S7658 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE June 5, 1995 

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 antiterrorism 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 antiterrorism 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, 

f 

BOB DOLE. 

CLOTURE MOTION 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send a 

cloture motion to the desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

CLOTURE MOTION

We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby 

move to bring to a close debate on the substitute amendment to S. 735, the anti-terrorism bill. 

Bob Dole, Orrin G. Hatch, John Ashcroft, 

Slade Gorton, Craig Thomas, Strom 

Thurmond, Spencer Abraham, Alfonse 

D’Amato, Trent Lott, Larry E. Craig, 

Dan Coats, Rick Santorum, Bob Smith, 

Don Nickles, Rod Grams, R.F. Bennett. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate I will be speaking with the 

Democratic leader to see if we cannot 

have a vote on this tomorrow. I did not 

file the motion on the Friday before we 

went out because I thought at that 

point there would be a lot of progress 

made during the recess. I am not certain what progress has been made, but 

this is just the final attempt on the 

part of the majority leader to try to 

pass this bill. 

We will find out how many people 

really want to pass the antiterrorism 

bill when it comes to a cloture vote. 

There will be other bills this year to 

offer amendments on. This is not the 

last train to come through the Senate. 

I hope we can pass a good bill, and I 

hope the House follows suit very quickly and that we get it to the President 

in the next week or so. 

Mr. President, I suggest the absence 

of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have 

just come from a press conference 

where a significant number of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing appeared. It was a very moving experience for me to hear these people talk 

about their loved ones who were killed 

in the bombing and to meet some of 

them who were actually maimed and 

harmed during the bombing. 

At that particular press conference 

were Diane Leonard, whose husband, 

Don, a Secret Service agent was killed 

in the bombing; Glenn Seidl, who lost 

his wife, Kathy; Kay Ice, who lost a 

brother, Paul, a Customs agent; Mike 

Reyes, who lost his father and was injured himself; Jason Smith, who lost 

his mother, Linda McKinney; Dan 

McKinney, Linda’s husband; Gary 

Bland, who lost his wife, Shelly; Suzanne Britten, who lost her fiance, 

Richard Allen; Earl Adams, who lost a 

nephew, Scott Williams; Alice Maroney 

Dennison, who lost her father, who 

gave me this ribbon and pinned it on 

me personally, representing the tragedy, or I should say tragedies that occurred in the Oklahoma City bombing. 

I very proudly will wear this ribbon 

and will keep it after this debate, as 

well. And I want to thank Alice 

Maroney Dennison for thinking of me 

and being kind enough to give me these 

ribbons, representing various aspects of 

the Oklahoma City bombing. 

Beverly Rankin was also a survivor 

who lost many friends in the bombing. 

Mr. and Mrs. Lee Chancellor were 

there, as well, and of course he is a 

strong force in one of the national organizations trying to get some finality 

in the habeas corpus laws. 

I have to say I was very impressed by 

these victims of this bombing. They 

stood there and told their stories and 

begged the U.S. Senate and the Congress as a whole to get this bill 

through and to keep the true habeas 

corpus provisions in the bill as they are 

currently written. 

The habeas corpus provisions of this 

bill happen to be the only part of the 

bill and really, the only thing we can 

do, to make up to those who have lost 

family members and those who have 

been hurt and maimed, as a result of 

the Oklahoma City bombing. It is the 

one reform Congress can pass which 

will affect this case. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

June 5, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7659 

It is the one thing we can do something about. We can stop these incessant, frivolous appeals, that cost the 

taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars—billions over the extended period 

of time—in frivolous litigation, that 

keeps these people alive for 5, 10, usually an average of almost 10 years, 

sometimes as long as 18 to 20 years. 

Some of them die in prison before the 

final judgments are carried out. 

The reason that the far left in this 

country is fighting habeas corpus reform is because they hate the death 

penalty. They feel they cannot win the 

battle over public opinion so they have 

adopted a strategy to make death penalty litigation so costly and so protracted that capital punishment is 

eliminated de facto. Now, I have to 

admit that I believe the death penalty 

is proper, but I hate it, too. I wish we 

never had to use it. I wish there would 

be no heinous murderers in our society. 

But there are occasions where it is appropriate and just. It is a deterrent, as 

much as the opponents of the death 

penalty argue against it. 

However, I would suggest that instead of throwing up frivolous appeal 

after frivolous appeal and allowing this 

system to distort and disrupt our society and putting these victims and their 

families through frivolous appeal after 

frivolous appeal, I would suggest that 

if they hate the death penalty, argue 

the issue straight up, argue against the 

death penalty. Make their philosophical points. Fight it throughout 

society if they want to, but do not 

make a mockery of justice by keeping 

a system alive that literally is thwarting justice. 

The fact of the matter is some have 

argued that habeas reform applied to 

the State is not germane to this debate. These individuals, including my 

distinguished colleague and friend from 

Delaware, contend that a reform of the 

political overview of State convictions 

is meaningless in the context of the debate we are having. They are willing to 

admit that some revision of the collateral review may be in order, but they 

contend that reform of Federal collateral review of cases tried in State court 

is unnecessary. This position is simply 

incorrect. 

I would like to read from a letter 

written by Robert H. Macy, district attorney of Oklahoma City, and a Democrat. By the way, at this meeting 

today, representatives from the attorney general for the State of Oklahoma, 

a Democrat, were there, and one came 

up to me afterwards—Richard 

Winnery—and said, ‘‘Thank you for 

what you are doing.’’ Drew Edmondson 

has been one of our strongest supporters as a Democrat of habeas corpus 

reform, and there are a number of 

other Democrat attorney generals, and 

I might say many prosecutors who are 

Democrats throughout the country, 

who agree with what we are doing here. 

Robert H. Macy, as district attorney 

of Oklahoma City and a Democrat, 

said: 

Immediately following the trial or trials in 

Federal court, I shall, working in cooperation with the United States Department of 

Justice and the Federal law enforcement 

agencies investigating the bombing of the 

Alfred P. Murrah Building, prosecute in 

Oklahoma State court the cowards responsible for murdering innocent people in the 

areas surrounding the Federal building. And 

I shall seek the death penalty. We must 

never forget that this bombing took several 

lives and injured dozens of persons in the 

neighborhoods and businesses near the building. The State of Oklahoma has an overwhelming, compelling interest to seek and 

obtain the maximum penalty allowable by 

law for the senseless and cowardly killings. 

That is a statement of Robert H. 

Macy, the district attorney for Oklahoma City, a Democrat. 

In our reaction to the destruction of 

the Federal buildings in Oklahoma 

City, we may overlook the fact that 

the bomb also caused the death of people not inside the building at the time, 

that were not inside the building itself, 

or even on Federal property. The State 

of Oklahoma, not the Federal Government, will thus prosecute those responsible for the bombing that killed people 

outside of the Alfred P. Murrah Building. 

In those instances, Federal jurisdiction may not obtain and it will thus be 

necessary to prosecute the killers 

under State law, as well as Federal, 

court. 

A failure to enact a complete, meaningful, reform of habeas corpus proceedings may enable the individuals in 

this case, provided they are apprehended and duly convicted, to frustrate 

the demands of justice. The blood of 

the innocent men and women are on 

the hands of the evil cowards who committed this terrible tragedy. Justice 

must be, as President Clinton declared, 

‘‘swift, certain, and severe.’’

Moreover, failure to enact meaningful, comprehensive, habeas reform will 

permit other killers who have terrorized their communities to continue to 

frustrate our judicial system in this 

country. If we adopt this view, we will 

create a schism between State and Federal capital law. In other words, murderers tried in Federal court will face 

imposition of their final penalty more 

swiftly than persons tried for capital 

crimes in State courts—that is, if we 

adopt the amendments that apparently 

are going to be put forth by the ranking minority member on this committee. So, in other words, if we adopt 

any amendment that changes the habeas corpus reform bill within this bill 

that would provide that it applies only 

to Federal courts, that will create a 

schism between State and Federal capital law. 

Murderers tried in Federal court will 

face imposition of their final penalty 

more swiftly than persons tried for 

capital crimes in State cases. Why 

should we adopt such a piecemeal approach to reform, one that will leave 

such a gap between State and Federal 

cases? It simply makes no sense to reform habeas proceedings for cases tried 

in Federal court but leave the current 

disastrous system in place for cases 

tried in State court. 

As of January 1, 1995, there were 

some 2,976 inmates on death row. Yet, 

only 38 prisoners were executed last 

year, and the States have executed 

only 263 criminals since 1973. 

Yet, keep in mind, 2,976, almost 3,000, 

are sitting there on death row. Many 

more have died while in prison from 

natural causes, and some even from unnatural causes, while waiting for imposition of their penalty, because of frivolous habeas corpus appeals. 

I might add, some of them have committed further murders while the 

delays have occurred, murders that 

would not have been committed had 

sentences been carried out. 

Abuse of the habeas process features 

strongly in the extraordinary delay between the sentence and the carrying 

out of that sentence. In my home State 

of Utah, for example, convicted murderer William Andrews, with his partner, murdered a number of people in 

the hi-fi murder case, but only after 

they had tortured them by ramming 

pencils through their ears and pouring 

drain cleaner down their throats, destroying their vocal boxes and their 

esophageal areas. 

There, the imposition of a constitutionally imposed death sentence for 

over 18 years. The State had to put up 

millions of dollars in precious criminal 

justice resources to litigate his 

meritless claims. His guilt was never in 

question. He was not an innocent person seeking freedom from an illegal 

punishment. Rather, he simply wanted 

to frustrate the imposition of punishment his heinous crimes warranted. 

This abuse of habeas corpus litigation, particularly in those cases involving lawfully imposed death sentences, 

has taken a dreadful toll on victims’

families, seriously eroded the public’s 

confidence in our criminal justice system, and drained State criminal justice 

resources. This is simply not a just system. 

Justice demands that lawfully imposed sentences be carried out. Justice 

demands that we now adopt meaningful 

habeas corpus reform. Justice demands 

that we not permit those who would 

perpetuate the current system to steer 

us from our course. We must do as the 

victims, families, and friends of those 

who have asked us to do: enact meaningful, comprehensive, habeas reform 

now. 

Mr. President, the Senate is in session today debating the specific topic 

of habeas corpus reform, as well as 

other aspects of this antiterrorism bill. 

I have been devoting my time to habeas corpus reform because of, and in 

honor of, the witnesses, the victims, 

and the families of victims who appeared here today. 

I notice the distinguished Senator 

from California is here. Does the Senator desire to take the floor and speak? 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. In response to the 

Senator, I would like to send an 

amendment to the desk. I was going to 

do it at 11:30. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7660 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE June 5, 1995 

Mr. HATCH. That will be fine. I will 

hold off on any further comments on 

this until after the distinguished Senator has a chance to present her 

amendment, and I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1202 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1199

(Purpose: To amend the bill to authorize requirements for tagging of explosive materials and other purposes) 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I 

send an amendment to the desk and 

ask for its immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

The Senator from California [Mrs. FEINSTEIN], proposes an amendment (No. 1202) to 

amendment No. 1199. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that reading of 

the amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 152, strike line 6 through line 17 on 

page 153, and insert the following: 

SEC. ll. STUDY AND REQUIREMENTS FOR TAGGING OF EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS, 

AND STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RENDERING EXPLOSIVE 

COMPONENTS INERT AND IMPOSING 

CONTROLS ON PRECURSORS OF EXPLOSIVES. 

(a) the Secretary of the Treasury shall conduct a study and make recommendations 

concerning—

(1) the tagging of explosive materials for 

purposes of detection and identification; 

(2) whether common chemicals used to 

manufacture explosive materials can be rendered inert and whether it is feasible to require it; and 

(3) whether controls can be imposed on certain precursor chemicals used to manufacture explosive materials and whether it is 

feasible to require it. 

In conducting the study, the Secretary 

shall consult with other Federal, State and 

local officials with expertise in this area and 

such other individuals as shall be deemed 

necessary. Such study shall be completed 

within twelve months after the enactment of 

this Act and shall be submitted to the Congress and made available to the public. Such 

study may include, if appropriate, recommendations for legislation. 

(b) There are authorized to be appropriated 

for the study and recommendations contained in paragraph (a) such sums as may be 

necessary. 

(c) Section 842, of title 18, United States 

Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (k), a new subsection (l) which reads 

as follows: 

‘‘(l) It shall be unlawful for any person to 

manufacture, import, ship, transport, receive, possess, transfer, or distribute any explosive material that does not contain a 

tracer element as prescribed by the Secretary pursuant to regulation, knowing or 

having reasonable cause to believe that the 

explosive material does not contain the required tracer element.’’. 

(d) Section 844, of title 18, United States 

Code, is amended by inserting after ‘‘(a) 

through (i)’’ the phrase ‘‘and (l)’’. 

(e) Section 846, of title 18, United States 

Code, is amended by designating the present 

section as ‘‘(a)’’ and by adding a new subsection (b) reading as follows: ‘‘(b) to facilitate the enforcement of this chapter the Secretary shall, within 18 months after the enactment of this Act, promulgate regulations 

for the addition of tracer elements to explosive materials manufactured in or imported 

into the United States. Tracer elements to 

be added to explosive materials under provisions of this subsection shall be of such character and in such quantity as the Secretary 

may authorize or require, and such as will 

not substantially impair the quality of the 

explosive materials for their intended lawful 

use, safety of these explosives, or have a substantially adverse effect on the environment.’’. 

(f) The penalties provided herein, shall not 

take effect until ninety days after the date 

of promulgation of the regulations provided 

for herein. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the 

amendment I am offering today is an 

amendment to require the use of 

taggants. Now, what is a taggant? A 

taggant is a tiny, microscopic, colorcoded plastic or ceramic piece which 

can be mixed with explosive materials 

to allow law enforcement agencies to 

trace a batch of explosives like we currently do with car serial numbers. In 

other words, it might be possible, 

therefore, to identify the place of purchase of these explosives and therefore 

to, quite possibly, trace the purchaser. 

Why is this important? It is important because we have seen in this Nation a rising incidence of bombs. In my 

own State in the last few years, there 

have been about 500 bomb incidents. 

The Department of Justice tells us 

that about 80 percent of these result in 

an actual detonation. Consequently, 

there has been major loss of life from 

bombing incidents. I think this was 

brought home to every American by 

the incident in Oklahoma City. 

It is a complicated amendment because it is actually two parts. First, it 

requires the Secretary of the Treasury 

to do a study within 12 months, and 

then within 18 months to implement 

the results of that study or put into 

place a system by which taggants can 

be included in across-the-counter explosives. The affected explosives would 

include dynamite, water gels, slurries, 

emulsions, and black powder. 

Second, it would require a study on 

the use of diffusers in another body of 

agents used in explosives, and those are 

common chemicals such as the ammonium nitrate fertilizer that was used in 

the Oklahoma City bombing—common 

chemicals, these kinds of chemicals, as 

well as pool chemicals that can be utilized. This part of the amendment 

would only require a study, however, as 

to how these chemicals can be made 

inert or diffused or nonexplosive. The 

amendment also has language so that 

it will not impair the effectiveness, the 

safety, nor the environmental impact 

of the explosive materials which are 

covered. 

This past Friday in Los Angeles, I 

met with members of the Los Angeles 

County bomb squad, the Orange County bomb squad, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms bombs experts, and 

FBI experts, and virtually everyone in 

the room supported the use of taggants 

as a possible viable law enforcement 

tool. 

Taggants have been available for use 

in the United States and elsewhere for 

some 20 years but, frankly, special-interest groups have prevented their use. 

The current bill only provides that a 

study be done on the feasibility of 

using these taggants. There is no deadline. This means that 16 years of delay 

that has already taken place could be 

followed by another 16-year period of 

delay. My amendment includes two 

real deadlines. First, the report must 

be done in 12 months; and, second, after 

18 months, the use of taggants would be 

required. 

I think the potential effectiveness of 

taggants was highlighted by a study 

conducted in the late 1970’s when ATF 

seeded a very small portion of explosives, 10,000 pounds, with taggants. Despite this relatively small sample, 

these taggants actually helped solve a 

bombing in Maryland. In other words, 

by seeding just 10,000 pounds of explosives with taggants, they actually got 

leads to one bombing which led to the 

conviction of the individual responsible. 

If we had required taggants years before, we could have had crucial evidence in about 17 percent of the bombs 

cases that occurred between the years 

of 1987 and 1993. People will say 

taggants do not work or should not 

work. They will say they should not be 

included. But I will tell my colleagues 

that Switzerland for some time has incorporated taggants into explosives, 

and it has resulted in the conviction of 

many who have perpetrated bombings. 

I should say that, although ammonium nitrate was used along with diesel fuel, the people I have spoken to 

also believe there had to have been another accelerator included in that explosive batch of materials, and that accelerator most probably could have 

been tagged with a taggant. 

I believe the amendment before my 

colleagues is well thought out, Mr. 

President, and I believe it can and 

should be supported by both sides of 

this Chamber. 

I thank the Chair and yield the floor. 

Mr. President, I suggest the absence 

of a quorum. And I also retain the remainder of my time. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the order 

for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

SMITH). Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I 

would like to add my support of the 

Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention 

Act of 1995, which is the bill before us. 

For many years, it seemed to many 

Americans that the United States was 

immune to terrorism, that somehow it 

could not reach our shores. Perhaps it 

is because we are surrounded by oceans 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

June 5, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7661 

on the west and the east, by friendly 

neighbors to the north and to the 

south. We may have fooled ourselves 

into a false sense of security, somehow 

thinking that we live on an island and 

that no terrorist would reach us. 

We were long ago disabused of any 

such notion about our safety abroad. 

The hijackings and hostage takings of 

the 1970’s and 1980’s taught all Americans that we could be the victims of 

foreign terrorists who were prepared to 

use violence to advance their causes. 

We have expended much time, effort 

and money to improve the safety of our 

airlines and our Embassies and to ensure the cooperation of other governments in combating terrorism. But for 

many, home seemed a refuge, a haven 

from the political violence that has 

plagued so many other parts of our 

world. But we can no longer comfort 

ourselves with such illusions—and illusions they are. What was once unthinkable here in America is today a reality. 

Terrorism can strike us here at home. 

It can strike with massive deadly force, 

and it poses a most fundamental threat 

to our freedoms—the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So 

that is why we must act, and that is 

why we must take action on this bill 

today. 

In the wake of Oklahoma City, there 

is a new imperative—a bipartisan consensus on the need for tough, comprehensive antiterrorism legislation 

that can move through the legislative 

process and become law quickly. So I 

would like to commend the distinguished majority and minority leaders, 

as well as the Senator from Utah and 

the Senator from Delaware, who are 

the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, for acting expeditiously to 

bring this bill to the floor. 

The purposes of the legislation are 

clear: To make it more difficult to 

carry out acts of terrorism, to toughen 

the penalties for committing or abetting acts of terrorism, and to strengthen the hands of our law enforcement 

authorities to prevent and respond to 

acts of terrorism. 

Terrorists do not wait to get caught. 

It is our job to give our law enforcement agencies the authority and ability to seek out terrorists before they 

act. We must find them before they 

find us. It is that simple and that important. 

I believe that terrorism, the ultimate 

act of cowardice, actually threatens 

our life, our way of life, and jeopardizes 

our most fundamental liberties. With 

all that at stake, it is important that 

we act today. 

One of the most important sections 

of this bill, in my view, is a section 

that toughens restrictions on access to 

explosives, and increases the penalties 

for possessing stolen explosives, for 

transferring explosives with knowledge 

that they will be used to commit a 

crime, for conspiracies involving explosives, and for using explosives to commit a crime. These provisions are long 

overdue and well-considered. Oklahoma 

City taught us what the people of Beirut and London, Tel Aviv and Buenos 

Aires have known for far too long: 

Bombs kill. That is their sole purpose—

to blow up buildings and kill people. 

We should be doing everything possible 

to make it harder for terrorists to get 

their hands on explosives. 

I have a very personal interest in the 

issue of bombs. You see, Mr. President, 

I myself was the target of a terrorist 

bombing less than 20 years ago. An extremist group, the New World Liberation Front, tried to blow up my home, 

and failed only because the type of explosive they used does not detonate 

when the temperature drops below 

freezing and San Francisco experienced 

a rare frost that night. I was lucky, but 

so many others have not been. 

The proliferation of bombmaking 

materials has reached astounding proportions. According to the Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, from 

1983 to 1993 bombings in the United 

States more than tripled, from 910 to 

2,980. The Department of Justice now 

puts out an annual Bomb Summary 

each year—who ever thought such a 

thing would be necessary?—and in 1993 

summary, we learn that the 2,980 

bombing incidents, 541 of which were in 

California, caused 49 deaths and 1,323 

injuries nationwide. Whether or not all 

of these bombing incidents can be classified as terrorist attacks, these appalling statistics clearly demonstrate the 

need to restrict access to bombmaking 

materials. 

Indeed, Mr. President, the problem is 

not merely with bombmaking materials. In my opinion, there is altogether too much information too readily available on how to conduct terrorist attacks. Books and manuals, 

some of them posted on the Internet, 

teach everything one could want to 

know about picking locks, stealing 

chemicals, building bombs—all the 

skills you need to be a successful terrorist. Later, I intend to offer an 

amendment that will strengthen this 

legislation by making it a crime to 

teach or disseminate bombmaking information with knowledge that it will 

be used in a crime. 

Mr. President, another extremely important section of this bill deals with 

the problem of aliens who are members 

of terrorist organizations. It should be 

clear, that the risks of allowing alien 

terrorists to work their way through 

ordinary deportation hearings, which 

are often lengthy and slow-moving, are 

unacceptable. Yet this is the case 

under current law. In terrorist cases, 

our law enforcement authorities must 

be granted expedited procedures for deportation. 

I am pleased that the pending legislation provides for a special ‘‘terrorism 

court,’’ composed of U.S. district court 

judges appointed by the Chief Justice 

of the Supreme Court, that would be 

able to deport expeditiously alien terrorists without risking the disclosure 

of national security information and 

techniques. In the rare cases where evidence against an alien is highly classified, a summary of the evidence will be 

provided to the alien. In addition, the 

pending legislation would make membership in a terrorist organization a 

sufficient basis for exclusion from the 

United States. 

The point of this provision, is that 

when the Government has reliable information regarding terrorist activities of specific aliens, we cannot afford 

to wait until they commit crimes to 

deport them. The special court will 

hear evidence, and if it makes a compelling case that the alien is a member 

of a terrorist organization, the alien 

will be deported. I am confident that 

we can trust a panel of five Federal 

judges, appointed by the Chief Justice 

of the United States, to fairly weigh 

the evidence disclosed. And importantly, there is provision to not fully 

disclose sensitive information that 

could lead to the deaths of Americans 

and others. Such disclosures should not 

be necessary just to deport someone 

dangerous. 

Mr. President, one of the most serious problems we face is that international terrorist groups use the open 

environment of the United States to 

raise funds for their terrorist activities. The President has already delineated a list of organizations—such as 

Hamas and Hizbullah, and Jewish extremist groups like Kach and Kahane 

Chai—that raise funds in the United 

States for terrorist activities that undermine the Middle East peace process. 

The legislation before us will help put 

an end to that, by making it illegal to 

raise funds for any activity conducted 

by an organization deemed by the Secretary of State to be engaged in terrorist activities. 

Some have raised the objection that 

certain groups, that may conduct terrorist operations, also run humanitarian or social service operations, like 

schools and clinics. But I simply do not 

accept that so-called humanitarian 

works by terrorist groups can be kept 

separate from their other operations. I 

think the money will ultimately go to 

bombs and bullets, rather than babies, 

or, because money is fungible, it will 

free up other funds to be used on terrorist activities. 

Mr. President, we have all witnessed 

over the years the harm done to U.S. 

citizens and U.S. interests by international terrorism. The bombings of 

United States Embassies, the slaughter 

of 241 U.S. marines in Beirut, the hijacking of American airliners, the 

bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over 

Lockerbie, Scotland, the holding of 

American hostages. All of these images 

are deeply imprinted on our national 

psyche. 

These incidents, and the hundreds of 

others like them, aimed at Americans 

and non-Americans alike, pose one of 

the greatest threats today to international stability and security. Terrorism, as we have seen in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Hebron, can wreak havoc 

on 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7662 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE June 5, 1995 

the Middle East peace process. It undermines moderate regimes, such as 

Egypt, and exacerbates social tensions. 

It disrupts the lives of ordinary people, 

the flow of commerce, and the policies 

of affected governments. 

The State Department’s Patterns of 

Global Terrorism report tells us that in 

1994, there were 321 international terrorist attacks, over one-fifth of which 

were anti-U.S. attacks. And although 

this figure represents a 23-year low, it 

still means that there was an average 

of nearly one terrorist attack per day 

in 1994. All told, these attacks killed 

314 people and left another 663 wounded. 

In the face of this problem, the 

United States should demand, and has 

every right to expect, full cooperation 

from all friendly governments in the 

battle to combat international terrorism. Cooperation today is by and 

large quite good, although some nations are not as cooperative as we 

would like. The pending legislation 

would increase the incentive for other 

governments to cooperate in our 

antiterrorist efforts by prohibiting 

U.S. assistance to countries that provide aid or military equipment to terrorist states. The seven state sponsors 

of terrorism—Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, 

North Korea, Sudan, and Syria—do not 

deserve such assistance until they can 

justifiably be removed from the list of 

state-sponsors. 

The bill would also expand the type 

of assistance that we can provide our 

allies under the Anti-Terrorism Assistance Program. With the expansion of 

such programs, and the increased incentive for other countries to cooperate with us, the United States can help 

forge even greater international consensus on combating terrorism. 

But again, Mr. President, the primary lesson of the World Trade Center 

and Oklahoma City bombings is that 

from now on we face the possibility of 

a serious terrorist problem here at 

home. In addition to international terrorist groups that may set up cells in 

the United States, there is a growing 

danger of armed extremist groups of 

Americans, who hold antigovernment 

views, using violence to pursue their 

agenda. We have all heard the inflammatory statements of some members of 

militia and other right-wing extremist 

groups attacking religious or ethnic 

groups, predicting violent revolution 

against the Government, or slandering 

Federal law enforcement officers, who 

risk their lives to protect the very freedoms that allow the extremists to 

make their outrageous statements. But 

we have been warned. When heavily 

armed people with the ability to make 

bombs make threats, we ignore them 

at our peril. 

For that reason, Mr. President, perhaps the most important provisions of 

this legislation are those that 

strengthen the ability of Federal law 

enforcement officers to monitor extremist and potential terrorist groups. 

These provisions grant Federal law enforcement agencies enhanced access to 

credit, telephone, financial, and certain commercial records in 

counterterrorism cases. It will no 

longer be required to have evidence of 

criminal activity, but it will allow officers to investigate groups whom they 

suspect may be engaging in criminal 

activity. 

The effect of these changes in law 

will effectively be to untie the hands of 

our law enforcement officials. Currently our agents are unable to be 

proactive—they are only able to react 

to criminal activity, and launch an investigation of suspect individuals or 

groups after there is credible evidence 

of wrongdoing. These changes will 

allow our law enforcement officials to 

take steps to stop terrorist attacks before they happen. By investigating, 

monitoring, and infiltrating groups 

that may be involved in terrorism before a crime is committed, our agents 

can actually help prevent terrorist 

acts, and perhaps prevent the kind of 

horror we all witnessed last month. 

