.

  If we do not complete action by the close of business tomorrow, I 
will have no other choice but to withdraw the antiterrorism bill and 
move on to other legislative business. If we can get consent to vote on 
cloture tomorrow, we will find out how many people really want this 
bill, or whether this bill will become a Christmas tree where everybody 
has a political agenda and they want to put it on the antiterrorism 
bill. I believe that would be a grave mistake. We have a full plate 
here in the Senate. We have telecommunications, and I promised both 
Senators Pressler and Hollings for the last 2 or 3 weeks that we would 
like to finish that this week. We have welfare reform and regulatory 
reform, just to name a few. All of these will take some time.
  We do not have time to get bogged down for 3 weeks on a very 
important bill with amendments that are not important at all, for the 
most part, and just making statements or having votes when the 
amendments could be accepted. I have heard that many of the amendments 
will be accepted. Let us not waste 20 or 30 minutes on rollcall votes 
on 15 or 20 amendments that can be accepted. It seems to me that if our 
colleagues want to pass this bill, accepting it is just as good as 
having a vote, and we can save a lot of time.
  We will be in late tonight, and votes will start at 5 o'clock. It is 
not in the interests of the American people to delay. We can always 
return to the antiterrorism bill, and this might be something to do 
during the August recess if we cannot get it done now. We are going to 
be here for part of August, no doubt about it. Maybe this will be a 
priority during the first 2 or 3 weeks during what might have been the 
August recess.
  Mr. President, of all the antiterrorist proposals under 
consideration, habeas corpus bears perhaps most directly on the tragic 
events in Oklahoma City. If we really want justice that is ``swift, 
certain, and severe,'' as President Clinton urged, then we must stop 
the endless appeals and endless delays that have done so much to weaken 
public confidence of our system of criminal justice.
  According to Princeton Prof. John Diiulio, more than 330,000 
Americans were murdered during the 16 years between 1977 and 1993. Yet, 
during the same period, only 2,716 people were placed on death row and 
only 226 convicted killers have actually been executed. In America, 
today there is clearly a big disconnect between crime and punish.
  Our habeas corpus reform proposal seeks to bridge this gap by 
imposing a 1-year filing deadline on all death row inmates, State or 
Federal. It limits convicted killers in State or Federal court to one 
habeas petition. That is one bite at the apple. In contrast, under 
current law, there is virtually no limit to the number of petitions a 
convicted killer may file. It requires the Federal courts, once a 
petition is filed, to complete judicial action within a specified 
period of time.
  In fact, if the Federal Government prosecutes the Oklahoma City case 
and the death penalty is sought and imposed, the execution of the 
sentence could take as little as 1 year if these reforms are enacted 
into law. Otherwise, it might take 5, 10, 15 years. It seems to me it 
is a step that ought to be taken, a step the President talked about on 
``60 Minutes.'' Somebody said he wanted habeas corpus reform. Habeas 
corpus reform is an essential component of any serious antiterrorism 
plan. The relatives of some of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing 
have traveled all the way to Washington today to make this very point. 
In fact, I think there is a press conference going on as I speak. They 
want Congress to act on these reforms and act now. That is the view 
also shared by a bipartisan group of State attorneys general, including 
Drew Edmondson, the Democratic attorney general of Oklahoma.
  In a recent letter to President Clinton, these attorneys general 
write:

       Expedited consideration of [habeas corpus reform] 
     legislation in the context of the antiterrorism bill is 
     entirely appropriate. Unless habeas corpus reform is enacted, 
     capital sentences for such acts of senseless violence will 
     face endless legal obstacles. This will undermine the 
     credibility of the sanctions and the expression of our level 
     of opprobrium as a Nation for acts of terrorism.