Passive investigation by the FBI of 

any group with terrorist potential is 

absolutely necessary in this day and 

age. As FBI Director Louis Freeh testified before the Judiciary Committee 

earlier this month, we ‘‘can’t afford’’

even one terrorist nuclear incident. Infiltration and court-ordered surveillance are critical to preventing that 

doomsday scenario from becoming a reality at some point in time. As long as 

the FBI and police do not encourage illegal conduct or otherwise entrap 

group members, we simply have to 

have the information that good surveillance—and only good surveillance—can 

provide. 

I want very much to make a few comments on the habeas corpus provisions. 

I suspect that these provisions are 

often complicated, that they are not 

always well known. But I believe very 

strongly in the provisions of this bill. 

As President Clinton recently said—

and I could not agree more—‘‘swift 

punishment, including the death penalty, where appropriate, is critical in 

efforts to combat terrorism.’’ I strongly believe that the death penalty can 

act as a deterrent to the most violent 

of crimes and is an appropriate punishment for those who knowingly take another life. 

There has been a lot of discussion as 

to whether the death penalty is or is 

not a deterrent. But I remember well in 

the 1960’s when I was sentencing a 

woman convicted of robbery in the first 

degree and I remember looking at her 

commitment sheet and I saw that she 

carried a weapon that was unloaded 

into a grocery store robbery. I asked 

her the question: ‘‘Why was your gun 

unloaded?’’ She said to me: ‘‘So I would 

not panic, kill somebody, and get the 

death penalty.’’ That was firsthand testimony directly to me that the death 

penalty in place in California in the 

sixties was in fact a deterrent. 

But the deterrent impact of the 

death penalty is weakened when it cannot be imposed swiftly after a verdict 

has been reached in a fair trial. As the 

Senate Judiciary Committee heard at 

its hearing on habeas reform last 

March, the extraordinary delay in carrying out capital sentences is in effect 

a form of terrorism against the survivors of murder victims, traumatizing 

them year after year by preventing justice from being carried out. 

Let no one doubt, Mr. President, that 

habeas reform should and must be an 

integral part of this legislation. 

Indeed, I spoke a few days ago with 

Oklahoma Attorney General Drew 

Edmondson, and a number of surviving 

family members of the men and women 

who lost their lives in Oklahoma City 

in that blast. It was a moving conversation and one that I will not forget. In sum, each of the survivors with 

whom I spoke, as well as the attorney 

general, urged the swift adoption of the 

habeas proposals in this legislation. 

Each conveyed to me that justice will 

not fully have been done until those responsible for the bombing have been 

tried, convicted, and the death penalty 

imposed and swiftly carried out. 

As Alice Maroney Dennison, the 

daughter of Mickey B. Maroney, a special agent with the Secret Service, said 

to me: ‘‘I’m 27 years old and they took 

my father. I cannot be 47 when this 

man goes to death. That’s not fair.’’

Mr. President, Alice Maroney 

Dennison’s plea, and indeed the voices 

of all of the family members of Oklahoma City’s victims, a number of 

whom just about a half-hour ago held a 

press conference in front of this Capitol, must be heard, and their loved 

ones must not have died in vain. 

Mr. President, it is time for meaningful habeas corpus reform. This bill contains it. Let no one doubt that comprehensive reform is critical, and particularly in capital cases. 

Much has been said about the case of 

Robert Alton Harris in California, a vicious murderer, and what he did when 

he was out of prison in San Diego. He 

went to a drive-in. He wanted to take a 

car. There were two 16-year-old boys in 

the car eating hamburgers. He took the 

car with the boys in it. He took the 

youngsters to a remote location. He 

killed one. The other dropped to his 

knees crying and begging for help, and 

he killed the second. Then he ate their 

hamburgers and went on to commit 

other robberies. 

This man actually filed no fewer than 

6 Federal habeas petitions and another 

10 such petitions in State court before 

he was ultimately executed 14 years 

later for his crime. In all, Harris and 

his attorneys were able to engineer 14 

years’ delay of his capital sentence. It 

was 14 years of unresolved grief for the 

survivors of his victims. 

In California today there are currently 410 convicted criminals on death 

row. On June 7, the longest serving 

member of California’s death row population, Andrew E. Robertson, will mark 

the 17th year of his incarceration. He 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

June 5, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7663 

has managed to delay his capital sentence by filing habeas petitions for 17 

years. 

In California, since 1978, when the 

people of the State voted to put back 

into place the death penalty, 18 prisoners on death row have died of natural 

causes or committed suicide. Only 2 

have been executed. Only 2 have had 

their sentence carried out, while 18 

have either committed suicide or died 

of natural causes, all of them delaying 

their sentence. 

Another case deserves attention as 

well. Clarence Ray Allen committed 

murder in 1974. He was convicted and 

sentenced to life in prison in 1977. 

From within prison he ordered the 

murder of the witnesses to the first 

murder. In September 1980, his assassin 

shotgunned to death three people and 

gravely wounded a fourth. 

Six years later, the California Supreme Court affirmed his conviction 

and death penalty. During the next 2 

years, it considered and denied a State 

habeas corpus petition in which a prison inmate is permitted to attack his 

sentence on factors outside the appellate record. 

The U.S. Supreme Court declined review. On September 2, 1988, a Federal 

district judge issued a stay of execution. Over 6 years later that stay remains in effect, and the case is still 

mired in the district court. Unfortunately, this is a typical case. This 

points out a need for the habeas corpus 

reform in the bill before the Senate 

today. 

In fact, according to Attorney General Dan Lungren’s testimony before 

the Senate Judiciary Committee in 

March of this year, there are ‘‘currently 410 inmates on death row in 

California. We have had 2 executions 

occur since 1992, the only 2 in the last 

27 years. The number of capital cases 

pending on Federal habeas corpus has 

more than doubled since 1991,’’ when he 

first testified here on this issue. 

In 4 years, the number of Federal habeas corpus cases on death row in California has doubled. Mr. President, since 

the death penalty was reinstated in 

California, as I said, many more prisoners on death row have died of natural 

causes and suicide than of a carrying 

out of their sentence. 

This problem is not unique to California. According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, during 

the year ending September 30, 1994, 

there were 11,918 prisoner petitions for 

habeas corpus review in the U.S. district courts alone. That is the reason 

habeas corpus reform has been a high 

priority of the Judiciary Committee. 

We should do it right and not merely 

pass a bill labeled with the term ‘‘habeas reform’’ for the sake of passing 

legislation. 

That is why all 58 California district 

attorneys opposed the habeas provisions included in Senate bill 1607, the 

crime bill as originally introduced in 

1993, and legislation introduced that 

year, Senate bill 1657. 

I am very pleased to say that the habeas provisions included in the bill currently under consideration by the Senate are identical to those included in 

the Habeas Corpus Reform Act, Senate 

bill 623, legislation strongly supported 

by the attorneys general of California 

and Oklahoma and which, I believe, 

strikes an appropriate balance between 

the need to assure due process of those 

both convicted in capital and noncapital crimes and the need of any rational judicial system to bring cases to closure. 

Most importantly, Mr. President, 

this bill provides habeas petitioners 

with one bite of the apple. It assures 

that no one convicted of a capital 

crime will be barred from seeking habeas relief in Federal court. In my 

view, it appropriately limits second 

and subsequent habeas appeals to narrow and appropriate circumstances. 

Furthermore, the bill requires States 

which provide for counsel that habeas 

appeals must be filed within 6 months 

of when a State prisoner’s conviction 

becomes final, or in States where 

standard for the adequacy of counsel 

are not adopted, such appeals must be 

filed within 1 year. So there is an incentive that if there is an adequacy of 

counsel standard in your State, there 

is 1 year from which the habeas petition must be filed. 

Time limits are also imposed upon 

courts. The bill requires that Federal 

courts must act promptly on habeas 

appeals and establishes a mechanism 

by which courts of appeals will screen 

habeas petitions before they are permitted to go to a Federal district court 

for resolution. 

Finally, unlike the crime bill proposals that I and the Nation’s law enforcement officials opposed 2 years ago, 

the bill does not dictate to the States 

precisely what counsel competency 

standards are adopted, but rather it 

properly provides States with an incentive to formulate their own plans by 

making expedited timetables I have 

just described available for States to 

do so. 

I believe there are two things that 

are an effective deterrent to crime. One 

of them is the speed of the trial. The 

other is the certainty of punishment. 

The habeas corpus reforms in this bill 

will make much more certain the certainty of punishment. I am very 

pleased to support them. I am very 

pleased to give my commendation to 

the committee chairman, the Senator 

from Utah, and to support this bill. 

I think this is an important moment 

for our country and for this Congress. 

We have an opportunity to take bold 

action which will go a long way toward 

increasing the security of our citizens. 

This comprehensive package of 

antiterrorist legislation is an important step also in the recovery for the 

people of Oklahoma City, the people of 

the State of Oklahoma, and the people 

of the United States. For while the 

wounds of that day will never fully 

heal, today we begin to act to help prevent future sorrows and to help the 

American people be reassured that 

their rights to life, liberty, and the 

pursuit of happiness will not be threatened by the menace of terrorism, 

whether from foreign shores or our 

own. 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank 

the distinguished Senator from California for her cogent remarks on habeas corpus reform. She is one of the 

leaders in this body in trying to reform 

these laws, and I want to personally 

compliment her for them. 

I appreciate the support that she is 

bringing to this debate. It means a lot 

to me personally, as one who has 

fought for years to try to get the habeas corpus bill through. This is the 

time when I think we have to stand up 

and do it. I thank her and I appreciate 

the leadership she has provided. 

Presently, there are 100 amendments, 

under our unanimous consent agreement, to this bill. Mr. President, 68 of 

these amendments are Democrat 

amendments and 32 amendments are 

Republican. Most of the Republican 

amendments, I believe, will not be offered. So it is really coming down to 

the 68 amendments that our friends on 

the other side have. 

We have the Feinstein taggant 

amendment pending, but I want to urge 

my Democrat colleagues to come to 

the floor and offer their amendments. 

We will stack them for votes beginning 

at 6 o’clock tonight. I believe we also 

can dispense with several GOP amendments, including the two Pressler 

amendments, the Smith amendment, a 

Brown amendment, and perhaps an 

Abraham amendment today, if we can. 

I would like to do that. 

Having said that, I would like to 

spend a few minutes chatting about the 

amendment of the distinguished Senator from California which is currently 

pending. 

I have to rise in opposition to that 

amendment, but I first want to emphasize that the bill under consideration, 

S. 735, already contains a requirement 

for a study of the feasibility of ‘‘tagging’’ all explosives for tracing purposes. 

Trace tagging, unlike ‘‘identification’’ taggants, are actual chips mixed 

in with the explosive. This is certainly 

an area that merits further serious 

study. We have authorized, in the bill, 

the Departments of Treasury and Justice to undertake exactly such a study. 

Our bill also includes a provision 

which requires plastic explosives to be 

tagged with a detectable agent, thus 

helping to ensure that these devises 

can be detected before they are used in 

sabotage. 

A detection taggant is a chemical 

odorant added to the explosive which 

enables security devises to detect the 

explosive. This particular provision 

fulfills our obligations under an international convention requiring such legislation. 

The amendment under consideration, 

however, goes much further. In addition to providing a study of tracing 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7664 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE June 5, 1995 

taggants, it also gives regulatory authority to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to implement the 

results of the study without congressional review. The amendment thus 

presupposes that the study will conclude that the use of tracing taggants 

is feasible, and the amendment criminalizes the failure to include these 

agents in the manufacturer of explosives. 

Thus, the Feinstein amendment 

would require the placement of socalled traceable taggants—that is, microscopic bits of plastic coded to link 

explosives to a particular manufacturer—in all explosives before the 

study of whether this is feasible or safe 

is concluded, or even conducted for 

that matter. This is hardly the type of 

impartiality and objectiveness the 

American people would want in a study 

of this sort. 

Indeed, even if the study reasonably 

concluded that use of such agents was 

practical, cost effective, and would aid 

law enforcement, opponents of the inclusion of such agents would have the 

perfect argument that the results of 

the study were preordained and thus 

unreliable. 

Even the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 

and Firearms, the agency which would 

have regulatory authority, has conceded that more study is needed before 

implementing procedures and regulations. The BATF’s division chief for 

arson and explosives recently stated: 

It would be important for us to at least assess the state of the technology and the research and the development that has been 

done in the last 15 years. We need to get ourselves up to speed. 

Moreover, this amendment would impose a requirement for regulation without regard to the need for unbiased 

study of this issue, or for the legitimate safety concerns raised by the use 

of these taggants. 

A 1980 report by the Office of Technology Assessment found substantial 

evidence that placing these ‘‘tracing’’

taggants in explosives seriously affects 

the stability of the explosive materials. Thus, these taggants could increase the risk of injury or death. Tagging explosives may raise other very 

important issues, such as contamination of evidence, saturation of tagging 

agents in places where explosives are 

used for legitimate uses, and negative 

effects on small business. 

Given these very important and wideranging concerns, it is imperative that 

the Congress, not the BATF, have the 

ability to make these important decisions regarding tracing taggants once a 

study is completed. Requiring the use 

of taggants before a thorough study of 

the effectiveness and safety implications of their use is conducted places 

the cart before the horse. 

The bill now before the Senate provides for a comprehensive study of this 

issue. Congress should commission and 

review the study before enacting criminal penalties based on the assumed 

outcome. 

I understand the distinguished Senator is very sincere in her amendment 

and is trying to do what is right here. 

But I hope the points I have raised will 

persuade colleagues on both sides of 

the aisle that we ought to approach 

this with a study first and then see 

where we go from there and have congressional action with regard to 

taggants after we have a thoroughgoing study because of the safety and 

other concerns involved in tagging various explosives. 

It is not just safety; it is effectiveness of the explosives as well. But safety is something that is more important 

to me. I really believe we ought to do 

this the right way. Of course, hopefully, do it in a way that ultimately 

will be pleasing to our friend from California, who is very sincere about her 

amendment and has the highest of motivations in bringing it here. But I 

hope I have made the case we really 

should not accept this amendment at 

this time. 

I am prepared to move to table the 

amendment with the understanding the 

vote will occur after 6 p.m. today. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I wonder if the 

Senator would permit me to respond to 

his statement prior to tabling? 

Mr. HATCH. Sure. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate that 

very much. 

Mr. President, if I might just very 

briefly respond? Taggants have been 

studied. I am holding up one of these 

studies entitled ‘‘Taggants In Explosives.’’ The date is April 1980. The 

studying office is the Office of Technology Assessment. You can see the 

thickness of the study. 

On the issue of safety, what the Office found: 

In no case did the addition of encapsulated 

taggants significantly increase the sensitivity of the explosive materials to the test 

conditions. No evidence of any decreased stability or other significant changes was found 

in any of the tests with dynamite, gels, 

slurries or black powder. 

That is essentially the world that 

would be affected by taggants. The 

taggants would affect, really, these 

areas. In my amendment we do provide 

for a study, but what we say is at some 

point you have to say enough of studying and make a decision and go ahead. 

Twelve more months of study and then 

it is implementation, where taggants 

can be used with safety, with no increase in the volatility of the explosive 

matter, and where they could lead to 

being able to trace suspects in bombings. 

There have been two constituencies 

opposed to taggants. Let us be brutally 

frank. One of them is, once again, our 

friends in the National Rifle Association. And the second is the explosives 

industry. The explosives industry says 

taggants would add cost to us. 

In fact, the cost of using taggants in 

dynamite, water gels, slurries, emulsions, and cast boosters, as quoted are, 

per pound, $1.42; $1.47; $1.45, and $7.41 

respectively. That is a minimal cost to 

be able to trace back where an explosive might be used in a bomb that can 

blow up as many as 168 people at one 

time. 

The National Rifle Association has 

once again opposed the use of taggants. 

I cannot figure out the reason for the 

life of me, but I suppose it is because 

we surround this area with a certain 

kind of anonymity. I think if ever we 

have seen the need to increase transparency in sales of explosives we saw it 

at the World Trade Center and we saw 

it once again in Oklahoma City. 

My amendment would also permit 

the study, and a study only, of chemical fertilizers that are used, like ammonium nitrate, to see if these fertilizers can be made inert. There are 

countries, for example, that add lime 

to ammonium sulfate and prevent it 

from exploding. Should we do that? I 

think we ought to study it. The amendment in the bill, the original, includes 

no study in the area of chemical fertilizers and chemical components 

which are increasingly used as bomb 

materials in this country. 

In response to my distinguished 

chairman, I would only say there is a 

time to study and there is a time to 

stop studying and take action. This 

issue has been studied in 1980. In my 

amendment it will be studied for another year. But then we will move 

ahead in the areas I have just mentioned: dynamite, water gels, slurries, 

emulsions, and black powder. All of 

these areas can be successfully tagged. 

The state of the art is there to do it. 

Switzerland has done it for a number of 

years. Other countries are doing it and 

there is no reason why we should not as 

well. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, there are 

a couple of letters I have received, 

mailed to the Honorable CHRISTOPHER

J. DODD and the Honorable JOE

LIEBERMAN. This is from Unimin Corp. 

in New Canaan, CT, a corporation or 

business right in the middle of their 

State. I will just read the letter to Senator DODD. I ask unanimous consent 

both letters be printed in the RECORD

at this point. 

There being no objection, the letters 

were ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

UNIMIN CORP., 

New Canaan, CT, May 24, 1995. 

Hon. CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR DODD: I am writing on behalf of Unimin Corporation to express 

Unimin’s opposition to S. 761 (proposed by 

the Clinton Administration and introduced 

by Senators Daschle and Biden) which authorizes the Treasury Department (BATF) to 

promulgate regulations requiring the use of 

identification ‘‘taggants’’ in explosives manufactured in or imported into the United 

States. This legislation could devastate our 

business. 

Unimin is the world leader in the mining, 

production and sale of high purity silica 

powders used both domestically and abroad 

in the production of semi-conductors. In the 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

June 5, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7665 

initial stage of Unimin’s silica purification 

process, explosives are used to extract the 

silica-containing ore from the earth. 

In order to meet the stringent purity requirements of our semi-conductor industry 

customers, Unimin has gone to great expense 

using the most advanced technology in the 

industry to remove nearly all forms of contaminants from our silica products. Unimin 

has reduced the metal contaminants to levels below 1 part per million. The slightest 

impurity in our materials can result in costly losses to our customers because they result in defective silicon chips. High purity 

silica is the hallmark of our international 

business success and leadership. We produce 

the world’s purest natural silica powder. As 

a result we are the leading supplier of this 

essential semi-conductor product to producers in each of the U.S., Europe and Japan. 

This proposed legislation would force 

Unimin to introduce contaminants (the 

taggants to be included in the explosives we 

use) into our product, and could make our 

product unsuitable for their intended use—

the production of semi-conductors. This legislation would give our foreign competitors 

(who will not have their products contaminated by taggants from explosives used in 

silica mines abroad) an enormous opportunity to get our customers in the U.S. and 

overseas to drop their U.S. supplier, Unimin. 

Unimin Corporation urges that you oppose 

this legislation. While everyone seeks to 

deter terrorism, further study and thorough 

consideration should be given to this important issue before any action is taken which 

will have unintended, far-reaching and commercially injurious consequences to 

Unimin’s world leadership in the high purity 

silica market. There must be some way to 

meet the objectives of this legislation without requiring a company which depends entirely on the purity of its product to introduce contaminant taggants into our production stream. 

Unimin urges you to support S. 735, sponsored by Senators Dole and Hatch, which 

proposes a study of detection and identification taggants for non-plastic explosives. 

Unimin looks forward to your support in 

this issue. 

Very truly yours, 

JOSEPH C. SHAPIRO, 

Senior Vice President/Legal 

and Regulatory Affairs. 

UNIMIN CORP., 

New Canaan, CT, May 24, 1995. 

Hon. JOE LIEBERMAN, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR LIEBERMAN: I am writing on 

behalf of Unimin Corporation to express 

Unimin’s opposition to S. 761 (proposed by 

the Clinton Administration and introduced 

by Senators Daschle and Biden) which authorizes the Treasury Department (BATF) to 

promulgate regulations requiring the use of 

identification ‘‘taggants’’ in explosives manufactured in or imported into the United 

States. This legislation could devastate our 

business. 

Unimin is the world leader in the mining, 

production and sale of high purity silica 

powders used both domestically and abroad 

in the production of semi-conductors. In the 

initial stage of Unimin’s silica purification 

process, explosives are used to extract the 

silica-containing ore from the earth. 

In order to meet the stringent purity requirements of our semi-conductor industry 

customers, Unimin has gone to great expense 

using the most advanced technology in the 

industry to remove nearly all forms of contaminants from our silica products. Unimin 

has reduced the metal contaminants to levels below 1 part per million. The slightest 

impurity in our materials can result in costly losses to our customers because they result in defective silicon chips. High purity 

silica is the hallmark of our international 

business success and leadership. We produce 

the world’s purest natural silica powder. As 

a result we are the leading supplier of this 

essential semi-conductor product to producers in each of the U.S., Europe and Japan. 

This proposed legislation would force 

Unimin to introduce contaminants (the 

taggants to be included in the explosives we 

use) into our product, and could make our 

product unsuitable for their intended use—

the production of semi-conductors. This legislation would give our foreign competitors 

(who will not have their products contaminated by taggants from explosives used in 

silica mines abroad) an enormous opportunity to get our customers in the U.S. and 

overseas to drop their U.S. supplier, Unimin. 

Unimin Corporation urges that you oppose 

this legislation. While everyone seeks to 

deter terrorism, further study and thorough 

consideration should be given to this important issue before any action is taken which 

will have unintended, far-reaching and commercially injurious consequences to 

Unimin’s world leadership in the high purity 

silica market. There must be some way to 

meet the objectives of this legislation without requiring a company which depends entirely on the purity of its product to introduce contaminant taggants into our production stream. 

Unimin urges you to support S. 735, sponsored by Senators Dole and Hatch, which 

proposes a study of detection and identification taggants for non-plastic explosives. 

Unimin looks forward to your support in 

this issue. 

Very truly yours, 

JOSEPH C. SHAPIRO, 

Senior Vice President/Legal 

and Regulatory Affairs. 

Mr. HATCH (reading the letter): 

DEAR SENATOR DODD: I am writing on behalf of Unimin Corporation to express 

Unimin’s opposition to S. 761 (proposed by 

the Clinton Administration and introduced 

by Senators Daschle and Biden) which authorizes the Treasury Department (BATF) to 

promulgate regulations requiring the use of 

identification ‘‘taggants’’ in explosives manufactured in or imported into the United 

States. This legislation could devastate our 

business. 

Unimin is the world leader in the mining, 

production and sale of high purity silica 

powders used both domestically and abroad 

in the production of semi-conductors. In the 

initial stage of Unimin’s silica purification 

process, explosives are used to extract the 

silica-containing ore from the earth. 

In order to meet the stringent purity requirements of our semi-conductor industry 

customers, Unimin has gone to great expense 

using the most advanced technology in the 

industry to remove nearly all forms of contaminants from our silica products. Unimin 

has reduced the metal contaminants to levels below 1 part per million. The slightest 

impurity in our materials can result in costly losses to our customers because they result in defective silicon chips. High purity 

silica is the hallmark of our international 

business success and leadership. We produce 

the world’s purest natural silica powder. As 

a result we are the leading supplier of this 

essential semi-conductor product to producers in each of the U.S., Europe and Japan. 

This proposed legislation would force 

Unimin to introduce contaminants (the 

taggants to be included in the explosives we 

use) into our product, and could make our 

product unsuitable for their intended use—

the production of semi-conductors. This legislation would give our foreign competitors 

(who will not have their products contaminated by taggants from explosives used in 

silica mines abroad) an enormous opportunity to get our customers in the U.S. and 

overseas to drop their U.S. supplier, Unimin. 

Unimin Corporation urges that you oppose 

this legislation. While everyone seeks to 

deter terrorism, further study and thorough 

consideration should be given to this important issue before any action is taken which 

will have unintended, far-reaching and commercially injurious consequences to 

Unimin’s world leadership in the high purity 

silica market. There must be some way to 

meet the objectives of this legislation without requiring a company which depends entirely on the purity of its product to introduce contaminant taggants into our production stream. 

Unimin urges you to support S. 735, sponsored by Senators Dole and Hatch, which 

proposes a study of detection and identification taggants for non-plastic explosives. 

Unimin looks forward to your support in 

this issue. 

Very truly yours, 

UNIMIN CORPORATION. 

JOSEPH C. SHAPIRO, 

Senior Vice President/Legal 

and Regulatory Affairs. 

That is just one illustration of perhaps many illustrations that indicates 

we are not as sure of what we are doing 

in this area as we should be. 

I am concerned about the effectiveness of explosives. More importantly, I 

am concerned about the safety of explosives. But this raises another issue, 

and that is whether putting taggants 

into explosives that are utilized in 

some of our industries might destroy 

those industries in this country at a 

high cost to our society. And I would 

say the silica chip industry is a very 

important industry in this country. 

Senator FEINSTEIN’s amendment requires the Secretary of Treasury to 

promulgate regulations requiring the 

placement of trace elements which 

‘‘will not substantially impair the safety of the explosive.’’

I would like to ask my colleague one 

question. Where do we draw the line, 

and what is a substantial or unsubstantial impairment of safety? 

Does not the Feinstein amendment 

require the placement of taggants 

where doing so may very well impair 

safety? At least, that is what I have 

been led to believe. 

I would be happy to yield for a response. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if 

the Senator will yield for a moment, 

the amendment very specifically says 

so that safety would not be impaired; 

in other words, in the study that would 

be done in the ensuing 12 months that 

there not be an adverse environmental 

impact, not impair the stability of the 

explosive materials, and that safety 

not be impaired. 

Those are the three criteria in the 

amendment. 

Mr. HATCH. The study that the distinguished Senator from California has 

cited was conducted, I believe, back in 

1980. I am a member of the Technology 

Assessment Board. That study itself 

found substantial evidence that placing 

taggants in explosives seriously affects 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7666 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE June 5, 1995 

the stability of the explosive material. 

I am reading what it says here on page 

29, in their detailed findings. 

The tests so far conducted are only a small 

fraction of the total number of tests that 

must be performed before it can conclusively 

be determined whether taggants are compatible with commercial explosives and gun 

powders. Even if the current question of the 

stability of smokeless powder in boosters is 

resolved, it is not possible to generalize from 

the results of the limited tests . . . so far 

completed. 

And they conclude that the testing 

has not demonstrated that taggants 

can be safely added to explosives. 

Thousands of people come into contact with explosives every day during 

the manufacture, storage, transportation, and use of explosives. Accidents 

involving explosives can have extremely severe consequences to these 

thousands of people. Therefore, safety 

must be demonstrated, and a carefully 

administered qualification program for 

analysis, safety, testing, and manufacturing procedures, control, and experience is necessary before a new explosive or an explosive with a significant 

exchange in composition can be considered safe. 

In addition, each type of explosive 

product requires individual evaluation 

and testing, the type of qualification 

program considered necessary before 

safety can be demonstrated as shown in 

table 12 and discussed in detail in chapter 4. A particularly important aspect 

of that qualification testing is the effect of long-term storage. 

It goes on. The point is that recently, 

the ATF itself asked for further studies 

recognizing that technologies had 

changed substantially since the original study was conducted. It is pretty 

apparent that I and those on my side of 

this issue do not oppose taggants per 

se. Rather, we oppose granting regulatory authority to an agency before 

an updated study can be done which 

may solve some of these very important issues. 

Even though the distinguished Senator requires a study, as do we, she requires without further congressional 

approval that taggants be placed automatically at a certain time. It makes 

no sense to grant regulatory authority 

before an updated study is conducted. 

Indeed, I think that this legislation 

proposed by Senator FEINSTEIN would 

seriously undermine our confidence in 

the studies that have occurred thus far 

and our confidence in explosives in 

general. 

So there is a lot of use of explosives 

in our society—legitimate, honest, decent use. The Unimin letter is a perfect 

illustration of perhaps thousands of 

businesses or companies or people who 

might be affected by this. We should 

not compromise the integrity or the 

objectivity of the study conducted by 

OTA. 

So I, therefore, oppose this amendment, and with the Senator’s permission, I move to table the amendment 

and ask for the yeas and nays, with the 

understanding that it will not be voted 

upon until after 6 o’clock tonight. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection to the unanimous-consent request? 

Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Is there a sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the Feinstein 

amendment No. 1202 be laid aside, and 

at 6 p.m., we have a vote on my motion 

to table. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 

the floor. 

Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma. 

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this is a 

very special day to Oklahoma. We have 

a very distinguished group of people 

from Oklahoma who are at this very 

moment visiting with various Senators 

who oppose the idea of habeas reform. 

I cannot think of any stronger message 

that we can take to these people than 

from those who are the survivors and 

those who have families lost in the 

tragic explosion in Oklahoma. 

I just came back from my 76th town 

hall meeting out in Oklahoma. I think 

I probably have more of those than any 

other Member of this body. A question 

always comes up when I have these 

meetings. They say something to the 

effect, ‘‘Why is it that people in Washington are more concerned about the 

criminals than they are the victims?’’ I 

try to explain to them—and I know 

that this is rather controversial to say, 

but I really believe it in my own heart, 

Mr. President—that at least prior to 

this new Congress coming in, the majority of people in both of these bodies 

did not honestly in their own hearts 

believe that punishment is a deterrent 

to crime. 

It is one that I look at, and it seems 

very logical that when you take a tragedy such as we experienced in Oklahoma, when the perpetrators of that 

crime were preparing this explosion 

and what they were going to do, the 

bombing and the attack on the Federal 

building in Oklahoma City, this is not 

something that they did just overnight. This is something they 

planned—not for days, not for weeks, 

but maybe even, we feel, for several 

months. 

During the time that something like 

this is happening, those individuals 

who are making the plans to detonate 

a bomb that will murder many, many 

people have to be thinking what is the 

worst thing, what is the downside of 

this, what is the worst thing that can 

happen to me if I get caught? The 

worst thing that can happen, as they 

look at it, might be to sit around in 

some air-conditioned prison cell watching color TV, eating three good meals a 

day for 10 years, 15 years, 20 years. And 

I suggest to you, Mr. President, that is 

not much of a deterrent. 

I think particularly some of the people from maybe the Middle Eastern 

cultures, and others, people who are 

trained terrorists—most of them—do 

not think they are going to be around 

for 10 years, anyway. Here in America, 

it takes an average of 91⁄2 years between conviction and execution. I suggest that takes away all of the deterrent value. 

This happens because we have things 

built into our system. I am sure that 

they were put in there in the sense of 

trying to be fair to everyone, and to 

make sure no chances are taken that 

someone might be executed who was 

not actually the one who committed 

the crime. But they sit in there 

through appeal after appeal after appeal. 

Roger Dale Stafford, in the spring of 

1978, murdered a Sergeant Lorenz, then 

he murdered his wife, then he murdered 

Sergeant Lorenz’ small son. Then he 

turned around and drove 60 miles to 

Oklahoma City, where he went into the 

Sirloin Stockade Restaurant. He 

rounded up six employees at gunpoint, 

bound them, took them into a refrigerator, and murdered them execution 

style. 

That was in 1978. Roger Dale Stafford 

is now still in McAlester in our State 

prison in Oklahoma. By the way, he is 

now over 100 pounds more than he was 

when he went in, so you know they are 

feeding him pretty well. He has been 

sitting in his cell for 17 years and probably living better than he lived before 

anyway. And I suggest to you that is 

not just an inhumane thing to do to 

the families of those victims of his 

murders, but it is no deterrent for 

other people who may be tempted to do 

the same thing. 

What is interesting about this is that 

the attorney who is so successful in 

getting all of these appeals and all 

these delays in the ultimate execution 

which still has not taken place of the 

guy who did kill those nine people back 

in Oklahoma in 1978, that attorney is a 

very competent and capable attorney 

named Steven Jones from Enid, OK. I 

happen to know him personally. I suggest to you that Steven Jones is also 

the attorney for Timothy McVeigh, one 

who is held right now as possibly one 

who is responsible for the tragedy in 

Oklahoma City. 

So today we have a number of people 

who are here from Oklahoma. We have 

Diane Leonard, whose husband Don, a 

Secret Service agent, was killed in the 

bombing in Oklahoma City. We have 

Glenn Seidl, who lost his wife, Kathy, 

in the bombing. I talked to Kay Ice 

just a few minutes ago, who lost her 

brother, Paul. He was a customs agent; 

Mike Reyes, who lost his father and 

was injured himself in the explosion. I 

believe he is the one who actually fell 

four stories and was able to survive. 

But he lost his father; Jason Smith, 

who lost his mother, Linda; Dan 

McKinney. That is Linda’s husband. He 

was here today; Gary Bland, who lost 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

June 5, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7667 

his wife, Sally; Suzanne Britten, who 

lost her fiance. 

It is very significant that we understand what these people are doing 

today. We had a news conference at 

10:30, and we stood down there in front 

of the Senate and they described the 

types of deaths that their loved ones 

had been subjected to, how there was 

no longer any facial characteristics 

left; they could not really identify 

them as they normally would; and 

being exposed to this, they are going 

through all this for one reason. That is, 

they know the way to deter this type of 

thing from happening again is to have 

swift justice. 

We had a President who came out 

and said we want swift and sure justice. I call upon the President right 

now to stand up before these Oklahomans who are up here today and say, 

yes, I support Senator HATCH’s habeas 

reform as in the bill. Frankly, as a 

Senator from Oklahoma, I am going to 

support the Kyl amendment for a 

stronger habeas bill. It is very moderate and very fair, but it is a habeas 

reform that will not allow these things 

to go year after year after year, 10 

years, 15 years and 20 years, where all 

deterrent value is lost. 

So, Mr. President, I hope that those 

Senators who are being visited right 

now by Diane Leonard, and by Glenn 

Seidl, and by Kay Ice and Mike Reyes 

and Jason Smith and Dan McKinney 

and Gary Bland and Suzanne Britten 

will stop and realize that they have an 

opportunity to preclude something like 

this from happening again, allow the 

message that will go out to all who 

might be considering such an act that 

in America we are not going to allow 

someone to sit around for 8 years or 10 

years or 20 years before an execution 

takes place. We will in fact have swift 

justice. 

Maybe, Mr. President, I am old fashioned, but I really believe in my heart 

that punishment is a deterrent to 

crime, and sitting around for 10 years 

is not cruel punishment. 

Mr. President, I suggest the absence 

of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

FRIST). The clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk proceeded to call the 

roll. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1203 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1199

(Purpose: To make technical changes in 

section 102 of the Dole-Hatch substitute) 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment to the desk for and on behalf of Mr. SMITH and ask for its immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report the amendment. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Utah [Mr. HATCH], for 

Mr. SMITH, proposes an amendment numbered 1203 to amendment No. 1199. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that reading of the 

amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 12, line 6, strike ‘‘25 years.’’ and 

insert the following: 

‘‘25 years; Provided, however, That the damages to property that were caused, or would 

have been caused if any object of the conspiracy had been accomplished, must exceed, 

or must be reasonably estimated to exceed, 

$25,000. 

On page 7, at the end of line 17, add the following: 

‘‘Provided, however, That the damages to 

property must exceed $25,000;’’

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest 

the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk proceeded to call the 

roll. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have 

just sent up the amendment for and on 

behalf of Senator SMITH. This is an 

amendment of a technical nature. This 

amendment simply places a dollar floor 

on cases that can be brought in Federal 

court in acts of terrorism. This amendment will prevent Federal courts from 

having to try minor cases in Federal 

court. For example, we would not want 

a case involving a mere broken window 

or a smashed door to be tried in Federal court. 

So this amendment basically says, 

‘‘* * * 25 years; provided, however, that 

the damages to property that were 

caused, or would have been caused if 

any object of the conspiracy had been 

accomplished, must exceed, or must 

reasonably be estimated to exceed, 

$25,000.’’ So that is basically what this 

amendment does. 

This amendment makes a great deal 

of sense in the context of this debate so 

I would urge my colleagues to support 

this Smith amendment. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Smith amendment be set 

aside so that I can call up a Pressler 

amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1204 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1199

(Purpose: To designate the Federal building 

at 1314 LeMay Boulevard, Ellsworth Air 

Force Base, SD, as the ‘‘Cartney Koch 

McRaven Child Development Center’’) 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment to the desk and ask for its 

immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report the amendment. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Utah [Mr. HATCH], for 

Mr. PRESSLER, proposes an amendment numbered 1204 to amendment No. 1199. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that reading of the 

amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

At the appropriate place, insert the following: 

SEC. —. DESIGNATION OF CARTNEY KOCH 

MCRAVEN CHILD DEVELOPMENT 

CENTER. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Federal building at 

1314 LeMay Boulevard, Ellsworth Air Force 

Base, South Dakota, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Cartney Koch McRaven 

Child Development Center’’. 

(2) REPLACEMENT BUILDING.—If, after the 

date of enactment of this Act, a new Federal 

building is built at the location described in 

paragraph (1) to replace the building described in the paragraph, the new Federal 

building shall be known and designated as 

the ‘‘Cartney Koch McRaven Child Development Center’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, 

map, regulation, document, paper, or other 

record of the United States to a Federal 

building referred to in subsection (a) shall be 

deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Cartney 

Koch McRaven Child Development Center’’. 

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am 

proud to offer this amendment along 

with my South Dakota colleague, Senator DASCHLE, to S. 735, the Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act, 

to designate the child development 

center at Ellsworth Air Force Base in 

South Dakota as the Cartney Koch 

McRaven Child Development Center. 

It was just slightly more than a 

month ago that terrorist thugs bombed 

the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building 

in Oklahoma City. Among the victims 

inside was Cartney Koch McRaven. 

Stationed at Tinker Air Force Base 

and having just been married the previous weekend, Cartney was in the 

Murrah Federal Building to register 

her new married name on Federal documents. Tragically, her life was cut 

short by the savagery of domestic terrorism. 

It is only fitting that we honor 

Cartney at Ellsworth Air Force Base. 

Spearfish was her home. And she chose 

to begin her adult life by joining the 

Air Force and serving her country. And 

serve she did, with honor, with devotion, with dignity. 

It is even more fitting that her name 

appear on the child development center 

at Ellsworth. A1c Cartney Koch 

McRaven served in Haiti, where the 

stark poverty had an enormous impact 

on her. Cartney’s heart went out to the 

children of Haiti. She devoted her time 

in Haiti to an orphanage, offering a 

warm smile and a kind, loving word to 

young faces. The mission of our Armed 

Forces in Haiti was to ensure peace and 

offer hope to the people of Haiti—

young and old. Cartney took her mission to heart. 

Even her family honored Cartney’s 

commitment to young people by urging 

that donations be made in Cartney’s 

memory to the orphanage in Haiti. 

But we do more than honor a person. 

We honor the values she personified 

and practiced in her daily life. The values of service, of duty, of compassion 

and caring for the underprivileged 

young—values that are at the core of 

South Dakota and of America. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7668 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE June 5, 1995 

It is my hope that by passing this 

amendment and the underlying bill, 

Cartney Koch McRaven forever will be 

remembered as a symbol of these core 

values and an inspiration to the young 

people in South Dakota and America to 

honor and serve their family, community, and country. 

I urge my colleagues to support the 

amendment. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment on behalf of my 

colleague, Senator PRESSLER, the distinguished Senator from South Dakota. This amendment would designate 

the child development center at Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota 

as the ‘‘Cartney Koch McRaven Child 

Development Center.’’

This amendment intends to honor 

the dedication and service of a young 

Air Force airman from South Dakota 

who was killed in the Oklahoma City 

bombing. U.S. Airman First Class 

Cartney Koch McRaven, a South Dakota native stationed at Tinker Air 

Force Base outside Oklahoma City, was 

among those killed in the April 19, 1995 

bombing. 

Last year, while serving in Haiti, 

Cartney devoted her free time to an orphanage. Her family asked that in lieu 

of flowers, donations be made to the orphanage in Haiti. This amendment 

seeks to honor her memory by designating the child development center at 

Ellsworth Air Force Base the ‘‘Cartney 

Koch McRaven Child Development Center.’’

I believe we can get unanimous consent on this amendment honoring this 

young Air Force airman. My colleague 

from Delaware is not here to comment 

on this amendment, so I ask unanimous consent that the amendment now 

be set aside so that we can call up another amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest 

the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk proceeded to call the 

roll. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1205 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1199

(Purpose: To amend title 18 of the United 

States Code regarding false identification 

documents.) 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment to the desk and ask for its 

immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Utah [Mr. HATCH], for 

Mr. PRESSLER, proposes an amendment numbered 1205 to amendment No. 1199. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that reading of the 

amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

At the appropriate place, insert the following: 

SEC. . FALSE IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS. 

(a) MINIMUM NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS FOR

CERTAIN OFFENSE.—Section 1028 of title 18, 

United States Code, is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ‘‘five’’

and inserting ‘‘3’’; and 

(2) in subsection (b)(1)(B), by striking 

‘‘five’’ and inserting ‘‘3’’. 

(b) REQUIRED VERIFICATION OF MAILED

IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 83 of title 18, 

United States Code, is amended by adding at 

the end the following: 

‘‘§ 1739. Verification of identification documents 

‘‘(a) Whoever knowingly sends through the 

mails any unverified identification document purporting to be that of the individual 

named in the document, when in fact the 

identity of the individual is not as the document purports, shall be fined under this title 

or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both. 

‘‘(b) As used in this section—

‘‘(1) the term ‘unverified’, with respect to 

an identification document, means that the 

sender has not personally viewed a certification or other written communication confirming the identity of the individual in the 

document from—

‘‘(A) a governmental entity within the 

United States or any of its territories or possessions; or 

‘‘(B) a duly licensed physician, hospital, or 

medical clinic within the United States; 

‘‘(2) the term ‘identification document’

means a car, certificate, or paper intended to 

be used primarily to identify an individual; 

and 

‘‘(3) the term ‘identity’ means personal 

characteristics of an individual, including 

age and nationality.’’. 

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of 

sections at the beginning of chapter 83 of 

title 18, United States Code, is amended by 

adding at the end the following new item: 

‘‘1739. Verification of identification documents.’’. 

(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 

3001(a) of title 39, United States Code, is 

amended by striking ‘‘or 1738’’ and inserting 

‘‘1738, or 1739’’. 

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise 

to explain the false ID amendment I 

have proposed to S. 735, the Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act. 

According to several national news 

sources, Timothy McVeigh, the primary suspect in the Oklahoma City 

bombing, allegedly used a false South 

Dakota driver’s license to rent the 

Ryder truck which exploded outside 

the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building 

on April 19 of this year. Again, the 

driver’s license used by McVeigh was a 

fake. Timothy McVeigh is not a resident of South Dakota, nor do I believe 

he ever has been a resident of my 

State. My understanding is the fake license contained his picture, but a different name. To add insult to injury, 

the birthdate listed on the license was 

April 19, the same date as the bombing. 

This example illustrates how easily a 

terrorist can obtain an authentic-looking driver’s license, and operate in our 

society under an assumed name. 

It is not clear at this point exactly 

how McVeigh obtained the false South 

Dakota driver’s license. However, the 

sad fact is, false identification documents [ID’s] are easy and cheap to obtain given the advanced state of computer technology today. Counterfeiting 

a driver’s license is child’s play for sophisticated computer users. Modern 

color printers can produce stunningly 

accurate reproductions of driver’s licenses, Social Security cards, and 

other ID’s. Even anticounterfeiting 

measures, such as holographic images 

and magnetic strips, are being duplicated with relative ease. 

A vast underground industry has 

emerged to meet the growing demand 

for false ID’s from underage drinkers. 

Just last week, two young men who 

were students at George Washington 

University here in Washington, DC, 

plead guilty to operating a sophisticated fake driver’s license operation. 

They sold the fake licenses to college 

students for $65 each. They even gave a 

discount for ordering 10 or more fake 

ID’s. I ask that a news article describing that operation be printed in the 

RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

(See exhibit 1.) 

Mr. PRESSLER. Most States have 

laws against the use of false ID’s to 

purchase alcohol, but those laws only 

target the underage drinker. Nothing 

prohibits anyone from mailing false 

ID’s from another State. Tough Federal action is needed to really make a 

difference. Congress needs to crack 

down on the suppliers—those in the industry of producing and distributing 

false ID’s. 

Last year, and again this year, I introduced legislation designed to deal 

with this situation. The amendment I 

have offered today is similar to this 

legislation. It seeks to target and punish those in the business of producing 

and distributing false identification 

documents nationally. 

Anyone convicted of distributing 

false ID’s under this provision would 

face a prison sentence of up to 1 year, 

a fine, or both. The amendment also 

would reduce from five to three the 

number of false ID’s that must be in a 

person’s possession to trigger penalties 

under Federal law. 

These two changes are needed if we 

are to make a dent in the volume of 

false ID’s being offered and sold 

throughout our country. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. 

EXHIBIT 1 

[From the Washington Post, June 2, 1995] 

TWO PLEAD GUILTY TO SELLING FAKE

DRIVER’S LICENSES

(By Toni Locy) 

A student and a former student at George 

Washington University pleaded guilty in 

U.S. District Court yesterday to running a 

sophisticated fake driver’s license operation, 

using computers to make nearly perfect copies to sell to underage students in several 

states so they could buy liquor. 

Prosecutor Joseph B. Valder described 

Ronald Stewart Johnson, 20, as the mastermind of the scheme and Said C. Kiwan, 19, as 

the legman who drummed up business and 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

June 5, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7669 

made deliveries for the illegal enterprise. 

They sold the licenses for $65 each or at a 

discount of $55 each for 10, making about 

$8,000 in less than six months. 

Valder said Johnson, as a high school student in Durham, N.C., discovered the wonders of computers and learned how to alter 

valid driver’s licenses. He said Johnson used 

scanning equipment to enter a driver’s license into a computer and shading and texture devices to make changes. 

In 1994, Kiwan and Johnson, who were 

friends when their families lived in Rio de 

Janeiro when they were both 10, became reacquainted and began selling the licenses to 

make money, Valder said. 

Though the prosecutor and defense attorneys lauded their cooperation with authorities after they were caught, U.S. District 

Judge Ricardo Urbina rejected a request by 

Kiwan’s attorney to forgo the normal procedures and sentence him immediately. 

Attorney Thomas Abbenante said GWU officials will decide next week whether to 

expel Kiwan, as they have done with Johnson. If Kiwan’s case is resolved, Abbenante 

said, he has a chance to remain in school. 

But Urbina refused to give Kiwan such a 

consideration. ‘‘This is an episode in his life 

that carries the potential of two years of incarceration. I would not want to send you 

the wrong message by having you walk in 

here, plead guilty . . . and walk out with 

probation that you may not deserve,’’ the 

judge told Kiwan, who is a citizen of England 

and Lebanon. 

‘‘You are a privileged young man with lots 

of education, lots of advantages in life, with 

no need for money, and yet you engaged in 

this enterprise, which probably resulted in a 

lot of young people getting booze and possibly driving under the influence,’’ Urbina 

said. ‘‘If ill consequences develop because of 

it, then that is your problem. You are here 

because you committed a crime, and you 

have to deal with the consequences, whatever they are.’’

Kiwan pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor 

counts for sending fake driver’s licenses to a 

student at Vanderbilt University, in Nashville, and to a high school student in Durham. Johnson, who was born in Brazil but is 

a U.S. citizen, pleaded guilty to a felony 

charge of unlawful production of false identification. He faces up to five years in prison. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I also believe this is another technical amendment that probably will be accepted by 

unanimous consent. I think many of 

the Republican amendments are of this 

nature. I do not believe this amendment needs to delay the debate on this 

matter. 

What this amendment does is that it 

is similar to S. 507, the False Identification Act of 1995, which has the support of Senators GRASSLEY and 

DASCHLE. It would make the following 

two changes in our current law: 

First, it would reduce from five to 

three the number of false identification 

documents—that is, ID’s—that must be 

in a person’s possession to trigger penalties under Federal law. 

Second, it would require a prison sentence of up to 1 year, a fine, or both, 

for anybody convicted of distributing 

false ID’s through the mail. 

The amendment seeks to target and 

punish those producing and distributing false identification documents 

nationally. According to new sources, 

Timothy McVeigh used a false identification to rent the Ryder truck used 

in the Oklahoma City bombing. This illustrates how a terrorist can obtain an 

authentic-looking driver’s license and 

operate in our society under an assumed name. 

False ID’s are obtained far too easily 

and cheaply today. Counterfeiting a 

driver’s license is child’s play for sophisticated computer users. Modern 

color printers can produce stunningly 

accurate reproductions of driver’s licenses, Social Security cards, and 

other identification documents. 

Even anticounterfeit measures such 

as holographic images and magnetic 

strips are being duplicated with relative ease. A vast underground industry has emerged to meet the growing 

demand for false ID’s for underaged 

drinkers. Most States have laws 

against the use of false ID’s to purchase alcohol, but they only target the 

underaged drinker. Nothing prohibits 

mailing false ID’s from another State. 

Tougher Federal action is needed to 

really make a difference. Congress 

needs to crack down on the suppliers, 

those in the industry producing and 

distributing false ID’s. 

I ask unanimous consent that the 

Pressler amendment be set aside so 

that another amendment can be offered. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest 

the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk proceeded to call the 

roll. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1206 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1199

(Purpose: To authorize assistance to foreign 

nations to procure explosives detection 

equipment) 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment to the desk and ask for its 

immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Utah [Mr. HATCH], for 

Mr. SPECTER, proposes an amendment numbered 1206 to amendment No. 1199. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that reading of the 

amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 22, between lines 18 and 19 insert 

the following: 

‘‘(b) ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO

PROCURE EXPLOSIVES DETECTION DEVICES AND

OTHER SOPHISTICATED COUNTERTERRORISM

TECHNOLOGY.—Subject to section 575(b), up 

to $10,000,000 in assistance in any fiscal year 

may be provided to procure explosives detection devices or other sophisticated 

counterterrorism technology to any country 

facing an imminent danger of terrorist attacks that threaten the national interests of 

the United States or put United States nationals at risk.’’. 

On page 22, line 19, strike ‘‘(b)’’ and insert 

‘‘(c)’’. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this 

amendment I have sent to the desk on 

behalf of Senator SPECTER simply authorizes assistance to foreign countries 

to procure explosives detection devices 

and other sophisticated counterterrorism technology. 

I believe that, in time, we can unanimously accept this amendment. That is 

why I have sent it to the desk. I compliment Senator SPECTER for his work 

on this amendment. I also compliment 

Senator PRESSLER for the work on his 

two amendments and Senator SMITH

for the work on his amendment, all of 

which are before the Senate. 

I ask unanimous consent that this 

Specter amendment be set aside so we 

can call up another amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest 

the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, referring 

to the current debate on the taggants 

amendment of Senator FEINSTEIN, Senator SIMPSON has asked me to get a letter into the RECORD from ARCO Coal 

Co. This is a letter to the Honorable 

ALAN K. SIMPSON dated June 5, 1995. 

I ask unanimous consent that this 

letter be printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the letter 

was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

JUNE 5, 1995. 

Hon. ALAN K. SIMPSON, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR SIMPSON: I understand that 

the Senate will be discussing S. 735 as early 

as June 6. As noted in earlier correspondence 

we support the concept of the bill. However, 

we have learned that Senator Feinstein will 

probably be introducing an amendment that 

broadens the scope of the bill to include such 

explosive agents as ammonium nitrate with 

fuel oil (ANFO). I am writing to urge you to 

resist this amendment as unnecessary and 

very costly. Following is most of the letter 

that was previously sent to your attention, 

and believe that it explains the problems 

with the Feinstein amendment. 

In the wake of the tragedy in Oklahoma 

City, I have learned of Senate legislation 

that has been introduced to address the issue 

of domestic terrorism (S.735). ARCO Coal 

Company supports legislation that reduces 

or eliminates these horrific acts, but urges 

against any over reaction that would adversely impact the legal and responsible use 

of explosive materials, including ANFO. 

Before discussing the proposed legislation 

in more detail, let me first explain the importance of this issue to the coal industry in 

Wyoming. Thunder Basin Coal Company 

(TBCC) is our subsidiary in Wyoming, operating the Black Thunder (BTM) and Coal 

Creek Mines. In order to mine efficiently, 

safely and cost effectively, the overburden 

and coal is ‘‘shot’’ with an ANFO/emulsion 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7670 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE June 5, 1995 

blend. Blasting operations at BTM safely and 

legally consume about 75 to 85 million 

pounds of ANFO on an annual basis (with 

plans to increase the usage to nearly 100 million pounds annually). The ammonium nitrate prill is manufactured at the fertilizer 

plant near Cheyenne, Wyoming and is transported to the mine by Wyoming trucking 

companies. 

In reading about the proposed legislation 

we concur with the requirement for a ‘‘detection agent’’ (or taggant) in ‘‘plastic explosives’’. However, we oppose any broader requirements that explosive material, which 

would include ANFO, to contain ‘‘taggants’’

or ‘‘tracer elements’’ (to be defined by regulation). We have several key concerns with 

requiring taggants in ANFO, including: 

1. Safety—manufacturers of the explosives 

used by the mining industry have raised the 

concern that the introduction of taggants 

will raise safety concerns. For example, the 

manufacturers are concerned that the introduction of the taggant into an explosives 

mixture can have an adverse effect on the 

friction and impact sensitivity and/or the 

stability properties of the explosives. The 

Wyoming coal mining industry is among the 

safest, if not the safest, in the entire world. 

This admirable safety record has not come 

about by accident, but rather through careful implementation of safety awareness and 

programs. We cannot compromise the safety 

of our employees. 

2. Cost—a 1993 study by the Institute of 

Makers of Explosives (IME) conservatively 

estimated that taggants in ANFO would cost 

an additional 47 cents per pound. As previously noted, BTM anticipates using 75 to 85 

million pounds of ANFO annually. Using the 

IME study, TBCC’s costs would conservatively rise by $35 to $40 million annually on 

a product that is currently being used in a 

safe, legal and regulated manner. In a market that is highly competitive, costs have to 

be controlled. 

We hope that you will support Title VIII 

provisions in S. 735 and will resist any efforts 

to expand the scope of the bill to include 

ANFO. This will help ensure that any new 

legislative and/or regulatory program meets 

its specified purpose without compromising 

safety or punishing industries using the 

product in a safe and legal fashion. We would 

also be glad to help you in any manner you 

desire with regard to this issue. 

Sincerely, 

GREG SCHAEFER. 

Mr. HATCH. Gregg Schaefer is director of Government issues and analysis 

for the ARCO Coal Co. 