  Despite his positive comments about habeas reform in a ``60 Minutes'' 
interview, President Clinton has written me urging me to exclude habeas 
corpus reform. One day he is for it, and the next day he says exclude 
it. Do not bring it in now because it might upset some of the liberals 
on the other side of the aisle.
  The President has publicly chided Members of the Senate for refusing 
to endorse his ``emergency wiretap'' proposal; yet, strangely enough, 
the President himself refuses to endorse the one proposal that will 
bear most directly on the Oklahoma City tragedy--and that is habeas 
corpus reform.
  Finally, Mr. President, the American people deserve the straight 
story, and the straight story is that America is not an impregnable 
fortress. No legislation, no matter how well-intentioned, no matter how 
well-conceived, can guarantee absolute security. We can take every 
possible precaution. We can pass tough laws. But in a free society 
there will always be risks--a fact of life vividly demonstrated by the 
recent breaches of White House security.
  I want to thank my distinguished colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, 
for his leadership in developing an antiterrorism plan. During the past 
several weeks, he has provided the intellectual glue that has kept this 
effort together. I also thank my distinguished colleagues from 
Oklahoma, 
[[Page S7658]] Senators Nickles and Inhofe, for their input and for 
their role in developing this antiterrorism plan. We all know this has 
been a very difficult time for them and their constituents. So we are 
especially appreciative of their invaluable help.
  I had a conversation with Senator Biden from Delaware before we went 
out for the recess. I believe he wants to complete action on this bill 
as quickly as possible. I think with his cooperation, and with some 
help from the White House and with help on this side on Republican 
amendments, we can wrap this bill up. There is no reason we could not 
finish it today, or certainly by tomorrow.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter I sent to President Clinton 
last Thursday be printed in the Record immediately after my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. DOLE. The letter suggests that the President should help us out 
on this bill. He could call his Democratic colleagues, maybe have a 
White House meeting, and see if we cannot complete action on this bill. 
The House has not acted. But that does not mean we cannot act. We can 
act first for a change.
  I say to my colleagues, let us expect a number of votes. I do not see 
the managers here, but I think they are in a press conference with some 
family members of the victims of the Oklahoma City tragedy. I say, 
again, if the amendments can be accepted and if there is no problem 
with the amendments, let us not have votes like that at 7, or 8, or 9 
o'clock tonight.
  With all the good will I can muster, I believe this is an important 
bill, important for the American people, important for the victims' 
families and those involved in Oklahoma City. Also, it is important 
that we get it done. I am certainly willing to work with the President 
in an effort to do that by the close of business tomorrow.
                               Exhibit 1

                                                      U.S. Senate,

                              Office of the Republican Leader,

                                     Washington, DC, June 1, 1995.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: As you may know, the Senate is 
     currently scheduled to resume consideration of the anti-
     terrorism bill when we return on Monday, June 5. Under a 
     unanimous consent agreement adopted last Friday, a total of 
     99 amendments to the bill are in order (32 Republican 
     amendments and 67 Democratic amendments).
       I am now in the process of urging my Republican colleagues 
     not to offer any unnecessary or unrelated amendments. 
     Hopefully, these efforts will pay off and we will be able to 
     reduce the number of Republican amendments to a manageable 
     level. During the remainder of this week, it is my hope that 
     you will exert similar pressure on the Democrats in the 
     Senate, particularly in light of your complaint yesterday 
     that ``there are too many amendments that threaten too much 
     delay.''
       Mr. President, if you really want Congress to pass the 
     anti-terrorism bill as promptly as possible, words will not 
     be enough. Your active involvement in discouraging Democratic 
     Senators from offering unnecessary and unrelated amendments 
     is absolutely essential.
       I hope you would also call upon Congress to pass meaningful 
     habeas corpus reform as part of the anti-terrorism proposal 
     now pending before the Senate. Of all the anti-terrorism 
     initiatives under consideration, it is perhaps habeas corpus 
     reform that bears most directly on the tragic events in 
     Oklahoma City. In fact, if the federal government prosecutes 
     the Oklahoma City case and the death penalty is sought and 
     imposed, the execution of the sentence could take as little 
     as one year if the reforms in the pending legislation are 
     enacted into law.
       Not surprisingly, a bipartisan group of State Attorneys 
     General, including Drew Edmondson, the Democratic Attorney 
     General of Oklahoma, has written that ``expedited 
     consideration of [habeas corpus reform] legislation in the 
     context of the anti-terrorism bill is entirely appropriate. 
     Unless habeas corpus reform is enacted, capital sentences for 
     such acts of senseless violence will face endless legal 
     obstacles. This will undermine the credibility of the 
     sanctions, and the expression of our level of opprobrium as a 
     nation for acts of terrorism.''
       Finally, I was struck by how your radio address last 
     Saturday characterized the anti-terrorism legislation now 
     pending before the Senate. The address described the 
     legislation in very personal terms, as ``my proposal,'' ``my 
     anti-terrorism bill,'' ``the legislation I proposed.'' With 
     all due respect, Mr. President, this legislation is a 
     bipartisan product, incorporating many initiatives proposed 
     by Republicans and Democrats alike. The simple fact is that 
     the anti-terrorism plan now before the Senate does not belong 
     to any one party or any one political figure. It belongs to 
     the American people.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Bob Dole.
     

                          ____________________
```