Mr. President, as I said before, there 

are presently 100 amendments under 

the unanimous consent. We have five 

up. Sixty-eight of those are Democrat 

amendments; we have one of those up. 

Thirty-two amendments are Republican; four of those are up. Most of 

those 32 amendments, I believe, will 

not be offered. 

I am hoping that Senators will get to 

the floor and offer their amendments 

so that we can stack these votes after 

6 o’clock p.m. and move ahead with 

this very important bill. 

I am wearing this ribbon in honor of 

the people who died, and their families 

who have survived, the Oklahoma City 

bombing. It has great significance to 

me because one of the survivor’s 

daughters pinned it on me earlier this 

morning. I wear it with honor and with 

consideration for what these good people suffered and what they are going 

through currently. 

We know that this bill is critical. 

The President has expressed dissatisfaction with the Congress because 

we did not pass an antiterrorist bill by 

Memorial Day. We are only a little 

time later than Memorial Day—one 

week. I believe we can, if we can get 

the cooperation of our friends on both 

sides of the aisle, I believe we can pass 

this bill by tomorrow evening or at 

some reasonable time this week. 

I hope that Senators who have 

amendments will get over here to the 

floor and offer them. We will stack 

those amendments until after 6 o’clock 

tonight, and if necessary, tomorrow. I 

would like to debate them now and utilize this time so that we can move 

ahead on this very important bill. 

Regarding a vast majority of this 

bill, I think a vast majority of Senators will agree with. I believe a vast 

majority of this bill, if not most all of 

it, the President agrees with. 

It is a bill that should not have any 

real controversy except in some isolated areas, and of course on the habeas corpus reform provisions. 

There are people who sincerely believe that we should have no habeas 

corpus rights in this society. There will 

be an amendment offered, perhaps later 

today or tomorrow, that will severely 

curtail habeas corpus appeals, if it is 

passed. 

Then there are others who believe we 

ought to continue the same system we 

have now which allows for multiple 

frivolous appeals, one appeal after another, all the way up to the State 

courts, and then all the way up to the 

Federal courts, or vice versa. I do not 

think very many people in this country 

would agree with either of those extreme points of view. 

Habeas corpus is a statutory right 

that was established for the purpose of 

protecting the rights of the accused. 

Our habeas corpus provision, the Specter-Hatch bill, will protect those 

rights, but it will put an end to the 

frivolous appeals that make a mockery 

out of our system of justice. 

I hope that our fellow Senators will 

get over here and bring their amendments to the floor so that we can move 

ahead and get this bill done within a 

reasonable time, please our President, 

and certainly do so in memorialization 

of the suffering that these folks from 

Oklahoma City are undergoing and in 

memorialization of those who have 

died, because we have not done enough 

to resolve terrorist problems in our society. 

I am not sure that any piece of legislation is going to absolutely protect 

people from terrorist activities. Of 

course, no legislation can be crafted to 

do that. But this legislation will put 

teeth in our criminal laws, our Federal 

criminal laws, to bring people to justice who might commit terrorist activities and might deter those who are 

considering participating in terrorist 

activities in our society. 

I am hopeful we can move ahead here 

today. I am prepared to stay as long as 

we have to and to debate any issue that 

any Member cares to bring to the floor. 

I hope those who have the remaining 67 

amendments on the Democrat side and 

the remaining 28 amendments on the 

Republican side will get to the floor 

and move ahead on this matter. 

I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am very 

concerned that we are sitting here just 

wasting time while there have been 

complaints about not moving ahead on 

the terrorism bill. So we are moving 

ahead. We are here to go. Frankly, the 

only real controversial issue that I can 

see of any real consequence on this bill 

happens to be the habeas corpus, Specter-Hatch bill. I am hoping that those 

who have amendments on that habeas 

corpus reform bill will bring them to 

the floor and debate them and let us 

get them out of the way. If they win, 

they win. If they lose, they lose. The 

fact is let us get out here and use this 

time and not waste it. Thus far, we 

have had four Republican amendments, 

one Democrat amendment. The Democrat amendment is scheduled for a vote 

at 6 o’clock. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1207 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1199

Purpose: To extend U.S. sanctions against 

Iran to all countries designated as ‘‘terrorist countries’’ by the Secretary of 

State) 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send another Republican amendment to the 

desk and ask for its immediate consideration. I send this up for and on behalf 

of Senator BROWN from Colorado. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Utah [Mr. HATCH], for 

Mr. BROWN, proposes an amendment numbered 1207 to amendment No. 1199. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that reading of the 

amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

At the appropriate place in the Dole-Hatch 

substitute, add the following new section—

‘‘SEC. . SANCTIONS AGAINST TERRORIST COUNTRIES. 

(a) PROHIBITION.—In conjunction with a determination by the Secretary of State that a 

nation is a state sponsor of international 

terrorism pursuant to 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 

2405(j)) or 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act 

of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371), the Secretary of 

State, in consultation with the Secretary of 

Commerce, shall issue regulations prohibiting the following—

(1) The importation into the United States, 

or the financing of such importation, of any 

goods or services originating in a terrorist 

country, other than publications or materials imported for news publications or news 

broadcast dissemination; 

(2) Except to the extent provided in section 

203(b) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)), the exportation from the United States to a terrorist 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

June 5, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7671 

country, the government of a terrorist country, or to any entity controlled by the government of a terrorist country, or the financing of such exportation, of any goods, 

technology (including technical data or 

other information subject to the Export Administration Act Regulations, 15 CFR Parts 

768–799(1994)) or services; 

(3) The reexportation to such terrorist 

country, its government, or to any entity 

owned or controlled by the government of 

the terrorist country, or any goods or technology (including technical data or other information) exported from the United States, 

the exportation of which is subject to export 

license application requirements under any 

U.S. regulations in effect immediately prior 

to the enactment of this Act, unless, for 

goods, they have been (i) substantially transformed outside the U.S., or (ii) incorporated 

into another product outside the United 

States and constitute less than 10 percent by 

value of that product exported from a third 

country; 

(4) except to the extent provided in section 

203(b) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)), any transaction, including purchase, sale, transportation, swap, financing, or brokering transactions, or United States person relating to 

goods or services originating from a terrorist 

country or owned or controlled by the government of a terrorist country; 

(5) Any new investment by a United States 

person in a terrorist country or in property 

(including entities) owned or controlled by 

the government of a terrorist country; 

(6) The approval or facilitation by a United 

States person or entry into or performance 

by an entity owned or controlled by a United 

States person of a transaction or contract: 

(A) prohibited as to United States persons 

by subsection (3), (4) or (5) or 

(B) relating to the financing of activities 

prohibited as to United States persons by 

those subsections, or of a guaranty of another person’s performance of such transaction or contract; and 

(7) Any transaction by any United States 

person or within the United States that 

evades or avoids, or has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempting to violate, 

any of the prohibitions set forth in this section. 

(b) DEFINITIONS.—For the purposes of this 

section: 

(1) the term ‘‘person’’ means an individual 

or entity; 

(2) the term ‘‘entity’’ means a partnership, 

association, trust, joint venture, corporation, or other organization; 

(3) the term ‘‘United States person’’ means 

any U.S. citizen, permanent resident alien, 

entity organized under the laws of the 

United States (including foreign branches), 

or any person in the United States; 

(4) the term ‘‘terrorist country’’ means a 

country the government of which the Secretary of State has determined is a terrorist 

government for the purposes of 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. 

App. 2405(j)), or 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371) and includes 

the territory of the country and any other 

territory or marine area, including the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, 

over which the government of the terrorist 

country claims sovereignty, sovereign 

rights, or jurisdiction, provided that the government of the terrorist country exercises 

partial or total de facto control over the 

area or derives a benefit from the economic 

activity in the area pursuant to international arrangements; and 

(5) the term ‘‘new investment’’ means—

(A) a commitment or contribution of funds 

or other assets, or 

(B) a loan or other extension of credit. 

(6) the term ‘‘appropriate committees of 

Congress’’ means—

(A) the Banking and Financial Services 

Committee, the Ways and Means Committee 

and the International Relations Committee 

of the House of Representatives; 

(B) the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, the Finance Committee 

and the Foreign Relations Committee of the 

Senate. 

(c) EXPORT/RE-EXPORT.—The Secretary of 

the Treasury may not authorize the exportation or reexportation to a terrorist country, the government of a terrorist country, 

or an entity owned or controlled by the government of a terrorist country of any goods, 

technology, or services subject to export license application requirements of another 

agency of the United States government, if 

authorization of the exportation or reexportation by that agency would be prohibited by 

law. 

(d) RIGHTS AND BENEFITS.—Nothing contained in this section shall create any right 

or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party against the United 

States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its 

officers or employees, or any other person. 

(e) WAIVER.—The President may waive the 

prohibitions described in subsection (a) of 

this section for a country for successive 180 

day periods if—

(1) the President determines that national 

security interests or humanitarian reasons 

justify a waiver; and 

(2) at least 15 days before the waiver takes 

effect, the President consults with appropriate committees of Congress regarding the 

proposed waiver and submits a report to the 

Speaker of the House of Representatives and 

the President Pro Tempore of the Senate 

containing—

(A) the name of the recipient country; 

(B) a description of the national security 

interests or humanitarian reasons which require a waiver; 

(c) the type and amount of and the justification for the assistance to be provided 

pursuant to the waiver; and 

(D) the period of time during which such 

waiver will be effective. 

The waiver authority granted in this subsection may not be used to provide any assistance which is also prohibited by section 

40 of the Arms Control Export Control Act.’’

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to 

offer this amendment for and on behalf 

of the distinguished Senator from Colorado, [Mr. BROWN]. 

This amendment will extend the 

sanctions currently imposed against 

Iran to all countries designated as terrorist countries by the Secretary of 

State. Thus, under Senator BROWN’s 

proposed amendment, all countries 

deemed to engage in terrorist activities and designated as supporting international terrorism will be punished to 

the same degree that Iran is. 

Now, this is a controversial amendment. I hope that those who are opposed to it will come to the floor and 

be prepared to debate it if they so desire. If not, we will put it in line following the stacked amendments where 

either it will be accepted by unanimous 

consent or voted upon one way or the 

other. Senator BROWN has permitted 

me to put that amendment into the 

RECORD at this point. 

Now, that makes five Republican 

amendments. I think it is safe to assume that Senator DOLE probably is 

not going to call up his two. I am not 

going to call up my two. And so that is 

at least 9 or 10 Republican amendments 

disposed of, and I do not believe most 

of the others will be brought forward 

either. 

Major difficulties are going to be 

over the question of habeas corpus reform. And I hope that those who have 

amendments to that will bring them up 

here today and let us debate them and 

go ahead. If there are any other amendments that can be brought to the floor 

at this time, we sure would like to encourage our colleagues to do so so we 

can dispose of as many of them today 

as we possibly can. 

I ask unanimous consent that the 

Brown amendment be set aside so that 

another amendment can be called up 

by any Senator who desires to do so. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of 

a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, again I 

encourage my colleagues to get here 

and bring up their amendments. So far, 

we have five Republican amendments 

up, and two Democrat amendments. I 

believe that Senator DOLE will forgo 

his two. I intend to forgo my two, unless we have to use those. I have been 

informed by Senator GRAMM’s staffer 

that he will forgo his two. That is six 

more. 

We are moving through this pretty 

well today. But I would like to get as 

many amendments as can be agreed to 

or debated over a short term today as 

quickly as possible. Of course, we 

would be happy to take any habeas corpus amendments that there are. 

As I have been standing here, some 

people have called in and wondered 

about the ribbons I am wearing on my 

lapel that were kindly placed there by 

one of the family members who lost a 

member of their family. 

I think it is important, as we discuss 

this matter, that we recall why in the 

world we are here. There are 167 victims of the Oklahoma City bombing. 

This morning, along with Senator 

INHOFE and Senator NICKLES, I met 

with the families of some of the victims of that tragedy. So they presented 

me with this ribbon I am wearing. Let 

me just explain its significance. It has 

four ribbons, or four strands. The blue 

strand right here represents the State 

of Oklahoma. The white strand represents hope. The yellow strand represents those who were missing in the 

wake of the bombing. The purple 

strand represents those killed. Just to 

make that point a little more dramatically, this chart represents the victims 

of the Oklahoma City bombing. 

I ask unanimous consent that all of 

those names be printed in the RECORD

at this point. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7672 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE June 5, 1995 

There being no objection, the list was 

ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as 

follows: 

THE MURDERED VICTIMS OF OKLAHOMA CITY

Lucio Aleman, Jr., 33. 

Teresa Alexander, 33. 

Ted Allen, 48. 

Richard Allen, 46. 

Baylee Almon, 1. 

Diane E. Hollingsworth Althouse, 44. 

Pamela Argo, 36. 

Saundra Avery, 34. 

Peter Avillanoza, 57. 

Calvin Battle, 65. 

Peola Battle, 51. 

Danielle Bell, 11⁄2. 

Oleta Biddy, 54. 

Shelly Turner Bland, 25. 

Andrea Blanton, 33. 

Olen B. Bloomer, 61. 

Army Sgt. 1st Class Lola Rene Bolden, 40. 

James E. Boles, 51. 

Mark A. Bolte, 27. 

Cassandra Booker, 25. 

Carol Bowers, 53. 

Peachlyn Bradley, 3. 

Woodrow Brady, 41. 

Cynthia Campbell Brown, 26. 

Paul G. Broxterman, 43. 

Gabreon Bruce, 4 months. 

Kimberly Ruth Burgess, 29. 

David N. Burkett, 47. 

Donald E. Burns, 62. 

Karen Gist Carr, 32. 

Michael J. Carrillo, 44. 

Rona Chafey, 35. 

Zackary Chavez, 3. 

Robert Chipman, 51. 

Kimberly K. Clark, 39. 

Margaret L. Clark, 42. 

Anthony C. Cooper II, 2. 

Antonio A. Cooper, Jr., 6 months. 

Dana L. Brown Cooper, 24. 

Harley Cottingham, Jr., 46. 

Kim R. Cousins, 33. 

Elijah Coverdale, 2. 

Aaron Coverdale, 5. 

Jaci Coyne, 14 months. 

Katherine Cregan, 60. 

Richard Cummins, 56. 

Steven Curry, 44. 

Brenda Daniels, 42. 

Sgt. Benjamin L. Davis, 29. 

Diane Lynn Day, 38. 

Peter DeMaster, 44. 

Castine Deveroux, 48. 

Sheila Driver, 28. 

Tylor Eaves, 8 months. 

Ashley Eckles, 4. 

Susan Ferrell, 37. 

Carrol ‘‘Chip’’ Fields, 49. 

Katherine Ann Finley, 44. 

Judy J. Fisher, 45. 

Linda Florence, 43. 

Donald Fritzler, 64. 

Mary Anne Fritzler, 57. 

Tevin Garrett, 1. 

Laura Jane Garrison, 62. 

Jamie Genzer, 32. 

Margaret Goodson, 55. 

Kevin Lee Gottshall, 6 months. 

Ethel Louise Griffin, 55. 

Colleen Guiles, 58. 

Marine Capt. Randolph Guzman, 28. 

Cheryl Hammons, 44. 

Ronald Harding, 55. 

Thomas Hawthorne, 52. 

Doris Adele Higginbottom, 44. 

Anita C. Hightower, 27. 

Thompson E. ‘‘Gene’’ Hodges, 54. 

Peggy Louise Holland, 37. 

Linda Coleen Housley, 53. 

George M. Howard, 46. 

Wanda Howell, 34. 

Robbin A. Huff, 37. 

Charles Hurlburt, 73. 

Anna Jean Hurlburt, 67. 

Paul D. Ice, 42. 

Christi Y. Jenkins, 32. 

Domonique London Johnson, 2. 

Norma Jean Johnson, 62. 

Raymond L. Johnson, 59. 

Larry J. Jones, 46. 

Blake R. Kennedy, 11⁄2. 

Carole Khalil, 50. 

Valerie Koelsch, 33. 

Carolyn A. Kreymborg, 57. 

Teresa L. Lauderdale, 41. 

Catherine Leinen, 47. 

Carrie Lenz, 26. 

Donald R. Leonard, 50. 

Airman 1st Class Lakesha R. Levy, 21. 

Rheta Long, 60. 

Michael Loudenslager, 48. 

Aurelia ‘‘Donna’’ Luster, 43. 

Robert Luster, 45. 

Mickey Maroney, 50. 

James K. Martin, 34. 

Gilberto Martinez, 35. 

Tresia Mathes-Worton, 28. 

James Anthony McCarthy, 53. 

Kenneth McCullough, 36. 

Betsy J. McGonnell, 47. 

Linda G. McKinney, 48. 

Airman 1st Class Cartney J. McRaven, 19. 

Claude Medearis, 41. 

Claudette Meek, 44. 

Frankie Ann Merrell, 23. 

Derwin Miller, 27. 

Eula Leigh Mitchell, 64. 

John C. Moss III, 51. 

Patricia Mix, 47. 

Jerry Lee Parker, 45. 

Jill Randolph, 27. 

Michelle Ann Reeder, 33. 

Terry Smith Rees, 41. 

Mary Leasure Rentie, 39. 

Antonio Reyes, 55. 

Kathryn Ridley, 24. 

Trudy Rigney, 31. 

Claudine Ritter, 48. 

Christy Rosas, 22. 

Sonja Sanders, 27. 

Lanny L. Scroggins, 46. 

Kathy L. Seidl, 39. 

Leora L. Sells, 57. 

Karan D. Shephard, 27. 

Chase Smith, 3. 

Colton Smith, 2. 

Army Sgt. 1st Class Victoria Sohn, 36. 

John T. Stewart, 51. 

Dolores M. Stratton, 51. 

Emilio Tapia, 49. 

Victoria Texter, 37. 

Charlotte A. Thomas, 43. 

Michael Thompson, 47. 

Virginia Thompson, 56. 

Kayla M. Titsworth, 3. 

Ricky L. Tomlin, 46. 

LaRue Treanor, 56. 

Luther Treanor, 61. 

Larry L. Turner, 43. 

Jules A. Valdez, 51. 

John K. VanEss, 67. 

Johnny A. Wade, 42. 

David J. Walker, 54. 

Robert N. Walker, 52. 

Wanda L. Watkins, 49. 

Michael Weaver, 45. 

Julie Welch, 23. 

Robert Westberry, 57. 

Alan Whicher, 40. 

Jo Ann Whittenberg, 35. 

Frances A. Williams, 48. 

Scott Williams, 24. 

William Stephen Williams, 42. 

Clarence Wilson, 49. 

Sharon L. Wood-Chestnut, 47. 

Ronota A. Woodbridge, 31. 

KILLED IN RESCUE EFFORT

Rebecca Anderson, 37. 

Mr. HATCH. These were folks who 

were working for our country or standing in the street at the time. Many of 

them have been heroes for years, and 

they are all heroes today. These ribbons I am wearing represent these people of the State of Oklahoma—those 

missing and those killed. 

These people are crying out for us to 

get this bill passed and to do what 

should be done. There were a number of 

children who were killed. I would just 

like to read their names into the 

RECORD: 

Almon, Baylee, 1; Bell, Danielle, 11⁄2; Bradley, Peachlyn, 3; Bruce, Gabreon, 4 months; 

Chavez, Zackary, 3; Cooper, Anthony C., II, 2; 

Cooper, Antonio A., Jr., 6 months; Coverdale, 

Elijan, 2; Coverdale, Aaron, 5; Coyne, Jaci, 14 

months; Eaves, Tylor, 8 months; Eckles, 

Ashley, 4; Garrett, Tevin, 1; Gottshall, Kevin 

Lee, 6 months; Johnson, Domonique London, 

2; Kennedy, Blake R., 11⁄2; Smith, Chase, 3; 

Smith, Colton, 2; and Titsworth, Kayla M., 3. 

These people are crying out in having 

been killed. These children and their 

families are crying out for us to do 

what should be done here. I intend to 

see that it is done. 

Let us get our amendments here and 

get this bill done. If it can be improved, 

fine. The people who have amendments, 

we would like to get them here. 

Baylee Almon turned 1 year old on 

Tuesday, April 18, 1995. That day her 

family threw her a birthday party. Her 

aunts, uncles, and cousins—along with 

her 22-year-old, single mother Aren—

celebrated what was to be her first of 

many birthdays. Horribly, however, her 

lifeless body was pulled from the rubble of the Alfred Murrah building in 

Oklahoma City less than 24 hours later. 

By now, we are too familiar with the 

unforgettable image of Baylee being 

carried away from the wreckage by 

firefighter Capt. Chris Fields. This 

image of Baylee’s lifeless body being 

tenderly cradled by a firefighter was 

called by Governor Frank Keating ‘‘a 

metaphor for what’s happened here.’’

Baylee was 1 of 19 children murdered 

by the terrorist bomb blast on April 19, 

1995. 

When some suggest that our decision 

to include habeas corpus reform in this 

bill is unrelated to the murder of children like Baylee or that our efforts are 

politically motivated, we mock the 

memory of Baylee Almon. Habeas corpus policies and procedures directly 

and forcefully impact victims. Our debate about habeas reform has traditionally focused on such issues as the 

rights of petitioning prisoners, federalism, and competency of counsel. 

But, for those who have buried murder 

victims, the continued, protracted appeals mean something else. John Collins, the father of a 19-year-old young 

woman who was brutally murdered in 

1985, may have put it best when he testified before the Judiciary Committee 

in 1991: 

Extended habeas corpus proceedings mean 

no closure to our grief, no end to our mental 

and emotional suffering, no end to nightmares, and no relief from the leaden weights 

that remain lodged in our hearts. It means 

we continue to bleed. 

Due to our current system of habeas 

corpus litigation, April 19, will not be 

the end of the victimization of those 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

June 5, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7673 

who died in Oklahoma City. Long after 

the media stops covering the tragedy 

and elected officials stop meeting with 

the victims, those responsible for this 

cowardly act will probably be flaunting 

justice unless we act to pass habeas reform. The families of those who died 

will agonize for many, many years to 

come unless we act to pass true, meaningful habeas corpus reform. 

For too long, the interests of the convicted murdered have outweighted the 

interests of the families of murder victims. For too long, habeas corpus has 

been viewed as a tangential issue to 

the more alluring issues of gun control 

and enhanced mandatory penalties. 

What is ironic is that for many of my 

colleagues on the other side of the 

aisle, it never seems to be the right 

time to pass habeas corpus reform. 

The time has come to return some 

balance in the criminal justice system 

and nowhere is this more urgently 

needed than in the capital litigation 

area. We must recognize that the true 

concerns of justice, in the final analysis, must lie with those who support 

society and genuinely strive to uphold 

its law and not those who tear away at 

society, mock its laws, and murder innocent children like Baylee. 

I am concerned about it, and I just 

think it is time to act. We should quit 

playing around with these problems. 

We have a chance of making a difference right now. 

Let me just take a second here and 

read a letter from a woman who was at 

the press conference this morning. This 

is dated June 4, 1995. 

Re: Dole-Specter-Hatch bill S. 735. 

My husband of 34 years and the father of 

our three children, Tim, 24, Todd 22, and 

Kristi, 19, was a Director of Housing and 

Urban Development in Oklahoma City. We 

had only been in Oklahoma for 4 months, had 

purchased our home only 3 weeks before he 

was killed on April 19. Our lives were literally ‘‘blown′′ apart. He was a wonderful 

husband, father, son, brother, and human 

being, kind and caring to everyone and truly 

a person who believed in observing the laws 

of our land and also never forgetting how 

blessed we as Americans are to be Americans 

and to enjoy the many wonderful freedoms 

and opportunities available to us when we 

abide by our laws. 

That is what I am asking for now: Swift 

and severe punishment of those responsible 

for this horrible act. Our President assured 

the people of Oklahoma and America this 

would be done. There should not be more 

consideration for the criminals than the victims. Under our Constitution, the rights of 

criminals have to be protected in deciding if 

they are guilty or innocent, but so do the 

rights of the victims need to be protected. 

Protecting criminals’ rights does not give 

them the right of 20 years of appeals. 

I am certain that if any one of you were in 

my shoes, (and I sincerely hope you never 

are) you would want nothing less than the 

death penalty—now—not years from now. 

I pray with all my heart you will do whatever is necessary to enact legislation that 

will not allow continuous appeals. Joyce 

McCarthy, widow of James A. McCarthy, Edmond, OK. 

That letter says it more poignantly 

than anything I could say. It is time to 

do habeas corpus reform. We tried for 

years. We did pass this bill through the 

Senate on the Hatch amendment a 

number of years ago. It passed overwhelmingly. There is no reason not to 

face this issue today. 

Now, I have to say that I do believe 

that there are those who very sincerely 

oppose habeas corpus reform in this 

body. I think they are a distinct minority, and I think they oppose it mainly 

because they oppose the death penalty. 

They are deathly afraid that maybe 

somebody will be executed who was innocent. 

They have no information to back 

them up on that. These cases are very 

carefully tried. Any person accused of 

murder and sentenced to death after 

this bill is enacted will have every one 

of that person’s constitutional rights 

and privileges and liberties protected. 

We will still protect the civil liberties 

of the people. But the game is over on 

multiple frivolous vehicles. They have 

one trip up and it is extensive through 

the State court, and one through the 

Federal courts. Unless they can show 

new evidence, or the Supreme Court 

has made a case retroactive in nature, 

then that is the end of the appeals. 

That is as it should be. It is time to 

face this problem. Is time to stand up 

and do what has to be done. There is a 

lot more to be said about it. 

I was moved this morning in meeting 

these families and these people who 

lost their loved ones in Oklahoma City. 

I am proud to wear a set of ribbons 

which represents the State of Oklahoma, those who are missing and those 

who are dead, as a result of this terrible, horrific bomb. 

I hope we can move ahead on this 

bill. We made some headway here 

today, but I would like to make a lot 

more before the day is over. 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the majority leader today opened the session 

by criticizing the President and criticizing the Democrats for what he says 

are a flood of amendments that are 

holding up this bill. He said that if the 

Senate is not finished by tomorrow, we 

will pull the bill and go on to further 

matters. 

Let me point out that in all the years 

that I have been here—and the Senator 

from Utah has been over here a few 

years less than I have—one of the 

things delaying action on the bill 

today is we are coming off of a recess 

of a week and half and the Members are 

not back in town yet. That is one of 

the reasons there is delay. 

Let me first say, contrary to the majority leader’s representations, we are 

not trying to delay this bill. Indeed, on 

the very same day we received the final 

version of the Republican bill—and we 

had started off, by the way, with the 

President’s bill. The President introduced a bill, or had 3 Members introduce the bill on his behalf. 

Senators KOHL, SPECTER, and myself 

met with the President at the White 

House. This was a bipartisan group, including the Republican leadership. We 

were under the impression that the 

President’s bill would be the bill from 

which we worked. 

The Republicans, as is their right, introduced their own bill. One of the 

problems is that we did not see that 

bill until toward the middle of the 

afternoon the day that we went out of 

here, I think, or maybe the day before 

we went out. People had not had a 

chance to read the bill. 

Notwithstanding that, the very same 

day we received the bill, we agreed to a 

finite list of amendments. We did not 

wait around. Once we calmed everyone’s concerns—we heard about terrorism, civil liberties, new actions, and 

everyone from folks who view the interests of the NRA as paramount, to 

folks who view the interests of the civil 

liberties community as paramount—

everyone wanted to make sure they 

knew what was in that bill. 

Notwithstanding that, we ended up 

with a finite list of amendments which 

we have now. No doubt that list would 

have been shorter from the beginning 

had the Democrats had any reasonable 

opportunity to review the Republican 

bill before it was brought to the floor. 

Now, having worked hard over the recess, our staffs having worked hard, 

primarily, we have limited the number 

of amendments we need to offer from 

our side of the aisle, and effectively cut 

the list by more than half. 

There is no evidence of any intent to 

delay the bill. And while talk of delay 

and the need for cloture motions may 

be good politics, it has nothing to do 

with the reality of the work before the 

Senate. The reality is that we are addressing an important topic that deserves serious—not token, but serious—consideration by this body. 

That is, the threat of terrorism from 

both at home and abroad. That threat 

is real. Bombings at the World Trade 

Center 2 years ago and in Oklahoma 

City 2 months ago are proof positive of 

the need to strengthen our responses to 

this threat. 

Does not this threat deserve more 

than 2 days of the Senate’s time? It 

seems to me that while we all want to 

move forward, we should also want to 

make sure that we do the job right. 

The President has sent two strong terrorism proposals to the Congress this 

year in responding to two terrible 

bombings on American soil. His proposals contain many needed reforms to 

enable law enforcement to better investigate and prosecute terrorist acts. 

The Judiciary Committee and its 

Terrorism Subcommittee held a number of extensive hearings on the President’s proposal over the last 6 weeks. 

Many issues have been discussed, debated, and drafted into legislative language. The Republicans have put a bill 

together, drawn in large measure from 

the administration’s proposal, and 

much of which is supported by both 

sides of the aisle. 

Unfortunately, the Republicans fail 

to include in their bills several proposals to give law enforcement modest 

but 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7674 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE June 5, 1995 

needed new authority to fight terrorism in the areas of wiretaps, 

taggants, and military assistance in 

cases of biological and chemical terrorist acts, just to name three. 

There will be amendments to address 

these subjects, and the amendments 

are needed to make this bill a truly effective tool to fighting terrorism. Several of the amendments have been 

identified, and several of them have already been offered. 

The suggestion that they are meant 

to delay this bill is an obvious attempt 

to shift focus from the fact that Republicans oppose strengthening the hand 

of law enforcement against terrorists, 

the way the President’s proposal is opposed to any attempt to delay. 

In addition, the Republicans included 

several provisions in their bill that 

some of Members believe are ill-drafted 

and are inappropriate as part of this 

bill. We have several amendments to 

modify these provisions, but this is a 

Republican bill. 

Again, the amendments are identified 

and they have not and will not be offered to delay. They will be shortly offered. They will be voted on. They are 

not vehicles for delay. 

Moreover, I note that the Republicans have identified a number of 

amendments as well. As I understood 

from the list before we went out last 

week, the Republican Members of the 

Republican Party suggested they had 

32 amendments—32 amendments. Now, 

maybe some of those were in response 

to what they anticipate to be amendments from Democrats. Democrats 

have amendments that were put forward in anticipation of what they 

thought the Republicans were doing. 

Much of this, I think, will fall away. 

Putting this in perspective, if there 

is delay going on—and there is not 

delay going on—32 out of 40-some 

amendments or 70, whatever the number was that were listed last week, are 

Republican amendments. 

In all the talk of delay by Democrats 

over habeas corpus reform, the unanimous-consent agreement under which 

we are operating identifies 4 Democrat 

amendments on habeas corpus and 4 

Republican amendments on habeas corpus. 

We have all been around here long 

enough to know Senators do not agree 

to a unanimous consent agreement 

limiting the number of amendments 

that can be offered on a subject that is 

allegedly the reason for the delay on 

the bill. 

There are four amendments offered 

by Democrats, four amendments offered by Republicans. I am sure we can 

get time agreements on all those 

amendments at some point along the 

way when they are proposed. That is it. 

I might add, by the way, if my Republican friends had wanted to move 

on this terrorism bill quickly, all they 

had to do was leave habeas corpus off 

this. It would not have attracted all 

these other amendments. We could 

have put it on their crime bill. They 

have a crime bill they want to push. 

We have plenty of time for that, instead of dealing with this issue. 

It is true that delay on death penalties being imposed could have a perverse effect, once we identify and convict the people responsible for the 

bombing in Oklahoma City. That is 

prospective, way down the road. 

We will have Democrats—not me, but 

other Democrats—who will stand up 

here on the floor and argue that because we have not done more to deal 

with the ability of people to get explosives, because we have not dealt more 

restrictively with the people and the 

ability of people to get ahold of weapons, because we cannot deal with certain bullets that can penetrate vests, 

that kill police officers, because they 

have not done that, they hamper our 

ability to deal with terrorist acts. That 

is true. 

I plead with my Democrat and Republican friends, keep that stuff off 

this bill. Move forward on the essential 

elements of what the President said 

and what we all agree is needed to enable the FBI and the law enforcement 

agencies, federally, to be able to have 

the manpower as well as additional 

legal authority to both infiltrate, identify, arrest, prevent—hopefully—prevent future terrorist acts, whether 

they are domestic or foreign inspired. 

That is not where we are. No matter 

how much it made sense to do it that 

way, it does not make a lot of sense for 

me to spend much more time talking 

about it other than to put in perspective what has happened here. We could 

have finished this bill a long time ago. 

The fact of the matter is that a clear 

decision was made to take a very important part of the Republican crime 

bill, their essential elimination of Federal habeas corpus, and drop it on this 

bill. 

We could probably settle this whole 

habeas corpus matter very quickly, the 

Senator from Utah and I. The only effect habeas corpus can possibly have in 

this bill is Federal habeas corpus. We 

have an amendment to limit their proposal to Federal habeas corpus cases. 

Let us go ahead and do that and drop 

all Federal habeas corpus amendments, 

vote on that one. 

That is the only thing that is arguably related to Oklahoma City. Nothing else has anything to do with Oklahoma City, zero, zero. Nothing else has 

anything to do with this legislation. 

This is Federal legislation dealing with 

terrorist acts. That is Federal court. 

That is Federal prosecutors. That is a 

Federal conviction. So let us deal with 

Federal habeas corpus, not State habeas corpus. 

This is a sham. I think we should 

change habeas corpus. I have been trying to change habeas corpus, differently than my friend from Utah has, 

for the last 8 years. We have battled 

over it, and it is a legitimate and serious, intellectual, political, and criminal justice issue but it has not a darned 

thing to do with this. So if we want to 

end all the delay—and there is no delay 

in terms other than time consuming on 

each of the amendments—let us just 

have the debate on that issue. That applies to this legislation. None of the 

rest does. 

The point I want to make here, and I 

am probably overmaking it, is that 

there is no delay. There is no delay. We 

have agreed to the amendment. We 

have limited the number of amendments that can be brought up. We 

could further eliminate a lot of those 

amendments, I am sure, if we could 

agree on focusing on international and 

domestic terrorism and we could move 

on. But one thing for certain, this issue 

warrants serious consideration—serious consideration. I note the Republicans do not think their 32 amendments are frivolous. Now I doubt any of 

these amendments, Democrat or Republican, are designed as delaying tactics. I expect we can work many of 

them out and we can proceed on the 

rest. But I believe very strongly that 

our job involves offering relevant 

amendments to make the bill better 

and debating them fully and reasonably. Again, terrorism is not a trivial 

matter, as we all know. The issue is as 

vital as it is complicated. 

Let me just give one example how 

complicated it is. I will bet that 90 percent of the American people would 

have guessed that when JOE LIEBERMAN, Senator LIEBERMAN of Connecticut, and I brought an amendment 

to the floor at the request of the President last week that said we want to 

give the FBI the same power to use 

wiretapping devices and wiretapping 

under the circumstances that we presently allow them to investigate organized crime to organized terrorist 

threats, I will bet 90 percent of the 

American people would have thought 

everybody in this floor would vote for 

that—especially the Republicans. They 

talk about law and order all the time, 

like Democrats do these days. And 

what happened? We voted on it and it 

lost. I offer that as a simple example of 

what is so complicated about this 

issue. People are beginning to understand when we deal with people’s constitutional rights and the fourth 

amendment that maybe it is better to 

err on the side of being very cautious 

in the power we give the police. 

I have always been one to be very 

cautious. But I thought, since we had 

the ability to do to organized crime 

what was proposed by Senator 

LIEBERMAN and in the President’s bill, 

we ought to be able to do that with terrorists. But, guess what, an overwhelming majority of my Republicans 

friends did not think that made sense. 

I do not criticize them for that point of 

view. I just offer it to point out how 

complicated it is. I bet they have trouble explaining that back home. I do not 

suggest that their action was wrong or 

had any motivation other than they 

have a heightened sense of concern 

about the use of wiretaps. I respect 

that. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

June 5, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7675 

But guess what, this is not as simple 

as the majority leader makes it sound. 

If it were simple, that would have 

passed like a hot knife through butter 

here. But it did not. If we could understand how a majority of Republicans do 

not think we should be able to go after 

terrorists like we do the mob, then we 

ought to be able to understand that 

this is a complicated issue. It is important to get the bill right. Again, terrorism is not a trivial matter. It is 

vital, as vital as it is complicated. And 

we have to give law enforcement the 

tools it needs, even while we maintain 

protecting our constitutional rights. 

Now, look, just to give an example, 

we are going to have an amendment 

here shortly that is another wiretap 

amendment. I will give this as just one 

example. That wiretap amendment, if 

it passes, will allow the Attorney General, the Federal Government, to be 

able to do roving wiretaps. That is the 

second amendment. That says, if you 

go to a judge and say, ‘‘Judge, we have 

probable cause to believe John Doe is 

committing or committed a felony 

under the existing title 18 of the United 

States Code that allows us to ask for a 

wiretap and we want to tap John Doe’s 

phone,’’ if the court concludes there is 

probable cause, then in fact what we do 

is we go along and we say: All right, 

the judge says that he will allow a 

wiretap. Generally what happens is you 

get a wiretap for a specific phone in 

John Doe’s office or John Doe’s home. 

But lots of times what has happened is 

that John Doe may figure he may be 

being tapped because he knows he is 

doing something wrong. He knows he is 

trying to avoid detection. So he may 

walk to the corner phone booth and use 

the corner phone booth all the time. Or 

he may go use the phone in his sister’s 

home. 

Right now the current authority for 

what are known as roving or 

multipoint wiretaps, or wiretap orders—a provision was proposed by the 

President, but not included in the Republican substitute, that would allow 

this kind of multipoint order, 

multipoint wiretap to be used. 

Multipoint wiretaps allow law enforcement officers to obtain a judicial order 

to intercept the communications of a 

particular person, not just for one specific phone as with most wiretap orders, but on any phone that a person 

may use. 

A recent prosecution will help illustrate how the multipoint wiretaps 

work. In this particular case involving 

one of the world’s biggest international 

drug traffickers, agents determined 

that a courier was contacting his 

bosses by using a number of randomly 

chosen public phones around his home, 

public phones outside his home. A 

multipoint wiretap was obtained and 

up to 25 phones were identified to prepare for the chance that the target 

would use one of these phones. Any 

time he used one of those phones the 

agents were able to initiate a wiretap. 

Interceptions obtained in this way led 

to 53 Federal indictments and 19 tons 

of cocaine that were seized. 

The wiretap on his phone would not 

have yielded much at all, but they 

identified all the phones around this 

guy’s neighborhood because they 

watched him. They watched the pattern. He would walk out of his house 

and go to a telephone and use that 

phone. The next time he would use one 

two streets down from his home, and 

then four streets, and across the street, 

and in the drug store across the street. 

So they got an order for a multipoint 

wiretap. And they were right. They got 

the order through a judge. 

Under the current law the Government can get a multipoint wiretap 

order only if it can show that the defendant is intending to thwart surveillance, usually by switching from phone 

to phone. The amendment the President wants, and Senator LIEBERMAN

will propose on his behalf, would allow 

a multipoint wiretap where the defendant’s conduct has the effect of thwarting surveillance regardless of whether 

or not the Government can prove the 

defendant’s intent. Keep in mind they 

already have a guy they identified as 

the subject of a legitimate wiretap in 

his own home. And there is probable 

cause to believe this guy is doing something bad that exists as a crime under 

the law that you can get a wiretap for. 

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield 

on that point? 

Mr. BIDEN. I will be happy to. 

Mr. HATCH. Actually, I think the 

amendment the Senator is talking 

about is a good amendment. We have 

some on our side who have some troubles with it, but I probably am going to 

support this amendment because, let us 

be honest about it, all they are saying 

is they are going to follow the criminal. That is all this amendment means. 

The President is right on this, in my 

opinion, in that sense. 

The original amendment written in 

the President’s bill is not as good as 

this one, as I understand. We have even 

worked with my colleague on the language on it. I am going to talk to our 

side and see if there is some way we 

can get them to accept that amendment. But there are people who are so 

afraid of the Government right now—

polls show somewhere around 40 percent of the people are afraid of their 

Government. That is pathetic. And 

part of the reason is because of what 

happened in Waco, because of what 

happened at Ruby Ridge, and a whole 

variety of other reasons, because the 

Federal Government has been too intrusive in all of our lives. 

But I think the distinguished Senator from Delaware and I, working together, might be able to get this done 

because I think he makes a tremendous 

point. So did the President. With what 

the President wants to do, the problem 

was the roving ban semantically had 

implications that frightened people 

even more. But all the distinguished 

Senator from Delaware, as I understand it, is trying to do for and on behalf of the President and others is say 

that, if you have a criminal who is 

going from phone to phone, you can 

follow the criminal. I personally do not 

see anything wrong with that. I see 

some great value in doing exactly that. 

Once again, I give the Senator from 

Delaware credit for being one of the astute leaders in criminal law. We agree 

on a lot more than we disagree on. 

Frankly, where we disagree—and there 

are acceptable and good arguments on 

both sides. I appreciate the way he is 

approaching this. I want to read the 

language. But I personally feel pretty 

strongly that this amendment ought to 

be supported by both sides. I did not 

mean to take so much of the time. 

Mr. BIDEN. That is fine. Mr. President, I am delighted for the intervention. As I said at the outset of my discussion of this, the chairman was occupied with the staff for a moment. At 

the time, I said that I was confident he 

and I could work this out. I am confident we can work out most of this. 

The reason I raise this is an illustration of the larger point I am making; 

that is, there is no attempt to delay 

anything here. This provision was not 

included in the Republican bill. I think 

it is a very important provision. 

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield? 

Mr. BIDEN. Yes. 

Mr. HATCH. I do not think there is 

any attempt on the part of my friend 

and colleague from Delaware to delay. 

But by his own comments today he indicated that if we could get right off 

the habeas problem, we would not have 

the problems, we probably would not 

have 68 Democrat amendments. My 

personal belief is that we have to face 

that problem one way or the other. 

The distinguished Senator from Delaware has some well-intentioned amendments in this area. I have to fight 

against them. But at least he is willing 

to face this issue. It is always easier to 

take controversial matters and not 

deal with them. But in this case, I 

think we have to do it. It is the only 

thing that really will make a difference with regard to Oklahoma City. 

I call my colleague’s attention, because of his comments earlier in the 

day where he said, if we did Federal habeas, that is all that needs to be done 

here. I call his attention to Robert H. 

Mason’s letter dated May 24, 1995. He is 

district attorney for Oklahoma County, the district in which this occurred, 

where he points out that if you did just 

Federal habeas, it would not solve the 

problem because there were people who 

were not Federal workers, who were 

not in the building at the time, who 

were also killed and maimed. He intends to bring prosecutions in the 

State courts and to have swift justice 

in those cases also, which would require full habeas corpus reform like we 

have. 

I respect my colleague. He knows 

that. We have been together on too 

many occasions. We have fought battles together, and we have fought them 

against each other. There are very few 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7676 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE June 5, 1995 

people who understand these criminal 

law ramifications as well as my friend 

from Delaware. But I would really urge 

him to help us on this habeas corpus 

reform because I really believe it is 

something that has to be faced, it is 

something we need to do, and I think 

we can do it the way it is written in a 

way that protects the civil liberties 

and rights of those who are accused. 

I apologize for again interrupting and 

taking time. 

Mr. BIDEN. Not at all. Mr. President, 

I welcome—not interruptions—I welcome this colloquy and conversation. I 

know that there is an understanding 

that there will be no votes until 5 

o’clock. So the likelihood of anybody 

other than the most stalwart of the 

Members of the Senate—I see the distinguished Senator from West Virginia 

and the distinguished Senator from 

North Carolina here—other than a few, 

there are going to be a lot of folks 

making their way back from the west 

coast and the Midwest on airplanes. So 

the likelihood of anything happening of 

consequence between now and the time 

that it was announced there would be a 

vote is de minimis. So I welcome the 

discussion. 

Let me just again, not by way of argumentation but illustration of the 

confusion surrounding the legislation—

understandable confusion. Even if the 

Republican bill had not been introduced, had the President’s bill been introduced and nothing else, there would 

be confusion surrounding it. I do not 

mean this in a pejorative way. 

The letter from the district attorney, 

as I understand it, from Oklahoma 

County, the county in which Oklahoma 

City is—I have not read it yet, but the 

fact of his rationale of why they need 

full habeas corpus, to have State habeas corpus included, is because there 

were non-Federal workers killed—understandably, he misunderstands the 

bill. It does not matter who is killed in 

the building. It is a Federal crime. 

That is what we are establishing. It is 

a Federal crime. A foreign national 

could be killed in the building, anyone, 

under current law, killed in a Federal 

building that is blown up, it is a Federal crime. It is also a State crime as 

well. It can be a State crime as well. 

But it is a Federal crime. 

So the point raised by the distinguished—again, I am not criticizing the 

district attorney or the prosecutor in 

that county. I doubt whether he has 

had a chance to review the existing 

Federal law. But at any rate, the larger 

point here is this: I am ready, willing, 

anxious and, hopefully will be able to 

demonstrate, ‘‘able’’ to debate this habeas corpus issue. The reason why I did 

not want habeas corpus introduced into 

this issue is because I did not want to 

also get into a debate on guns in this 

issue. I did not want to debate militia 

and NRA and ACLU and all of these 

things. 

Look, I am fearful that, although 

things have calmed down a little bit, if 

you listen to the rhetoric from Democrats and Republicans on these issues, 

you would assume that everyone who 

joined a militia—by the way, we should 

not use that phrase. They are not militia. There is no militia under the Constitution. But anyone who joins these 

groups who organize themselves and 

call themselves militia, on the one 

hand you have everybody making them 

patriots; on the other hand, all a bunch 

of thugs, depending on who speaks to 

it. The same with the NRA—the NRA 

puts out an ill-advised letter, and all of 

sudden everyone in the NRA is a 

‘‘thug’’, a ‘‘bum.’’ The vast majority of 

NRA members in my State, the overwhelming number of NRA members are 

honest, decent citizens. They join the 

NRA because that is the outfit that 

taught them how to use a gun when 

they were a Boy Scout, how to fire 

their first rifle, took them to the firing 

range. 

I am going to oppose the amendment 

of Senator LAUTENBERG. I support the 

use of that $25 million in funds allowing ammunition to be made available 

to teach people how to learn to use 

weapons. That is a healthy thing. That 

is not a bad thing. Half of the people 

who join the NRA in my State join for 

the insurance that is offered by the 

NRA. The NRA, the members of the 

NRA, are good, God-fearing people; 

some of them probably good atheists; 

they are good everything. The fact 

they join the NRA is not because it is 

a bad organization. 

But what is going to happen here before this debate is over is we start talking about guns. They are either all 

going to be superpatriots or they are 

all going to be a bunch of thugs. I 

think that is a useless debate to have 

now when what the President says he 

needs, we all know he needs, is he 

needs more agents. He needs more 

money. He needs more authority. 

So to finish the point—and I will be 

happy to yield—before I finish my 

statement, my reluctance about getting into a debate on habeas corpus is 

that we who have been around here 

even a year all know that is what we 

refer to in the jargon as a ‘‘hot-button 

issue.’’ Once you mention habeas corpus, you bring out everything, left and 

right and center. It engages almost a 

religious debate. It takes on proportions like striker replacement. I mean 

it brings out everyone’s deeply-held 

feelings. 

I predicted as soon as habeas corpus 

was put on this bill that there would be 

1, 2, 5, 10 amendments on guns. I suspect my friends would acknowledge 

that, if the Democrats had decided to 

introduce a terrorism bill that was 

loaded up with gun amendments, they 

would say, ‘‘Wait a minute. What are 

you doing that for? You are just trying 

to delay action on this thing. Are you 

just trying to raise everyone’s hackles? 

Are you just trying to get into sort of 

a debate that has nothing to do with 

the added responsibility and authority 

that the President wants and has?’’

That is the only point I am making 

about habeas corpus. But it is done. 

The reason I even mentioned it now is 

to explain what I think has been already demonstrated by the short colloquy we have had thus far that Senator DOLE is wrong. This has nothing 

to do with the intent to delay. 

The introduction of habeas complicated—did not delay—complicated 

action on this bill. Deletion of more intrusive authority on the part of the 

FBI complicated what already was a 

difficult debate requiring additional 

amendments. Additions of some legislation I support, and some I do not relative to firearms complicated consideration of this core legislation. 

That is the only broad point I wish to 

make. That does not add up to delay. 

That adds up to an additional consumption of time out of necessity. It is 

necessary to use more time to resolve 

those complicated problems. 

I daresay that if, in fact, my Republican colleagues thought that any one 

of these gun amendments was likely to 

pass, there would be, as there was in 

the past, extended debate. Just like I 

worried and thought—but is not going 

to happen now—that, if they raised habeas corpus, there would be extended 

debate. Neither is going to happen. I 

presume the reason it is not going to 

happen is because they have the votes. 

It always makes things go quicker 

when you have the votes. I remember 

the good old days when we used to have 

the votes. We do not have the votes 

anymore, my team. So we understand 

the likely outcome on most of this. 

But this is not an attempt to delay. 

That is the only point I wish to make 

again to my distinguished friend, the 

Republican leader from Kansas, who on 

the Sunday talk show—I think it was 

Meet the Press, I am not certain which 

one it was—and today directly stated 

that this was a Democratic effort to 

delay. 

The other side of this is that I am 

going to have, as we say, ‘‘clean hands’’

in this matter. The administration is 

putting pressure on the Republican 

leader asking, ‘‘Why did you not get 

my bill?’’ Why did you not get it done? 

Why do we not have this done? I think 

part of that also is done for political 

reasons. 

And so I just hope that we in this 

body, once folks fly back into town 

here and we start debating on the 

amendments, can agree where we can 

agree, as the Senator from Utah and I 

at least think we can agree on the socalled multipoint wiretapping that the 

President wants made available to him, 

or made available to Federal agencies, 

and I hope we can even go back and revisit the, I think, ill-advised vote defeating the Lieberman amendment on 

wiretapping because I think once people took a closer look at it and took off 

our sort of political blinders here, they 

would see what was being asked for had 

nothing to do with anything other than 

what we now allow under our law and 

have to deal with the Mafia. Why 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

June 5, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7677 

should the terrorist organizations have 

any more protection than the Mafia? I 

do not understand that. And I do not 

think, in fairness to those who voted 

against it, they fully understood what 

the amendment meant. 

Again, terrorism is no trivial matter. 

If it takes a week, then it is time well 

spent, in my view, to arrive at a serious, significant piece of legislation 

that gives additional tools to the Government without infringing upon any 

of the civil liberties of the American 

people and diminishes the prospects 

that domestic or foreign terrorists will 

be able to succeed in repeating what 

was done at the World Trade Center 

and what was done in Oklahoma City. 

So I do not consider this a waste of 

time. The telecommunications bill is 

an important bill, but I imagine, if you 

said to the American people, we can do 

one of two things for you: We can pass 

a bill that will enhance and make better the way in which the telecommunications industry functions in America 

and we can do that right away, or we 

can pass a bill that significantly 

strengthens the United States ability 

to deal with terrorists and to prevent 

terrorist acts, which do you want? My 

guess is they would pick—I do not 

know what they would pick. I would 

pick doing something about terrorism. 

So in my view, even if it takes the remainder of the week to work our way 

through these amendments—and I predict it will not, but even if it did, it 

would not be wrong nor unreasonable. 

The goal here is we must get the best 

possible bill that we can. We owe no 

less to the American people. We owe no 

less to the people in Oklahoma City. 

We owe no less to ourselves. We owe 

more, much more, to the memory of 

those who have lost their lives at the 

hands of a madman or mad men and 

women in the unthinkable moment of 

insanity that we witnessed now well 

over a month ago. 

And so I look forward, once we have 

a quorum assembled here in Washington—and again, I am not being critical of anyone who is not here now. If 

you represent the State of Utah or the 

State of California or the State of 

Washington and you went home over 

the recess, it is difficult to get back 

here early in the day and still meet 

your commitments without leaving a 

day earlier. 

And so I am confident we can move 

with some dispatch once we get underway. I just plead with my colleagues on 

both sides of the aisle and on both sides 

of the various issues that will be raised 

here that we should not make the same 

mistake the authors of the NRA letter 

made. They figured out they made a 

mistake and they retracted what they 

said. We are going to have a tendency, 

as this debate heats up, to say some 

fairly outrageous things, some of which 

may even be true. But I do not think 

this is the circumstance under which 

we should do it. 

I say to the Presiding Officer, I really 

do believe that we owe it to the people 

who have been victimized thus far by a 

foreign and a domestic terrorist act to 

act with dispatch, in a slightly dispassionate way, to come up with hardnosed, serious efforts to enable the 

Federal Government to legitimately 

fulfill its primary role of protecting 

the American people under these circumstances from these kinds of actions. So I will try my best to follow 

my own advice as this debate goes forward and suggest that to vilify any organization, right or left, to vilify individuals will not get us very far. What 

we should be doing is vindicating, vindicating those who have already suffered greatly in an attempt to make 

sure that we do not have to stand on 

the floor of the Senate again and deal 

with a similar circumstance. 

The President has basically asked for 

two things. The first thing he said was 

give me more people. Give me more 

FBI agents. Give me more people to do 

this job. We should do that. We should 

do that, A, because he is right and, B, 

because even those who might want to 

point out that the last President and 

this President cut people for a while, 

they did not add as rapidly as they 

should have—well, for whatever the 

reason, let us not argue about that. He 

wants more people. We should give him 

more people—him and whomever follow-on Presidents will be. 

Second, he said I need some additional authority. The authority I 

would like to have as the chief law enforcement officer for the United States 

of America, as the Chief Executive to 

give to the law enforcement agencies 

in this country the ability to do some 

things other nations have done with 

great success, that have diminished the 

ability to make these god-awful bombs, 

give the authority to tag the elements 

of these explosives so that when they 

blow up, you can identify from whence 

they came, where they were purchased 

and, hopefully, who purchased them to 

solve the crime. They are called 

taggants. We will debate that. There 

are legitimate reasons to debate it. But 

I think it is a legitimate request on the 

part of the President. 

The President also says I need some 

additional authority to deal with this 

new emerging problem of terrorism on 

American soil, and it is authority that 

I want expanded for wiretapping in certain circumstances under which they 

are expanded. I think he should be 

given that authority, or at least we 

should debate it and make that decision as a body. 

I think we should focus on the expanded authority he says he needs, and 

we should focus on the expanded resources he is requesting, and do our job 

for the American people and do it, as I 

said, hopefully—hopefully—by demonstrating to them that we can do 

something of consequence that is not 

rooted in political motivation, something of consequence on which we can 

agree. And, my Lord, if we cannot 

agree as a body, Democrats and Republicans, that we should give more authority to deal with terrorists in this 

country, then I am not sure on what we 

are likely to agree. 

So I look forward to a reasoned, a serious, and hopefully an unemotional 

debate on these issues, and a resolution 

in the near term so that we can send to 

the President of the United States, 

after a conference with the House, a 

piece of legislation that is worthy of 

his signature. 

I thank the Senate for listening, and 

I see that Senator EXON and others are 

in the Chamber. I would be happy to 

yield the floor for the time being. 

Mr. EXON addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

BROWN). The Senator from Nebraska is 

recognized. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I congratulate the managers of this bill, the Senator from Delaware and the Senator 

from Utah, both very good friends of 

mine. I have the utmost faith and confidence in their abilities. I recognize 

they do not always agree. But I believe 

that under the leadership of these two 

individuals, who have been foremost in 

the Judiciary Committee for a long, 

long time, we certainly should be able 

to come up with some workable arrangement to dispose of the terrorist 

bill which the President sent us. 

As I brought out when we last met 

here 10 days ago, when the majority 

leader and the minority leader were debating the fact of how fast we could 

move this bill ahead—we were going to 

take it up today, and the majority 

leader said he wanted to complete work 

on it on Tuesday—for the life of me, I 

do not know why Tuesday is such a 

magical date. I simply say there were 

supposedly some 50 or 60 amendments 

that were going to be offered, or proposed to be offered by Members on both 

sides of the aisle. We also remember 

that in the last week we met here, we 

had some 55 or 60 amendments to the 

budget bill. We finally got down to 

work and completed our deliberations 

and had our votes in a matter of, I believe, 3 days. 

As important as I think the budget 

debate was, as important as I think the 

ever-increasing deficit is, as alarmed as 

I am about the ever-increasing national debt and the cost to the taxpayers for the interest on that national 

debt, I do not believe there is anything 

more important to the people of United 

States of America today than terrorism. 

Terrorism is not like the balanced 

budget that I hoped we could get to a 

few years ago down the road. It is with 

us today. It was demonstrated in Oklahoma City very vividly most recently. 

I would simply like to ask my colleagues, if I could get their attention, 

to explain to this Senator why is it 

that we cannot make some kind of a 

good-faith effort by the two leaders of 

the Judiciary Committee, supported by 

the majority leader and the minority 

leader, to come to some kind of an understanding about how many amendments we are going to have, and about 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7678 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE June 5, 1995 

how long that is going to take. I would 

think that if we would try to stay away 

from the filibuster and eventually 

limit debate to 15 minutes a side for 

most of these amendments, clearly 

that would give us an opportunity, in 

this Senator’s opinion, to come forth 

and let the Senate express its will by 

majority vote on this tremendously 

important amendment that has to do 

with terrorism. And I assure all of my 

colleagues—and they know it full 

well—that terrorism is unfortunately 

alive and well in America today. I believe that the people of the United 

States expect us to stand up and do 

something about it, not in a foot race 

fashion, but in an expedited process of 

some kind, to have everyone have a 

chance, as is customary in the Senate, 

to work their will and maybe offer 

amendments. 

This Senator has no amendments to 

the bill. That cuts us down to 99 other 

Senators that may have amendments. I 

simply say to the managers that this 

Senator wishes to cooperate with 

them, and if they would put out an appeal and if the majority leader and minority leader would join in that, I 

would think that maybe we can focus 

on this important piece of legislation 

that the President has set up. We do 

not have to approve it exactly like the 

President wanted it. We can change it 

dramatically in any fashion we see fit 

by a majority vote here. 

I simply feel if we can put out this 

appeal, certainly the majority party, 

the Republicans, have demonstrated 

that they march basically in lockstep 

on most of these matters. The Republicans, it seems to me, have the majority and have the responsibility to either vote up or down on any amendments that could be offered from either 

side. I am simply appealing for some 

expeditious action on this tremendously important piece of legislation. 

If we have to take until Tuesday, 

Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, or even 

into next week, and if that is necessary, I do not think there is anything 

more important right now than this 

bill that is before us. 

I salute the President for addressing 

terrorism. A failure of respect for law 

and order is rampant in our society 

today. Certainly, the police, the prosecutors, the judicial system we depend 

on to handle these matters for us, need 

strengthening, they need additional 

tools. I believe that the bill suggested 

to us by the President of the United 

States goes a long way into helping 

these people that need help today with 

the ever-increasing threat of terrorism. 

So I simply pose a question for the 

managers of the bill. At their first opportunity, I ask them to respond as to 

whether there have been efforts made 

and are efforts being made now before 

the vote—as I understand it, there is a 

vote scheduled for 6 p.m. this evening. 

I would certainly be willing to remain 

here until midnight or 2 or 3 o’clock in 

the morning to take up or debate the 

reason or lack thereof of many of the 

amendments that I understand are to 

be offered. 

I hope that we will not do what the 

majority leader had indicated over the 

weekend—that he would pull the bill 

down on Tuesday—tomorrow—unless 

we complete action. I feel, though, that 

the majority leader is not irresponsible 

in asking for some time agreements, 

some way to limit the number of 

amendments that I think could be constructively moved forward, if it is the 

will of the majority of this body. 

I have posed a question, and I will 

await the response of the managers of 

the bill at their first opportunity. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor and 

suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk proceeded to call the 

roll. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have 

listened to my distinguished colleague 

from Delaware and my distinguished 

colleague from Nebraska, and I appreciate both of their remarks. 

With all due respect, I have to point 

out to my distinguished friend from 

Delaware that most all of the language 

in this bill was found in the substitute 

and it came from S. 3, introduced the 

first day of this session and S. 390, introduced several months ago. We have 

had several hearings in the full committee and two in the subcommittee. 

Thus, the language in this bill is well 

known. 

Second, of the 32 Republican amendments, 12 have either been offered or 

have gone away. I suspect most of the 

others will as well. I fully expect that 

many of the remaining Republican 

amendments will also disappear in 

short order, once we move pretty 

quickly here. 

What I find troubling, however, is the 

suggestion that habeas corpus should 

be dropped from the bill. The President—a Democrat, I might add—called 

for habeas corpus reform in his ‘‘60 

Minutes’’ interview. His instincts were 

right. He knows this is the time to try 

to get habeas corpus reform and that it 

will make some difference to the victims and survivors of the Oklahoma 

City incident. In fact, it is the only 

thing we can do in this bill that will 

really make any difference to them. 

They have called for this. 

As I wear this ribbon in their honor 

symbolizing the four strands—Oklahoma, hope, those who could not be 

found, and those who are dead—I have 

to say that I feel very deeply that we 

need to do this. 

So in addition to the President, who 

has called for habeas corpus reform—

but, of course, he has been riddled by 

those on the liberal side of his fence for 

having called for it, and has thus been 

somewhat muted ever since. I might 

mention there are other Democrats 

that are very strong for this habeas 

corpus provision of the bill. The Democratic attorney general of the State of 

Oklahoma is one of our strongest supporters. He has called for habeas corpus 

reform in the form this bill has it. The 

Democratic district attorney of Oklahoma, Robert H. Macy, has called for 

habeas corpus reform. Add to this a bipartisan letter from the State attorneys general and the State district attorneys. 

Mr. President, they also have called 

for habeas corpus reform. You have a 

pretty good idea that this is a bipartisan appeal. It is a bipartisan reform. 

I just wish that my distinguished 

friend from Delaware had been with me 

2 weeks ago when I talked to these survivors and victims and family members. Just this morning, I have met 

those people whose lives have been 

shattered by the Oklahoma City bombing. Interestingly enough, they have 

all called for habeas corpus reform in 

the form that this bill has it. 

I think it is important that we continue to fight for this aspect of the bill. 

It is about time. We have argued about 

it for years. We have a chance of debating it at this particular time, and we 

should do so. 

I have to say that I was also interested in Senator BIDEN’s comments 

that these are Federal crimes. Well, I 

am not so sure they are with regard to 

the State citizens who were not Federal employees who were outside of the 

building at the time. This bill will not 

apply retroactively and could not be 

applied retroactively. So those murderers are going to have to be prosecuted in State court. If there is no habeas corpus reform applying to the 

State courts, we will continue to live 

with the long, incessant delays and appeals that have gummed up this system 

for years. 

If we just enact a law that expands 

Federal jurisdiction over only Federal 

employees, that would not cover those 

nonfederal employees who were killed 

outside of the building. It could not be 

applied to those cases against the 

Oklahoma killers. To do so would be a 

clear violation. If we tried to apply 

Federal law to this, it would be a clear 

violation of the constitutional provision of the ex post facto laws. That is 

the way it appears to me. 

This body needs to understand that 

habeas corpus reform, both State and 

Federal, is the only thing we can enact 

that will directly affect the Oklahoma 

case. 

I might mention, also, that 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, 

as I have said before, is the only legislation Congress can pass as part of a 

terrorism bill that will have a direct 

affect on the Oklahoma City bombing. 

It is the one thing Congress can pass to 

ensure President Clinton’s promise 

that swift justice will be kept. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

June 5, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7679 

President Clinton, recognizing this 

fact during his April 23, 1995, ‘‘60 Minutes’’ appearance, showed that he understood this. His instincts were right 

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 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 enhancing FBI access to telephone billing records, and 

to loosen standards for use of wiretaps 

in felony cases. 

Although most capital cases are 

State cases and the State of Oklahoma 

could still prosecute this case, 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 and Oklahoma County is planning 

those prosecutions. The progress of 

this bill demonstrates the relationship 

of habeas reform to the terrorist bombing. 

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 courts to one habeas corpus petition 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 a required specified time 

period. 

Clearly, by passing these provisions, 

we ensure that those responsible for 

killing scores of U.S. citizens will be 

given the swift penalty that we in society exact upon them. 

Now, one last thing. One reason we 

brought habeas corpus reform here is 

not just because it is the right thing to 

do. It is the right thing to do with regard to keeping off gun amendments. 

We have asked people on our side to 

not get involved in any gun fights 

today. If there has to be a gun fight, we 

should do it over the crime bill that we 

will bring up in the future. We should 

keep this bill clean and decent. I would 

caution my colleagues on the other 

side, we should not try to make this a 

gun issue. 

There is no reason to get into that 

debate, when we are trying to pass basically what the President has said he 

must have, what the Justice Department has said it must have, what the 

FBI Director has said he must have; 

that is, legislation that could really 

give some teeth to law enforcement in 

the area of antiterrorist activities. 

I think we should concentrate on 

that goal. We should not get involved 

in extraneous debates. We ought to 

pass this bill as quickly and as promptly as we can. If we have to fight it out 

over habeas corpus reform, we should 

do it. 

I think the distinguished Senator 

from Delaware has 67 amendments on 

that. Fine, bring them up. We will fight 

them out and see what happens. I can 

live with almost anything if we can get 

a bill passed that will really make a 

difference in not only all of our lives, 

but the people specifically in Oklahoma City whose lives have been devastated by what happened there. I 

think passing this bill will be as good a 

memorialization for those who have 

died as anything we in the U.S. Congress can do. 

I cannot imagine why any Member 

would fight this bill when we have 

worked our guts out to work with our 

President, to work with the Justice Department, the FBI, and others. And 

this will beef up law enforcement as it 

should be beefed up, not only from the 

law enforceability standpoint, but from 

a law enforcement personnel standpoint. It is long overdue. I agree with 

the distinguished Senator from Delaware. 

In the last 2 years, the FBI and other 

law enforcement agencies have been 

cut back rather than beefed up. Now 

the President realizes that we have to 

change course and beef them up. There 

is about $1.8 billion in this bill that 

will take care of strengthening our law 

enforcement with regard to 

antiterrorist activities and other activities that are long overdue, in my 

eyes. 

I have been complaining about this 

for quite a while. I have to admit, I 

think during the Reagan and Bush 

years, we could have done a better job 

of beefing up the FBI and other law enforcement agencies ourselves. Now is 

the time to face these issues. I think 

we should do so. 

We have a number of stacked amendments. The bill is currently open for 

any other amendments that any Member might file. I hope that our colleagues will bring their amendments to 

the floor and debate them. We still 

have 21⁄2 hours before we begin voting. 

I would like to resolve as many of them 

as we can, and stack as many amendments as we can for voting. 

I am hopeful that we can get colleagues to withdraw amendments that 

really do not belong on this bill, and to 

reduce the number of amendments we 

can have so that we can pass this bill 

by tomorrow evening, if we can, or at 

least within a relatively short time. 

I understand the majority leader’s 

pressures. There are all kinds of important pieces of legislation that must be 

brought before the U.S. Senate over 

the next few weeks and months. He has 

not had the time to devote excessively 

to any particular bill. This is one bill 

that has to pass. We will pass it. I hope 

that all Members will cooperate in the 

process. 

I hope our Senators will bring their 

amendments to the floor and we can 

move from there. I suggest the absence 

of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The Senator from Idaho is recognized. 

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I came to 

the floor this afternoon to stand in 

support of the Dole-Hatch substitute to 

Senate bill 735 that deals with necessary and appropriate redefining of 

our laws in relation to terrorist activities or terrorist type activities in this 

country. But in coming to the floor 

this afternoon to speak, I also wanted 

to speak very briefly on the amendment that is pending and will be voted 

on this afternoon offered by the Senator from California on the issue of 

taggants. 

The legislation before us deals with 

taggants, and the question is then, if it 

does and does so appropriately, why 

will the Senator from California offer 

something that is considerably different? Is it a new idea? Not at all. In 

fact, it is really quite an old idea that 

the Congress has looked into before 

over the years to attempt to identify 

or cause to be identified explosive material so that when they are inappropriately used or misused they can be 

identified and traced. To my knowledge no one in this country has objection to that concept. But the word 

‘‘concept’’ is what is key in this debate. 

It is a concept. And there have been 

studies produced that would argue 

that, while it is well intended, it may 

be at least at this point in time scientifically and technologically impossible to get to the point of putting in 

explosive materials, that are so designed to develop to do certain things, 

an identifiable marker that would still 

cause them to perform as they were 

tested and manufactured to perform. In 

fact, the concern is that it might cause 

them to perform in an inappropriate 

way and cause harm to the individual 

who was using them in a legitimate, 

legal, and responsible fashion. 

That is, of course, exactly what the 

Senate bill 735 substitute recognizes 

when it proposes that we study this 

issue and try to bring the community 

of science and technology together to 

see whether in fact we can produce an 

identifiable marker, if you will, within 

an explosive material that tags it, that 

identifies it, and that would allow it to 

be used. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7680 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE June 5, 1995 

There was something else said by the 

Senator from California this morning, 

that at least frustrated me, which was 

her very open and direct statement 

that the NRA opposed it, the National 

Rifle Association. I thought it was important that the record be straight, 

that, in fact, the record be factual. 

The NRA does not oppose this provision of Senate bill 735. What the NRA, 

as a responsible representative of a variety of people who use gunpowders for 

legitimate reasons, is suggesting is 

that, if you do not do it right and you 

do it wrong, you could cause damage to 

a lot of innocent people and produce 

unaffordable costs that do not make a 

lot of sense. 

Let me read to you on the record testimony given before the Judiciary 

Committee in April of 2 years ago on 

this issue. Point one proves that is an 

old idea whose time may not have 

come yet because we do not have the 

science and technology to allow it to 

come; and, second, the NRA never did 

nor does it now have an official position on the issue. 

Let me quote from that testimony. 

‘‘The National Rifle Association does 

not take an official position concerning the licensing, manufacture and 

restrictions placed upon commercial 

high explosives, for that is not an area 

within our field of interest. However, 

we would be derelict in our responsibilities to America’s gun owners and as 

citizens if we did not point out to this 

committee’’—meaning the Judiciary 

Committee of the Senate—‘‘the basic 

flaws and fallacies of the taggants 

technology.’’ ‘‘An important point that must be 

made to the committee is that tagging 

explosives is not a new idea. In fact, 

the Congress studied and rejected the 

concepts involving identification and 

detection taggants in the latter 1970’s 

and early 1980’s. The premise behind 

that experience has been restricted in 

the aftermath of the bombing’’—this 

was the World Trade Center hearings 

that emanated out of that horrible explosion—‘‘that law enforcement officers should be assisted in their investigation of tagging explosives. But the 

facilitation that was to be realized is 

not available.’’ In other words, the technology, the 

availability of the science to do what 

might be the right thing to do simply 

does not exist. I ask unanimous consent that the entirety of that testimony be printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

TESTIMONY OF THE INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION OF THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION

SUBMITTED TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF

THE U.S. SENATE, APRIL 22, 1993

The Institute for Legislative Action of the 

National Rifle Association (NRA) would like 

to thank the Senate Judiciary Committee 

for the opportunity to submit testimony regarding the issue of explosives tagging. 

It may surprise the Committee to see the 

NRA testify on what many consider purely 

an explosives matter. The fact is, however, 

that tagging affects not only explosives, but 

also propellant powders used by the over 

three million members of the National Rifle 

Association and millions of sportsmen 

throughout the country. 

Current legislative proposals would affect 

all powder, whether it be blackpowder used 

by antique and reproduction firearms enthusiasts, or smokeless powder used in modern 

firearms ammunition and by shooters who 

reload their own ammunition. While section 

845 (a)(5) of Chapter 40 exempts commercial 

sporting grade blackpowder in quantities of 

fifty pounds or less, all sporting grade 

blackpowder would have to be tagged, since 

blackpowder is manufactured in larger quantity lots. If propellant powders are going to 

be covered in any legislative mandate that 

requires taggants be utilized, then this becomes more than an explosives control matter. It is a matter of concern to all 

gunowners. 

Explosives tagging to register individual 

lots of explosives is an idea that sounds wonderful, but like so many wonderful-sounding 

ideas, it will not work. From a practical perspective, explosives taggants simply will 

have no significant effect upon terrorist 

bombers. The only major effect of such a proposal will be to increase the paperwork required by manufacturers and dealers in explosives and propellants; increase the control 

exercised by BATF over their activities; and 

to significantly increase the cost to taxpayers and consumers. 

The National Rifle Association does not 

take an official position concerning the licensing, manufacture, and restrictions 

placed upon commercial high explosives, for 

that is not an area within our field of interest. However, we would be derelict in our responsibilities to America’s gun owners and 

as citizens if we did not point out to this 

Committee the basic flaws and fallacies of 

taggants technology. 

An important point that must be made to 

the Committee is that tagging explosives is 

not a new idea. In fact, the Congress studied 

and rejected the concepts involving identification and detection taggants in the latter 

1970s and early 1980s. The premise behind 

that experience has been resurrected in the 

aftermath of the bombing of the World Trade 

Center—that law enforcement officials could 

be assisted in their investigations by tagging 

explosives. But the facilitation that was to 

be realized is now available to BATF and 

other law enforcement agencies without the 

use of taggants. 

Identification taggants were first proposed 

as a means of pinpointing exactly what type 

of explosive had been used in a bombing. Detection taggants were intended to provide a 

means of ‘‘sniffing’’ explosives that may be 

contained in a package prior to detonation. 

But technology has surpassed those premises. We now possess, and the federal government now uses, machinery that can detect, 

or ‘‘sniff’’ the nitrates in explosives. Additionally, other technologies allow law enforcement officials to ‘‘sniff’’ a bomb scene 

and determine what explosives were employed. 

If it be the intent of Congress to place additional controls upon commercial explosives, so be it; but Congress should realize 

that explosives used in terrorist bombings 

are not necessarily commercial explosives. 

Any objective analysis would have to conclude, as they have in the past, that terrorist 

bombings are quite unlikely to be significantly affected by any proposed new requirements of this nature. Let us examine the 

facts surrounding the incident that served as 

an impetus for these hearings, the bombing 

of the World Trade Center in New York City, 

and what is perhaps the greatest fallacy behind proposal of explosives tagging—that investigations would have been facilitated by 

the inclusion of taggants in explosives materials. 

According to the New York Times, the 

bomb was constructed using urea, nitric 

acid, and sulfuric acid, all chemicals that are 

‘‘inexpensive and widely available at chemical companies, laboratory supply stores or 

even garden centers. They can be bought in 

bulk for less than $210 a ton.’’ (March 11, 

1993) Yet there has been no suggestion by 

BATF or any other government agency to 

place taggants in these products, or more 

importantly, in prilled ammonium nitrate 

for the simple reason that there is no difference between commercial ammonium nitrate used for blasting and the far greater 

amounts of ammonium nitrate used as a fertilizer. The fact is that there are no components of the bomb used in the World Trade 

Center bombing that would have been detected or identified had this proposal been in 

force. 

One of the most easily made explosive devices is the mixing of ammonium nitrate, or 

fertilizer, with a fuel oil, even though it is 

currently prohibited by law. The resulting 

explosive, commonly known as ANFO, would 

require a high explosive booster charge, and 

that booster charge, if obtained commercially, would be tagged under this concept. 

But, ammonium nitrate may be illegally 

mixed with a fuel which is itself an explosive, such as gasoline, or nitromethane, the 

choice among high performance race car 

drivers as a ‘‘speed fuel’’, both of which are 

technically classified as explosives in standard reference books. If ammonium nitrate 

and gasoline are combined, the result is a 

powerful and easily detonated explosive—an 

explosive that does not require a tagged 

booster charge. In fact, ammonium nitrate 

and gasoline may be easily and reliably detonated by a booster charge consisting of the 

same ammonium nitrate/gasoline ingredients inserted in a pipe or similar container 

and initiated by nothing more exotic than a 

conventional firecracker. 

An explosive consists merely of an oxidizer, which may either be a chemical which 

during burning produces large amounts of 

oxygen, or simply oxygen in the air, combined with a fuel. As a case in point, a standard U.S. Army manual lists as a special 

charge for use in flattening large buildings 

an explosive which every Member of the 

Committee has in his home—household flour. 

The flour is the fuel; oxygen in the air is the 

oxidizer. Even blackpowder can be manufactured with relative ease using common ingredients in any kitchen in the country. Additional ‘‘recipes’’ can be found in other 

widely available pamphlets and brochures. 

The reason that it is difficult, if not altogether impossible, to control terrorist bombers by controlling commercial explosives is 

that the terrorist bomber is not limited to 

the use of commercial explosives. It is certain that most, if not all, terrorist groups 

have the ability to make extremely damaging explosives, while easily circumventing 

the provisions of any technologically feasible legislation. There is no reason to assume that taggants in smokeless and 

blackpowder would have any effect in controlling terrorist attacks. Information concerning explosives is readily available—and 

access to that information is impossible to 

control. 

There are five basic problems confronting 

the terrorist bomber: he needs (1) a material 

which is easy to acquire, (2) safe to prepare, 

(3) not easily detectable in case of search by 

police, (4) capable of being detonated after he 

is well clear of the area, and (5) capable of 

highly explosive effect. One type of bomb 

which easily meets these criteria consists of 

nothing but a container of butane, such as 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

June 5, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7681 

used to fuel home workshop torches, gas 

lights and similar devices, or even a small 

container used for filling butane cigarette 

lighters, and an ordinary candle. 

A bomber can, with relatively complete 

impunity, carry those ingredients almost 

anywhere. And upon obtaining egress to his 

chosen target site, he can enter an interior 

restroom or storeroom and quickly produce a 

time bomb by lighting the candle in one corner of the room, then venting the butane 

bottle in another corner. The gas-air ratio is 

so broad, that an explosion is certain to result when the gas reaches the candle’s flame. 

If such a bomb were placed in a central room 

without windows, thereby confining the explosive force, a large building could be destroyed. In effect, this type of gas bomb duplicates the horrendous damage caused by an 

explosion of leaking natural gas, with which 

all of us are familiar. 

Certainly, a bomb of sorts may be fashioned using either smokeless or blackpowder 

propellant. However, to make an effective 

bomb with these substances is far more difficult and requires a more sophisticated 

knowledge of the intricacies of explosive mechanics. Anyone possessing such knowledge 

could, with equal ease, make a cheaper, far 

more efficient, bomb from a myriad of other 

substances. 

According to the BATF, black and smokeless powders each comprised 16 percent of 

criminal bombings in 1991. More than fifteen 

years ago, in BATF’s own testimony before 

the Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and 

Procedures of this Committee on September 

12, 1977, Mr. Atley Peterson stated, ‘‘because 

they (black and smokeless powders) produce 

a low-order explosion, loss of life, injuries 

and property damage are small.’’

Using BATF’s statistics, it seems apparent 

that black and smokeless powder are not a 

major part of the bombing problem. And, 

looking again to the issue of the relative 

ease and rudimentary knowledge required to 

make ‘‘kitchen counter’’ blackpowder, it is 

unlikely that all incidents involve commercially manufactured sporting grade 

blackpowder. Undoubtedly, many 

blackpowder incidents could be traced to 

homemade powder or non-sporting grade 

powder such as fireworks or blasting powder, 

or even kitchen matches, when simply cutting off the heads. Interestingly enough, 

much blasting grade blackpowder is manufactured for military use. Military explosives 

were in the past exempt from legislative 

measures, although there are frequent reports of military explosive thefts. 

An important aspect of this concept is its 

feasibility. According to the report 

‘‘Taggants in Explosives’’ (OTA–ISC–116), 

produced as a result of the Congressional interest in taggants in the latter 1970s, no reliable method for tagging smokeless powder 

has been developed, and blackpowder tagging 

has only been tested with regard to its effects on the grade of blackpowder used for 

blasting. There is no documented evidence 

that a single round of tagged powder has 

been fired from a muzzle-loading firearm. A 

problem with the compatibility of smokeless 

powder and taggants was also identified, 

calling into question the safety of taggants 

for the thousands of handloaders using powder in 1⁄2, 1 or 2 lb. cans and the millions of 

people owning modern ammunition for their 

firearms. 

An estimated five million pounds of 

smokeless and blackpowder propellants are 

sold to shooters each year, representing perhaps six million individual cans of powder. 

Giving BATF every conceivable benefit of 

the doubt, we are talking about a negligible 

amount of legally manufactured and obtained smokeless and blackpowder being involved in an ‘‘explosives incident’’ in which 

tagging might be of some benefit to the investigators. 

The FY 1991 arrest figures for explosives 

incidents as provided by BATF is 177, and the 

number of actual and attempted explosives 

incentives was 1,965, giving an arrest rate of 

9%. A 1978 BATF cost/benefit analysis 

projects a 1.5 fold increase in arrests if tagging is mandated, then arrest rates would go 

to 13.5%—a 4.5% increase. Out of the 589 

black and smokeless powder devices recorded 

in 1991, current arrests must total 53 cases. 

Tagging would, according to BATF projections, increase this to 80 total arrests. This 

is an increase of only 27 cases a year. 

The same study estimated that the then 

annual taxpayer cost of identification tagging at $10 million dollars, and detection 

tagging at $9.4 million dollars. Using Bureau 

of Labor Statistics calculations of the Consumer Price Index to account for inflation, 

the same estimates today would be $22.65 

million and $21.29 million respectively. Using 

these figures, taxpayers would pay $43.94 million dollars just to arrest 27 more persons. 

With a projected $22.65 million dollar annual 

cost, again from the fifteen year old estimations and accounting for inflation, to be 

absorbed by ammunition and powder consumers, the estimated total cost of the program would be some $66.59 million. For that 

additional taxpayer and consumer burden, 

the projected 27 additional arrests would 

cost an average of $2.5 million dollars each. 

In fact, BATF’s own cost/benefit analysis indicated that this program cannot be justified. BATF stated in the 1970s, with reference 

to the detection tagging program, ‘‘at 

present it is impossible to estimate the effectiveness of tagged or untagged detection 

with any degree of accuracy. Within this 

large uncertainty, both tagged and untagged 

detection appear to be, at best, of borderline 

economic viability.’’

The BATF-commissioned study succinctly 

stated that, ‘‘Ideally, the problem of control 

would be greatly simplified if every ounce of 

explosive, legally manufactured and legally 

used, could be completely accounted for.’’

But, the study’s determination in favor of 

identification tagging is based upon mere 

hypothesis, nothing more. Quite simply, 

BATF does not know if taggants would be effective in apprehending or deterring bombers. 

Even ignoring the concerns now before this 

Committee—the illegal manufacture and use 

of explosives—the sheer burden of tracing 

every ounce of legal explosives to the purchaser, and the minutely detailed records 

which would have to be kept by the manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers and retailers is staggering. If propellant powders are 

tagged, this will drastically increase, and in 

many cases duplicate, the paperwork and 

records already being kept by federal firearms licensees. And how are we to trace explosives beyond the first non-dealer purchase? 

In the past, BATF has stated that ammunition recordkeeping was a waste of resources, 

as ammunition tracing has never solved a 

crime—the volume of records is just too 

large. If propellant powders are tagged, every 

packaged quantity, no matter how small, 

whether one can of black or smokeless powder, or one box of ammunition, would have 

to be referenced to manufacturer and lot 

number. But this recordkeeping would simply do no good at all. One numbered lot of 

powder can yield several thousand individual 

cans of powder and literally thousands of 

boxes of ammunition. Even with detailed 

records, tracing the end user would be like 

looking for the proverbial ‘‘needle in a haystack.’’

Obviously, what the Congress and the 

American people really want is a means to 

apprehend and punish those who use explosives in an illegal fashion. It is assumed that 

this threat of punishment will serve as an effective deterrent, thereby decreasing the 

number of bombings. Yet, in view of the 

flimsy evidence presented by the supporters 

of the tagging program in the past, Congress 

is considering an unknown quantity, which 

will have a questionable impact on bombings 

and an undetermined ballistic effect on propellant powders, not to mention the suspect 

safety of taggants on handlers and end users. 

In fact, the only thing that seems sure about 

this program is that if black and smokeless 

powder are tagged, it will impose a mammoth recordkeeping burden on small businessmen and drive up the cost of supplies for 

sportsmen. As usual, the terrorist will 

blithely ignore the law and the criminal circumvent it—for they are, by definition, people who disobey the law. The law-abiding citizen will once again be the only one affected 

by the implementation of this concept. That 

is why the National Rifle Association oppose 

the concept of tagging, specifically propellant powders, and urges the Committee to reject this concept as ill-conceived. The benefits of doing otherwise are dubious at best, 

but the costs, in dollars and to the small 

businessman handler are all too real. 

We thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony to this Committee. 

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, so why 

the amendment? Why not stay with the 

substitute bill? If this Congress wants 

to get the industry that manufactures 

explosives to a point in science and 

technology where we could identify the 

explosive itself, why not pursue it in 

the way that Senate bill 735 suggested? 

Or is there another reason to pursue it 

in a way that the Senator from California has pursued it; that is, do it now 

and study it later? That is a bit of a 

strange way to approach something 

that, if done wrong or if caused by Government and forced to be done without 

the proper basis of understanding to be 

done wrong, could create the kind of 

damage that could occur if this were 

the case. 

So let us today vote to table the 

amendment of the Senator from California and stay with the substitute bill 

which does recognize the importance of 

developing the science and technology 

for taggants. I support that. And I hope 

we can get there. 

But the record now shows that the 

National Rifle Association does not oppose taggants, and it never has. It most 

assuredly supports the science and the 

technology that could lead us to that. 

What it is officially on the record as 

opposing is the amendment of the Senator from California because it simply 

believes it is too premature. It might 

well be risky to the science and the 

technology involved. 

This Senate I think in a responsible 

way wants to do it right. The right way 

is the Senate bill that has been appropriately heard with the appropriate 

technology, or the record for technology built into it. 

With that in mind, I hope as we vote 

this afternoon on the tabling motion 

that we would support the committee 

and the chairman, and the text of Senate bill 735. 

I yield the remainder of my time. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7682 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE June 5, 1995 

Mr. President, I suggest the absence 

of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

(Mr. CRAIG assumed the chair.) 

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1207 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1199

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, earlier 

today, the distinguished Senator from 

Utah was kind enough to propose for 

me an amendment to the bill. That 

particular amendment was designed to 

extend the sanctions that we now have 

in place against Iran to all countries 

designated as terrorist countries by 

our Secretary of State. 

Let me add that it is not my intention with this legislation to restrict 

the President or the Secretary of 

State. And included in the amendment 

is a very extensive waiver provision so 

that while we would have on our books 

a provision for adding these sanctions 

against other countries that have been 

designated as terrorist countries, it 

would not necessarily require the implementation of these sanctions, but it 

would require the waiver of them in 

the event a terrorist country is so designated. That waiver is quite broad and 

gives the President a great deal of discretion. The President, if he so determines for national security interests or 

even humanitarian reasons, may waive 

the action. But what it does do, Mr. 

President, it gives some consistency to 

our action. It puts countries that 

would contemplate using state terrorism on notice that this country is 

serious, that there are sanctions, that 

those sanctions are broad and significant, as in the sanctions the President 

has applied against Iran. 

It also will put them on notice that 

while these sanctions come with being 

designated a terrorist country, it is 

possible, if they work with our President and with the Secretary of State, 

they can work their way out of it. 

Mr. President, I think this is an important amendment because what it 

says is we are going to be consistent. If 

a country chooses to adopt these kinds 

of terrorist policies, we ought to at 

least make sure that when we designate a nation as a terrorist country 

there are some sanctions involved. 

The final version of the amendment 

differs slightly from the provision that 

was introduced earlier today. The 

waiver provision, to be specific, is different in the final version of the 

amendment. It simply makes clear 

that there are very wide discretions on 

the part of the President. And I would 

ask unanimous consent that the final 

version of the Brown amendment be entered into the RECORD at this point and 

substituted for the original amendment. 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, reserving 

the right to object, does the Senator 

have a copy of that so I can take a 

quick look at it? 

Mr. BROWN. I do. I would be glad 

to——

Mr. BIDEN. I would like to suggest 

maybe we could have a short quorum 

call. I do not want to object. I do not 

think I will object, but if the Senator 

would allow——

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I will 

withhold my unanimous consent request until the distinguished Senator 

from Delaware has had an opportunity 

to review the amendment, and I would 

at this point note the absence of a 

quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum having been suggested, the clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the order 

for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1209 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1199

(Purpose: To prohibit the distribution of information on the making of explosive materials with intent or knowledge that such 

information will be used for a criminal 

purpose) 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I 

would like to send an amendment to 

the desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from California [Mrs. FEINSTEIN] proposes an amendment numbered 

1209 to amendment No. 1199: 

At the appropriate place in the amendment, insert the following section: 

SEC. ———. PROHIBITION ON DISTRIBUTION OF 

INFORMATION RELATING TO EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS FOR A CRIMINAL 

PURPOSE. 

(a) Section 842 of title 18, United States 

Code, is amended by adding at the end the 

following new section: 

‘‘(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to 

teach or demonstrate the making of explosive materials, or to distribute by any means 

information pertaining to, in whole or in 

part, the manufacture of explosive materials, if the person intends, or knows that 

such explosive materials or information will 

likely be used for, or in furtherance of, an 

activity that constitutes a Federal criminal 

offense or a criminal purpose affecting interstate commerce.’’

(b) Section 844 of title 18, United States 

Code, is amended by designating section (a) 

as subsection (a)(1) and by adding the following new subsection: 

‘‘(a)(2) Any person who violates subsection 

(1) of section 842 of this chapter shall be 

fined under this title or imprisoned not more 

than twenty years, or both.’’

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield 

for 30 seconds? 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes. 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I had 

asked that a quorum call be put into 

effect to determine whether or not I 

could agree with the unanimous consent request by the Senator from Colorado. I would just ask the Senator from 

California, when we conclude that, if I 

would be able to interrupt her to allow 

the Senator from Colorado to amend 

his amendment. 

I do not seek that now, but I would 

like that so the Senator from Colorado 

does not think I have put this off for a 

couple hours. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I 

am happy to, or I am happy to wait. I 

am trying to use the time usefully. 

Mr. BIDEN. I would encourage the 

Senator to proceed. I would ask her 

permission, when we work this out, 

whether I could interrupt her at that 

point. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Absolutely. I 

would be delighted. I thank the Senator. 

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Chair and I 

thank the Senator. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I 

rise today to offer an amendment to 

address what I believe is a rather surprising problem in our society, and 

that is the distribution of bombmaking 

information for criminal purposes. This 

amendment is simple, and I think this 

cartoon in USA Today really describes 

what the situation is. 

Here is a youngster sitting in front of 

his computer learning how to put together a bomb. Here is the mother on 

the phone saying, ‘‘History, astronomy, 

science, Bobby is learning so much on 

the internet.’’

This amendment would prohibit the 

teaching of how to make a bomb if a 

person intends or knows that the bomb 

will be used for a criminal purpose. Additionally, the amendment would prohibit the distribution of information on 

how to put together a bomb if a person 

intends or knows that the bomb will be 

used for a criminal purpose. 

The penalty for violation of this law 

would be a maximum of 20 years in 

prison, a fine of $250,000, or both. 

Now, you might ask, how is that possible? How would anybody do this? I 

think the next chart I will put up will 

show clearly how it is possible and 

what people today are doing. 

Let me show you this. This is from 

the internet, entitled ‘‘Stuff You Are 

Not Supposed to Know About.’’ It advertises the Terrorist Handbook. It 

says, 

Whether you are planning to blow up the 

World Trade Center, or merely explode a few 

small devices on the White House lawn, the 

Terrorist Handbook is an invaluable guide to 

having a good time. Where else can you get 

such wonderful ideas about how to use up all 

that extra ammonium triiodide left over 

from last year’s revolution? 

Well, that is just part of it. What 

that then leads to is a whole series of 

recipes on how to put together a bomb 

aimed at killing, injuring, or destroying property. The handbook goes on to 

give a step-by-step instruction on what 

to do. Let me quote from a section on 

acquiring chemicals: 

The best place to steal chemicals is a college. Many State schools have all of their 

chemicals out on the shelves in the labs and 

more in their chemical stockrooms. Evening 

is the best time to enter a lab building, as 

there are the least number of people in the 

building. Of course, if none of these methods 

are successful, there is always section 2.11. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

June 5, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7683 

And it then tells how to pick a lock 

to get into the chem lab. It tells how to 

dress to look like a student. It tells 

where the shelves are that the chemicals are on. The handbook lists various 

explosive recipes, using black powders, 

nitroglycerin, dynamite, TNT, and ammonium nitrate. It provides explicit instructions for making pipe bombs, 

book bombs, light bulb bombs, glass 

container bombs and phone bombs, just 

to name a few. 

Now, I have heard people say, oh, but 

the Encyclopedia Britannica has eight 

pages on explosives, and nobody criticizes that. Well, I have read the eight 

pages on explosives, and it does not say 

how to make a toilet paper roll booby 

trap. What legitimate purpose is there 

for a toilet paper roll booby trap other 

than to kill somebody? You do not 

blast out the stump of a tree. You do 

not need it for mining. You need it for 

no civilian or military purpose other 

than to kill. Or a vacuum cleaner 

booby trap. Again, no civilian or military purpose, no blasting out of tree 

trunks, no mining use. A traffic cone 

booby trap. A video alarm booby trap. 

A washing powder box booby trap. How 

to develop this thing in a bottle or a 

box of soap powder. 

Light bulb bombs. The Terrorist 

Handbook describes, ‘‘an automatic reaction to walking into a dark room is 

to turn on the light. This can be fatal 

if a light bulb bomb has been placed in 

the overhead light socket. A light bulb 

bomb is surprisingly easy to make. It 

also comes with its own initiator, an 

electric ignition system.’’ And then it 

goes into detailed instructions and diagrams of how to put one together. 

I am not going to repeat those on the 

floor of the U.S. Senate. But I can assure you that the Terrorist Handbook 

provides these step-by-step instructions. 

One of the more appalling descriptions of bombmaking involves a baby 

food bomb. The following information 

was taken from the bulletin board, 

computer bulletin board off the internet. Baby food bombs. ‘‘These simple, 

powerful bombs are not very well 

known, even though all of the material 

can be easily obtained by anyone, including minors. These things are so’’—

and then there is a four-letter word—

‘‘powerful, that they can destroy a car. 

Here is how they work.’’

Then it tells how they work. It says, 

Go to the Sports Authority or Herman’s 

sports shop and buy shotgun shells. At the 

Sports Authority that I go to, you can actually buy shotgun shells without a parent or 

adult. They do not keep it behind a little 

glass counter or anything like that. It is 

$2.96 for 25 shells. 

The computer bulletin board posting 

then provides instructions on how to 

assemble and detonate the bomb. It 

concludes with these words: 

If the explosion doesn’t get them, the glass 

will. If the glass doesn’t get them, then the 

nails will. 

I do not think our first amendment, 

or the framers of the Constitution, 

want to protect the freedom of speech 

for criminal purposes. Clearly, these 

bombs are there for one reason and one 

reason only and that is a criminal purpose. 

Let me give you another example 

that came through on April 23 of this 

year on the internet. 

Are you interested in receiving information detailing the components and materials 

needed to construct a bomb identical to the 

one used in Oklahoma? The information specifically details the construction, deployment and detonation of high-powered explosives. It also includes complete details of the 

bomb used in Oklahoma City, how it was 

used and it could have been better. 

Another examples comes from April 

25 on the internet. I will quote it: 

I want to make bombs and kill evil Zionist 

people in the Government. Teach me, give 

me test files. Feed my wisdom, O Great One. 

That was April 25 on the internet. 

The forward to the book ‘‘Death by 

Deception: Advanced Improvised Booby 

Traps’’ states: 

Terrorists, IEDs [improvised explosive devices] come in many shapes and forms, but 

these bombs, mines, and booby traps all have 

one thing in common: they will cripple or 

kill you if you happen to be in the wrong 

place at the wrong time. 

In this sequel to his best-selling book 

‘‘Deathtrap,’’ Jo Jo Gonzales reveals more 

improvised booby-trap designs. Discover how 

these death-dealing devices can be constructed from such outwardly innocuous objects as computer modems, hand-held radios, 

toilet-paper dispensers, shower heads, talking teddy bears, and traffic cones. Detailed 

instructions, schematic diagrams, and typical deployment techniques for dozens of 

such contraptions are provided. 

Now, none of this is for use in any 

constructive civilian or military 

project. All of them are used for criminal purposes. 

Other titles of books that teach people how to make bombs include: ‘‘The 

Guerrilla’s Arsenal: Advanced Techniques for Making Explosives and 

Time-Delay Bombs’’; ‘‘The Advanced 

Anarchist Arsenal: Recipes for Improvised Incendiaries and Explosives.’’

Well, there are those who would say 

this is just a simple first amendment 

exploration. Do not worry about it. 

People are just curious. 

Well, let me tell you that on Friday, 

Orange County bomb squad Sgt. Charlie Stump told me that a 14-year-old 

was in his garage making a pipe bomb 

with an 11- and 12-year-old watching 

him do it. The information to make 

this pipe bomb came from the Improvised Munitions Black Book, which can 

be obtained in any gunshop through 

the Paladin Press mail order outlets. 

So this youngster blew himself up, and 

right next to him was the handbook 

that he used. 

Another example. In Mission Viejo, a 

20-year-old junior college student went 

into the so-called survivalist movement and accidentally set off his own 

bomb and killed himself. Again, the 

manual was sitting right next to him. 

So, according to the sergeant, these 

books tell you in vivid detail how to 

make bombs, how to kill people, how to 

destroy cars, how to destroy trains—

whatever type of destruction you want 

to do, these books will tell you how to 

do it. 

The purpose of this amendment is to 

say that if you know or intend this will 

be used in a criminal way, you have 

committed a Federal criminal offense 

by putting out this information. 

Other examples include the following: 

One of the 1993 World Trade Center 

bombers was arrested with manuals in 

hand. 

In 1989, four Bethesda teenage boys 

were killed when a homemade pipe 

bomb subsequently went off. They were 

following instructions from another 

manual. 

In 1987, a California teenager blew 

himself up with homemade bombs. The 

‘‘Improvised Munitions Black Book’’

was found nearby. 

Enough is enough. Common sense 

should tell us that the first amendment 

does not give someone the right to 

teach others how to kill people. The 

right to free speech in the first amendment is not absolute, and there are several well-known exceptions to the first 

amendment which limit free speech. 

These include obscenity; child pornography; clear and present dangers; 

commercial speech; defamation; speech 

harmful to children; time, place, and 

manner restrictions; incidental restrictions; and radio and television broadcasting. 

I do not for 1 minute believe that 

anyone writing the Constitution of the 

United States some 200 years ago wanted to see the first amendment used to 

directly aid one in how to learn to injure and kill others. 

I believe that the distribution of information on bombmaking, if we know 

that information will be used for a 

criminal purpose, should be illegal. 

At a recent hearing of the Judiciary 

Committee, I asked FBI Director Louis 

Freeh if anyone has a first amendment 

right to teach someone how to build a 

bomb in this country. He replied that 

it is a very important debate that very 

few people have reviewed. He suggested 

that it is a question that should be 

taken up by Congress. That is what we 

are doing this very day. 

My amendment is specifically aimed 

at preventing and punishing the distribution of material that will be used 

to commit serious crimes external to 

the distribution itself, and only when 

there is intent or knowledge that the 

information will be used for a criminal 

purpose. 

In other words, it is not aimed at 

suppressing contents per se, or fashioned as a prior restraint. Its purpose 

is addressing the facilitation of unlawful criminal conduct. 

Now, we will talk for a moment 

about current law. There currently is a 

Federal law on the books that is similar to my proposed amendment. Title 

18, section 231(a)(1) of the Criminal 

Code states: 

Whoever teaches or demonstrates to any 

other person the use, application, or making 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7684 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE June 5, 1995 

of any firearm or explosive or incendiary device . . . knowing or having reason to know 

or intending that the same will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance 

of, a civil disorder . . . shall be fined under 

this title or imprisoned not more than 5 

years, or both. 

At least 18 States have similar 

bombmaking laws on the books, including Arkansas, California, Colorado, 

Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, 

New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Virginia. 

I know that concerns have been 

raised by some civil libertarians and 

others about the constitutionality of 

my amendment, because it in essence 

takes this section which I have just 

read of the code and says if you, additionally, distribute that information 

with the knowledge or intent that it 

will be used for a criminal act, then 

you are guilty of a Federal violation. 

So if you read information that is 

within a terrorist handbook, where the 

beginning page of the handbook says, 

‘‘Whether you are planning to blow up 

the World Trade Center, or merely explode a few small devices on the White 

House lawn, this is the information 

you should have,’’ that clearly sets, in 

my view, the purpose and intent of providing the information. 

The current law, section 231 of title 

18, has already been used to prosecute 

several criminals. It has been constitutionally upheld by the courts. In the 

United States versus Featherston, 1972, 

the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held 

that the statute ‘‘is not unconstitutionally vague’’ and affirmed the 

convictions of two defendants who were 

prosecuted under the law. 

The fifth circuit wrote: 

. . . the statute does not cover mere inadvertent conduct. It requires those prosecuted 

to have acted with intent or knowledge that 

the information disseminated would be used 

in the furtherance of a civil disorder. 

I know, though, that the true test of 

the amendment’s constitutionality will 

be if and when it comes before the 

courts. And, I welcome that opportunity. 

The last time the Supreme Court directly dealt with the issue of freedom 

of speech restrictions was over 20 years 

ago, in Brandenburg versus Ohio, 1969. 

As I understand it, this case involved a 

Ku Klux Klan leader’s right to advocate destruction of property and other 

violence as a means of obtaining political reform. I think it may be time, especially in light of Oklahoma City and 

the World Trade Center bombings, for 

the Supreme Court to deal with this 

issue again. 

In today’s day and age, when violent 

crimes, bombings, and terrorist attacks are becoming too frequent—2,900 

bombings a year, 541 in California 

alone in the year 1993—and when technology allows for the distribution of 

bombmaking material over computers 

to millions of people across the country in a matter of seconds, I believe 

that some restrictions on speech are 

appropriate. 

Specifically, I believe that restricting the availability of bombmaking information for criminal purposes, if 

there is intent or knowledge that the 

information will be used for a criminal 

purpose, is both appropriate and required in today’s day and age. 

As Wisconsin District Judge Robert 

Warren wrote in the Progressive case 

dealing with the publication of information on how to build an atomic 

bomb: 

What is involved here is information dealing with the most destructive weapon in the 

history of mankind, information of sufficient 

destructive potential to nullify the right to 

free speech and to endanger the right to life 

itself . . . . While it may be true in the long 

run, as Patrick Henry instructs us, that one 

would prefer death to life without liberty, 

nonetheless, in the short run, one cannot 

enjoy the freedom of speech or the freedom 

of the press unless one first enjoys the freedom to live. 

I could not agree more with Judge 

Warren. 

Enough is enough. I do not believe 

the first amendment gives anyone the 

right to teach someone how to kill 

other people or provide certain information that will be used to commit a 

crime. Even our most precious rights 

must pass the test of common sense. 

I thank you, Mr. President. I yield 

the floor. 

I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to 

speak to the Feinstein amendment and 

suggest that what the Senator from 

California has raised here, paraphrasing director Freeh, is a debate 

that we should be having. 

I do not think there are many people, 

and I do not think there are any people 

here in this body, who would suggest 

that the examples the Senator has 

given are examples we should not be 

concerned with. As evidenced by the 

Senator’s comments, she also is mindful that although there are exceptions 

to the first amendment they are few, 

and we should, in drafting legislation, 

keep the first amendment in mind. 

It is in that regard that I rise to discuss very briefly, the case of the 

United States versus Featherston, the 

fifth circuit case that the Senator mentioned. In that case, the court upheld a 

conviction of two leaders of a militia 

group who showed their followers how 

to make explosives. The purpose of the 

demonstration they put on was to prepare the group for the coming revolution. 

Now, the statute at issue makes it a 

crime to teach someone how to make a 

bomb, knowing, intending or having 

reason to know that the bomb will be 

unlawfully used in a civil disorder as 

defined as a public act of violence involving three or more people. 

In upholding the statute’s constitutionality, however, the court read the 

language in the statute more narrowly 

than the language appears on its face. 

The court found the statute requires—

this is the fifth circuit speaking—that 

those prosecuted have acted with ‘‘intent or knowledge’’ that the information would be used to further a civil 

disorder. 

Now, the Senator has adjusted the 

language in her amendment in order to 

strike a much broader intent standard 

that she had originally proposed. The 

original language she had said, ‘‘a person intends, knows or reasonably 

should know that such explosive material or information will be used....’’

She has amended that to say that if the 

person ‘‘intends or knows’’—let me get 

the exact language here. I beg the 

Chair’s pardon. The language now 

reads, ‘‘intends or knows that such explosive material or information will 

likely be used for....’’

I would respectfully suggest that language does not meet the fifth circuit 

standard requiring intent or knowledge. 

I see the Senator is understandably 

occupied at the moment with the 

chairman of the committee, discussing 

this amendment, but at an appropriate 

point I am going to ask the Senator 

whether she would be willing to further 

amend her language to comport with 

what at least I believe the fifth circuit’s minimal requirements are, and 

that is to say that if the person ‘‘intends or knows that such explosive material or information will be used.’’ Put 

it another way, drop the word ‘‘likely.’’

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I respond? 

Mr. BIDEN. Please. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The answer to the 

question is yes. I was just talking to 

the committee chairman, the floor 

manager on this subject. 

Mr. BIDEN. I compliment the Senator for that. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will be happy to. 

Mr. BIDEN. I suggest that would put 

it in line with what she intends and 

what the court found. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, may 

I move to amend? 

Mr. HATCH. May I ask the Senator 

to withhold for 1 minute? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah. 

Mr. HATCH. I appreciate the Senator’s willingness to take out the prior 

notification and the word ‘‘likely’’ in 

her response to the distinguished Senator from Delaware. But if she would 

also modify and take out ‘‘or knows,’’

in other words if such person ‘‘intends’’

and take out ‘‘or knows.’’ I will tell her 

why that is important. 

There are a lot of explosives manufacturers and personnel who do teach 

others how to make explosives and how 

to use them legitimately, for legitimate purposes, mining and others. 

There are a lot of slurry manufacturers 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

June 5, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7685 

in my State. In fact, the chief for slurry underground explosives happens to 

be the founder of the IRECO Chemical 

Corp. in my home State. If you put ‘‘or 

knows’’ in there, what we are concerned about is if they teach a university class or teach other people in their 

business or teach other people, in seminars, about how to do slurry explosives 

or some other type of explosives, they 

could, under this provision, be indicted 

or prosecuted. 

I really believe the distinguished 

Senator does a great favor if she says 

that the person ‘‘intends that such explosive materials or information will 

be used for....’’ I think that is the 

fair way to do it. It is one way of alleviating these difficult legal questions 

that really make it very difficult for 

people who are in the explosives business to even talk about the business. 

If the Senator could do that, I will be 

willing to accept this amendment. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may respond, 

and perhaps the Senator from Delaware, because I think this is a useful 

discussion. I would like to respond to 

the Senator from Utah. 

What concerns me is somebody 

writes a terrorist handbook. We have 

that case. And they tell somebody how 

to steal; how, in detail, to put together, let us say, a light bulb bomb. 

You come to them and say, ‘‘You violated a criminal law.’’

They say, ‘‘I did not intend this to be 

used for crime.’’

Then the comeback is, ‘‘You should 

know it is going to be used for crime 

because that is the only purpose for a 

light bulb bomb. It is the only purpose 

for a toilet paper bomb, for a candy box 

bomb.’’

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield? 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will right away, 

in just 1 second. 

What the Senator from Utah is saying is the explosive company that 

makes the explosive does not intend—

that is clear—that it be used for criminal purposes. I agree. The intention of 

this is not to get at the explosive company. The intention is to get at the 

person who misuses or mispackages, 

and who does it all for the purposes of 

committing a criminal act. 

Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware. 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, if I may—

and I thank the Senator for her invitation for me to speak to this as well—we 

have three slightly different points of 

view here. Let me make clear what I 

would like to see avoided and what I 

would like to see accomplished. Using 

specific examples and hypotheticals is 

not always the best way to do it, but it 

seems to be the only way I have available to me to do it at this moment. 

None of us wants to have the publishers of World Book Encyclopedia indicted because they, in their World 

Book, tell you how you can make a 

bomb. You can go to a public library 

and you can find out how to build a nuclear device. It is a lot more complicated than building a light bulb 

bomb, but you can find that out. 

The purpose, the knowledge or intention of the publisher of World Book Encyclopedia or any other publication is 

in all probability not the same purpose 

as that of the publisher of the Terrorist 

Handbook. But for the purpose of Lady 

Justice, blindfolded, weighing her 

scales, it is hard to tell the difference 

sometimes, other than looking at the 

person or the organization that is publishing the material, to determine 

their intent. And we do not want 

courts getting into that kind of business. I do not think the presiding officer wants that to happen, nor do I, nor 

do I think anyone does, although I sure 

would like to be able to capture those 

folks who issued that handbook. 

So the Senator has narrowed her language, I think appropriately, to say 

‘‘know or intends.’’

Let me tell you why I think ‘‘know’’

makes sense to be in there. If, for example, that gruesome example that the 

Senator gave from the internet, where 

somebody puts on a bulletin board how 

to make a terrorist device, a bomb, and 

then someone writes back and says, ‘‘O 

Great One,’’ I am paraphrasing, ‘‘I 

want to kill Zionists in the Government. Tell me more. Feed me.’’ Or 

whatever the terminology was. 

The original publication of that information on the bulletin board on the 

internet may or may not meet the 

standard of having known the information was going to be used for a criminal 

purpose, or may or may not meet the 

standard of having intended that it be 

used. But it seems to me it is pretty 

clear that when that idiot writes back 

or punches in his code and name and 

says, ‘‘O Great One, I want to kill people, tell me more,’’ if the original person who put the information up on the 

bulletin board said, ‘‘All right, Swami, 

here it comes. If you really want to get 

Zionists, here is how to do it,’’ it seems 

to me at that point the person knows 

that the information he or she is disseminating is intended for a criminal 

purpose. 

The Senator from California said 

there are some stores, some retail outlets that sell the handbook. Or you can 

write away to get the handbook. If I 

walk in to you and you are selling the 

handbook, you have the handbook and 

I say, ‘‘Ma’am, I would like to buy a 

handbook that would teach me how 

to—do you see the cop down there in 

the corner? I want to put a pipe bomb 

in that trash can where he stands every 

morning from 8:30 to 9. I want to blow 

that SOB up.’’

And you say, ‘‘I have just the thing 

for you,’’ and you walk over and you 

hand him the handbook, it seems to me 

you knew the information that is 

available to you to do something terrible, kill that policeman standing at 

the corner. It would be awfully hard to 

prove, though, that, if you sold that 

handbook to me, you intended for me 

to kill that policeman. You could know 

I was going to use it to kill someone 

without having intended for me to kill 

someone. Are you with me? 

So my concern is, if it gets even narrowed further to say only ‘‘intends the 

information to be used in a criminal 

enterprise or criminal act,’’ then it is 

so narrow that you are not going to 

catch in that net people who I think we 

should catch. 

I have been, for the last 23 years, always listed as one of the two or three 

or four people most protective of the 

first amendment. You know, all these 

rating organizations that rate us 

whether we are conservative, liberal, 

good, bad, or indifferent? I am always, 

along with Senator LEAHY and a few 

others, listed here as one of the 

staunchest defenders of the first 

amendment. 

So I am not looking to broaden the 

net the Senator wishes to cast. But it 

seems to me if you narrow it so much 

so that you only use the word ‘‘intend,’’ you do not get the circumstance 

where I know that the information I 

have at my disposal as to how to build 

a light bulb bomb or any other kind of 

bomb, I know why you are seeking the 

information. You have told me. You 

tell me, ‘‘I want to know how to make 

a bomb out of Gerber’s baby peaches. I 

want to know how to do that. Teach 

me, oh Great One.’’ You say, ‘‘I’ve got 

just the answer for you. Here is how 

you do it.’’

It seems to me that does fall beyond 

the purview of first amendment protection. It seems to me it is narrow 

enough and specific enough that it warrants to be made unlawful. And it 

seems to me that it is not at all inconsistent with what the fifth circuit and 

other courts have said relative to the 

standard required on the part of the 

person disseminating the information. 

So in truth, you might also be able to 

get that very person on a conspiracy 

charge. You might not even need this 

statute. My friend, who is truly—we 

use this phrase too frequently around 

here, and it does not always apply, but 

in this case it does. My friend, who is 

learned in the law could stand and say, 

‘‘Well, all right, Joe. I am not trying to 

eliminate the ability to nail the person 

who is knowingly participating in an 

unlawful activity. We can already do 

that under a conspiracy statute.’’ Practically, that is true. But I would argue 

that including the word ‘‘knows’’ as 

well as ‘‘intends’’ here does no damage 

to the first amendment, and makes the 

case if not easier, equally as able to be 

pursued as a conspiracy theory would 

be. This is more direct. 

So my friend from Utah and I have 

been, the first 15 years of our working 

together, not always on the same side 

of these civil liberties arguments. And 

it is truly—I mean this sincerely—a 

pleasure to be on the same side of these 

arguments with him these days. I do 

not by that in any way imply a change 

in his motivation at all. I think things 

have changed, and as the troubles in 

society, the maturation process, has 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7686 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE June 5, 1995 

taken place, and we all are seeing different applications of old principles to 

new problems. So I am not being facetious when I say I welcome it. But I respectfully disagree with him here. 

I will not object to the Senator from 

California taking out the word 

‘‘knows.’’ But I would suggest that her 

test, her intended purpose, is best 

served by saying if the person intends 

or knows that such explosive material 

or information will be used for or in 

furtherance of an activity that constitutes a criminal, a Federal criminal 

offense, or a criminal purpose affecting 

interstate commerce, I think keeping 

only two words ‘‘intends’’ or ‘‘knows’’

is totally appropriate, and I would support that. 

But it is obviously her amendment. If 

she is persuaded by the reasoning of 

the Senator from Utah, I will not object to it. 

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may, Mr. President, I would like to amend the amendment by removing the word ‘‘likely.’’

So that the amendment reads: 

Information pertaining to, in whole or in 

part, the manufacture of explosive materials, if the person intends and knows that 

such explosive materials or information will 

be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity 

that constitutes a Federal criminal offense 

or a criminal purpose affecting interstate 

commerce. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the 

Senator send her modification to the 

desk? 

Is there objection to the modification? 

Mr. HATCH. May I see the modification? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah. 

Mr. HATCH. If I could have the attention of the distinguished Senator 

from California, the way she has written it is different than the way she 

read it. It says if the person ‘‘intends 

or knows.’’ But if the Senator will read 

it ‘‘intends and knows,’’ I will go along 

with it. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I meant ‘‘or.’’ I beg 

your pardon. 

Mr. HATCH. Could the Senator 

change the ‘‘or’’ to an ‘‘and’’? 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I did not mean to. 

Did I? 

Mr. HATCH. Yes. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will change it to 

‘‘intends or knows.’’

Mr. HATCH. If I can just respond to 

the distinguished Senator from California, I would prefer ‘‘intends and 

knows’’ rather than ‘‘intends or 

knows’’ because I believe that can lead 

to some mischief in the criminal law. 

On the other hand, this was a narrow 

interpretation. I agree with the distinguished Senator from Delaware. I am 

not sure that you can catch them on a 

conspiracy statute in this area. I do 

not remember the law with regard to 

the explosives. But whether that is so 

or not, as I understand it, the word 

likely will be stricken in the amendment. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is correct. 

Mr. HATCH. Then I am prepared to 

accept the amendment. 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection? 

Mr. BIDEN. Reserving the right to 

object, is the language ‘‘and’’ or is it 

‘‘or’’? If it is ‘‘or,’’ I have no objection. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection to the modification? 

Mr. HATCH. I have no objection. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, the amendment is so modified. 

The amendment (No. 1209), as modified, is as follows: 

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert 

the following new section: 

SEC. . PROHIBITION ON DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION RELATING TO EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS FOR A CRIMINAL 

PURPOSE. 

(a) Section 842 of title 18, United States 

Code, is amended by adding at the end the 

following new section: 

‘‘(l) It shall be unlawful for any person to 

teach or demonstrate the making of explosive materials, or to distribute by any means 

information pertaining to, in whole or in 

part, the manufacture of explosive materials, if the person intends or knows, that 

such explosive materials or information will 

be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity 

that constitutes a Federal criminal offense 

or a criminal purpose affecting interstate 

commerce.’’

(b) Section 844 of title 18, United States 

Code, is amended by designating section (a) 

as subsection (a)(1) and by adding the following new subsection: 

‘‘(a)(2) Any person who violates subsection 

(l) of section 842 of this chapter shall be fined 

under this title or imprisoned not more than 

twenty years, or both.’’

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, with that 

modification, I am prepared to accept 

the amendment, if the distinguished 

Senator from Delaware is likewise. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

further debate on the amendment? 

Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware. 

Mr. BIDEN. For clarification purposes, and I think I will accept it, I 

want to read the entire amendment. It 

will take me one moment. It says: 

Section (a) reads, ‘‘Section 842 of title 18, 

United States Code, is amended by adding at 

the end the following new section: 

Subsection 1. 

It shall be unlawful for any person to teach 

or demonstrate the making of explosive materials, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, 

the manufacture of explosive materials, if 

the person intends or knows that such explosive material or information will be used for, 

or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal criminal offense or a 

criminal purpose affecting interstate commerce. 

Subsection B. 

Section 844 of title 18, United States Code, 

is amended by designating section (a) as subsection (a)(1), and by adding the following 

new subsection: 

(a)(1), any person who violates subsection 

(1) of section 842 of this chapter shall be 

fined under this title or imprisoned not more 

than 20 years, or both. 

That is the end of the amendment. Is 

that correct? 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The ‘‘1’’ is an ‘‘l’’. 

It is a lower case. 

Mr. BIDEN. I beg your pardon. In the 

last paragraph? 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. In the first paragraph and the last. 

Mr. BIDEN. I beg your pardon. It is 

‘‘l’’, and not ‘‘1.’’

So it will read, the following new section ‘‘l’’, ‘‘It shall be unlawful for any 

person to teach or demonstrate the 

making of explosive material or to distribute by any means information pertaining to’’, et cetera. Then at the bottom paragraph, it reads ‘‘Any person 

who violates subsection l of this section.’’ Then that is how it reads, Mr. 

President? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am sorry 

to do this to you. But also in the third 

paragraph, it reads: 

Section (a) as subsection (a)(l) and by adding the following new subsection. 

So, in other words, the three places 

where I thought it was a ‘‘1’’ it is not 

a ‘‘1.’’ It is an ‘‘l.’’

So that being the case, that is the 

only correction of me, not of the 

amendment, I have no objection. We 

accept the amendment as well. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the amendment. 

The amendment (No. 1209), as modified, was agreed to. 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, let me say 

that the Senator from California never 

ceases to amaze me. I say that with 

genuine respect. When she zeroed in on 

this problem when Senator KENNEDY

came to the hearing and presented a 

60-, 70-, 80-page document—I forget how 

long it was—of information that the 

staff had pulled off the Internet for him 

on how to do these things, one of the 

things that I admire most about her is 

her incredible common sense. 

I remember her sitting there looking 

at us and saying, ‘‘You mean you can 

do this? I mean, why are we allowing 

this?’’ All of us who were supposedly 

hopefully good lawyers all looked and 

said, ‘‘First amendment problem, Senator.’’ And we all did say that. We all 

knew because of our reverence for the 

first amendment. Those of us who are 

conservative, liberal, and moderate 

alike all said, ‘‘First amendment problem.’’ We all kind of went on to other 

things. 

As she always does, she went back to 

her office, and I am sure she turned to 

that able staff member next to her and 

said, ‘‘Wait a minute, there has to be a 

way to do this. There has to be an answer to this.’’ As usual, her instinct is 

almost always right. And when I have 

dealt with her, it has been unerring. 

Not being a lawyer, she went out and 

got some fine lawyers and said, ‘‘How 

can I write this thing because I, DIANNE

FEINSTEIN, don’t want to amend the 

first amendment either, but I do want 

to deal with this foolishness.’’

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

June 5, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7687 

She did it. I compliment her. And remind me, if I ever forget, never to underestimate her. She always gets it 

done. We are all better for it. I again 

congratulate her. 

We have no other amendment on the 

floor at the moment. What I would like 

to do, unless someone wishes to bring 

up an amendment, I would like to because I was not here when the Senator 

from California spoke on her first 

amendment, the taggants amendment, 

and I would like to take a moment. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1202

If anyone has any other thing to 

bring up, I would be happy to yield. I 

rise at this moment to support the 

amendment of my friend from California on taggants, if I may, because 

we are going to be voting on that I 

think around 6 o’clock. 

One area we did not address in the 

legislation before us was the issue of 

taggants. The President wanted to see 

it addressed, and I did as well and 

spoke very briefly with my friend from 

California and encouraged her to move 

the amendment on taggants. 

I feel it is very important in the battle against terrorism to enhance our 

ability to identify, following detonation, the source or origin of the explosives used in an act of violence against 

our fellow Americans. Key Federal law 

enforcement officials recognize that to 

provide for enhanced tracing capabilities is a logical and, I would argue, 

overdue response. The administration 

included a tracing provision in their 

antiterrorism proposal, and it was section 803 of S. 761. 

Now, I want to make it clear to those 

of our colleagues who may be listening 

in their offices, I am not inadvertently 

substituting the word ‘‘tracing’’ for 

‘‘taggant’’ because that is what this is 

all about. We want to be able to trace 

the manufacture of the material used, 

not for purposes of prosecuting the 

manufacturer, unless the manufacturer 

violated the law intentionally in to 

whom they sold the material, but in 

order to be able to trace the person 

who purchased the material which 

would enhance our ability to find out 

who detonated the bomb. 

The provision authorizes the Secretary of Treasury to promulgate regulations requiring taggants to be added 

to explosive materials. Now, the Republican bill, however, omits this key 

provision. Instead, the Republican bill 

calls for no action, only more study. I 

would also note that not only does the 

Republican bill choose study over action but, even worse, their bill calls on 

the Justice Department to study this 

issue. 

Now, we all know that jurisdiction 

over these issues and the real expertise 

related thereto is in the Treasury Department. Let us not duplicate effort. 

Let us not duplicate bureaucracy. Let 

us think of the taxpayers, not the pet 

peeves of some special interest group 

because they do not like the Treasury 

Department. The Treasury Department 

is the outfit that has been dealing with 

this issue and explosives for time immemorial. The Justice Department is 

not. It does not have the expertise. So 

I would suggest that is not the place 

we should look. 

Now, taggants are tiny plastic, as 

they are referred, sandwiches with different color stripes that are added to 

explosives during the manufacturing 

process. Because these taggants are 

left after the explosion, they can be 

used to identify the source of an explosion. And that is the source of the material—where it was purchased. In 

other words, these identifiers, these little plastic sandwiches, as they are 

called, different colored stripes are put 

into the explosive when it is being 

manufactured, legitimately manufactured. We are not talking about some 

back-room operation. These are legitimate explosives. These are legitimate 

materials made by legitimate companies for legitimate purposes. You add 

at the time of their manufacture these 

little colored strips so that when the 

explosion goes off, you are able to go 

into the area where the explosion took 

place and by use of detection means 

find these taggants. 

These taggants—this is my phrase; I 

have never heard anyone else use this—

are a little bit like that little bar code 

on the bottom of everything you buy in 

the grocery store. The checker just 

runs it through a scanner. They can 

identify what stock it was, what date 

it was made, where it came from, what 

part of the store it was in, how much it 

cost. 

It is the same principle here. We 

want to be able to essentially run the 

residue of that explosive material 

through a scanner, in effect. And you 

are able to say OK, the material used 

in this bomb was manufactured at such 

and such a time, such and such a batch, 

et cetera, and work your way back 

with the intention of not going after 

the manufacturer but going after the 

person who purchased it. 

Now, it may be the person legitimately purchased it, and we find out it 

was purchased for a construction operation and it was put in, properly stored 

in a locked vault and that you find out 

the vault was not broken into but that 

on the job it turned out a couple pieces 

were missing. Well, then you have the 

investigative tool to narrow it down. 

Maybe then you look at the people who 

took the explosive out and were legitimately working on the job. Maybe it 

turns out to be one of them. It was not 

them. They may say, well, it was only 

20 minutes it was not here. And there 

was a guy wearing a red cap that came 

by. It is investigative work. It merely 

gives, but significantly gives, an opportunity to law enforcement agencies to 

begin to trace, backtrack, until hopefully you find the person who was the 

person who purchased and used this 

material. 

Now, to use a practical example of 

how even small pieces of evidence are 

vital, consider that the vehicle identification number on the exploded remains of a rental truck that was used 

to blow up the Federal Building in 

Oklahoma City was the critical piece 

of evidence that gave Federal law enforcement a critical lead on the bombing suspects. 

There was a taggant in effect on that 

vehicle in an ID number on it. Where 

would we be if we had not required an 

ID number on that vehicle? We would 

be nowhere. You would not have been 

able to go back to find out from where 

that vehicle was rented, who walked in 

and rented it, what they looked like, 

what their description was and then 

trace it back to the guy who gets arrested almost incidentally on a highway going out of Oklahoma City the 

day of the bombing. 

Very important material, a tiny little thing. You would say, well, wait a 

minute. That truck was blown to 

smithereens. This just goes to show 

you the investigative capability of the 

people there. The axle—I believe it was 

an axle—on which this identification 

number existed was found. They knew 

to go and look at that ID number. 

Once they found it, they could begin 

the tracing process. In fact, it was the 

employees of the rental agency they 

traced this back to who provided much 

of the information necessary to create 

the composite sketch of the suspect 

initially known as John Doe 1, whom 

we now know as Timothy McVeigh. 

Now, taggants work much in the 

same way. The taggants would give an 

indication where the explosives were 

purchased. Not only does that lead law 

enforcement to a sales clerk who might 

have provided a description of the terrorist, but this information may also 

be key, and perhaps the only physical 

evidence that a prosecutor can use, to 

nail the defendant to the crime. If 

there were taggants in the explosives 

that were used, you would be able to do 

the same thing—and they were recovered. You might be able to go back and 

find where the material that blew up 

the—and that was fertilizer added with 

some chemicals and the like. You may 

be able to go back and find out where 

that fertilizer was sold and you may 

find the very same thing. The clerk 

says I remember selling that fertilizer 

to the following person, and you do a 

composite sketch. Again, it is a strong 

piece of evidence. 

Now, my colleagues on the other side 

of the aisle will argue that we should 

study this issue more closely. But that 

means only one thing: More needless 

delay. The potential effect of taggants 

has been highlighted in a study that 

was conducted in the late 1970’s when 

the ATF seeded a very small portion of 

explosives, 10,000 pounds, with 

taggants. 

We had this debate, I might add, 

when I first came to the Senate in the 

1970’s, and we were told, no, it may be 

a destabilizing element in the manufacture of the material; it may be used 

for purposes on the part of law enforcement to do bad things, et cetera. But 

we agreed that Alcohol, Tobacco, and 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7688 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE June 5, 1995 

Firearms could do an experiment. So 

they went to a manufacturing site, and 

they tagged 10,000 pounds of explosives. 

They put in one of these little colored 

strips, these sandwiches. 

Now, despite this relatively small 

amount—and that probably represented less than—I will not even 

guess—one one-hundredth percent of 

all the explosives sold that year. It was 

infinitesimally small in this little experiment compared to the universe of 

all explosives sold that year. For example, my staff is telling me 4 billion 

pounds of explosives are sold per year—

4 billion pounds. This was 10,000 pounds 

that was tagged as an experiment. 

Now, notwithstanding that, that one 

experiment back in 1978—and the Senator from California knows this—was 

very instrumental and effective in 

helping solve a bombing incident in the 

State of Maryland. Now, the idea that 

we did this one experiment—and it was 

just pure luck, I suspect, that that 

10,000 pounds was purchased. But what 

happened was there was a car bombing, 

and but for the fact that the explosive 

used was part of that 10,000-pound 

batch that was the only batch out of 

four billion pounds sold that year, the 

perpetrator of the act was unlucky 

enough to purchase something from 

that batch. And that was the thing 

that led to the identification and conviction of that individual, with little or 

no possibility of their ever having 

found him but for the taggants. 

I suggest that the study by the Office 

of Technology Assessment on taggants 

is also a key source of the safety and 

efficacy of taggants. There was this experiment and the study by the Office of 

Technology Assessment. The Office of 

Technology Assessment found that 

‘‘identification taggants would facilitate the investigation of almost all significant criminal bombings in which 

commercial explosives were used.’’

Now, safety tests performed by the 

Office of Technology Assessment found 

taggants to be compatible with the explosives covered by this amendment. 

By compatible, I mean they did not diminish the efficacy of the explosives, 

No. 1. So it blew up just as big as it 

would have blown up without the 

taggant. It did not diminish its capacity. 

Second, it did nothing to destabilize 

the explosive. It made it no more or 

less dangerous to deal with that explosive. One of the arguments we will hear 

used is that if you add these taggants, 

they will have the effect of destabilizing this explosive material, making it more dangerous to handle. There 

is no evidence of that, according to the 

Office of Technology Assessment. 

Third, they also found that it did not, 

in any way, affect the manufacturer of 

that material. That is, placing the 

taggants in the material as it is manufactured did not diminish safety in the 

production of that material. 

For 15 years, law enforcement in 

Switzerland have recognized taggants 

as an important piece of the puzzle in 

solving crimes involving illegally used 

explosives. Under this amendment, the 

Secretary of the Treasury will determine how we can best utilize this technology. Then we will move forward and 

use the taggants after that assessment 

has been made by the Secretary of the 

Treasury. And that is key. We should 

move forward in this area now, and we 

should do so without further delay. 

Now, a study on common and precursor chemicals, another aspect of the 

amendment I want to touch on briefly, 

is the requirement that the Secretary 

of the Treasury study and make recommendations regarding: First, the 

ability and feasibility of rendering 

inert those common chemicals used to 

manufacture explosive materials and, 

second, the ability to impose controls 

on those precursor chemicals used to 

manufacture explosive materials. 

Let me make it clear, this is a separate issue. There are two issues here 

that the Senator from California has 

pursued that were in the President’s 

legislation. One, this notion of, in effect, seeding an explosive with a colorstripped material so that when the explosive goes off, you can find the material and trace back the place where it 

was manufactured and sold. That is the 

taggant. 

Now, there is a second issue, and that 

is chemicals which are sold—I will use 

this phrase—over the counter. These 

are chemicals you can go and buy, but 

they can be used for destructive purposes, although their intention is for 

constructive purposes. Fertilizer is to 

help things grow, not kill things or kill 

people. 

Now, I said this before, and I say it to 

my friend from California here. I was 

at a conference with a group of U.S. 

Senators, Congresspersons, and officials from the United Nations the day 

this god-awful explosion in Oklahoma 

occurred, and we literally interrupted 

the conference. One of the conferees 

was Gen. Michael Rose, a general in 

the British Army, who was the 

UNPROFOR Commander of Forces in 

Bosnia up until about 3 months ago. 

General Rose and I were sitting next to 

one another discussing the situation in 

Bosnia. What happened was that we adjourned when we heard this horrible 

news and went to the nearest television. The first scene all of us saw—a 

dozen of us Congressmen, Senators and 

generals—was a visual image of the 

Federal building and the confusion surrounding it. You could see how the 

Federal building was not only blown 

up, but it looked like it was cut away 

in the front. I was sitting next to General Rose. I could not hear what was on 

the television in this hotel lobby. We 

just saw the picture. He looked at me 

and he said, ‘‘That bomb is a fertilizer 

bomb. That is what destroyed that 

building.’’ My staffer reminded me that 

he looked and he said, ‘‘That is an 

ANFO bomb.’’ I wondered, what in the 

devil is he talking about? How does he 

know this? All we can see is this picture on television. He had not heard 

any more about this than I did. We just 

walked out of this conference. He went 

on to explain to me how when ammonium nitrate is added to fertilizer in a 

certain formula and way, it produces 

an explosion whose fingerprints or 

characteristics are like the one we saw. 

I was amazed. I was complimenting 

him, because about 3 minutes later a 

reporter comes on and says, ‘‘We have 

just learned that this was a fertilizer 

bomb.’’ I did not know how he knew 

this. He went on to explain to us that 

it was his experience when he was a 

commander in Northern Ireland with 

the use of fertilizer bombs by the IRA. 

He went on to point out that England 

had changed the law relative to the 

sale of fertilizer to Ireland and the type 

of fertilizer and the amount of nitrate 

that could be in the fertilizer, and he 

went on and on about it. And he said 

something fascinating. He said that it 

has had three interesting effects. First, 

the environment is cleaner. There is 

not as much nitrates left over in the 

environment when it is applied to the 

soil. The water is cleaner and the 

bombs are fewer. 

So that is when I became interested 

in how do you take these materials 

that seem to me to be totally innocent 

in terms of the ability to cause damage 

and render them inert—inert in the 

sense that they can only do the thing 

for which they were manufactured, 

which is to help things grow, as opposed to kill people. One of the ways to 

do that is to look at it and study it and 

make recommendations regarding the 

feasibility of adding materials to the 

manufacture of these chemicals and 

precursor chemicals that will not diminish the effectiveness of the chemical but render them incapable of generating the explosion. 

The purpose of this provision is very 

simple, and it should be clear to every 

American in the wake of the Oklahoma 

City tragedy. What has become evident 

in the past weeks is that in America 

today, nearly anyone, as our friend 

from California has pointed out, can 

acquire the ingredients, all of which 

have other legitimate uses, and build a 

bomb. 

The bomb in Oklahoma was a mixture of ammonium nitrate fertilizer 

and diesel fuel. Ammonium nitrate can 

be purchased at almost any garden supply or hardware store, and when mixed 

with a fuel, it can be classified as a 

high explosive. One way to desensitize 

ammonium nitrate while still preserving its effectiveness for its intended use would be to mix a nonexplosive chemical such as lime, calcium 

carbonate, into the product, to render 

it inefficient for use as an explosive. 

Now, I think it makes overwhelming 

sense to suggest that a feasibility 

study be done and recommendations 

made as to whether or not, for example, lime can be added to ammonium 

nitrate, allowing the fertilizer to be as 

potent as it was before for the purposes 

of encouraging growth in the soil, yet 

rendering it incapable of being used as 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

June 5, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7689 

a bomb when mixed with a fuel supply. 

This type of desensitizing is currently 

employed in England, as I said. 

Let me be clear, all this amendment 

does with regard to this point, all it 

does is require the Secretary to study 

the feasibility of such a policy being 

implemented in the United States. 

It is an unfortunate reality that individuals would take seemingly harmless—I might add, legal—products and 

devices and turn them into weapons capable of exacting the devastation and 

loss of life that we all saw in Oklahoma 

City. However unfortunate that may 

be, it is a reality nonetheless. The 

amendment of my friend from California is an effort to curtail the availability of products which can be used 

in this manner. 

Mr. President, I would like to make 

as a concluding point that I understand 

negotiations between Senator FEINSTEIN and other interested parties on 

the other side are proceeding. Of 

course, I hope these discussions will be 

successful, but I strongly urge that the 

Senator from California not relent on 

the two essential aspects of her amendment. 

One, the taggants be able to be 

placed, by recommendation from the 

Secretary of Treasury, in explosives; 

and, two, that the study be undertaken 

that would determine whether there 

are ways that we can feasibly render 

inert the destructive capability of otherwise totally constructive precursor 

chemicals. 

I see the Senator from California is 

on the floor and seeking recognition. I 

yield the floor. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the 

Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

GRAMS). The Senator from California. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I 

want to thank the Senator from Delaware for that very eloquent exposition 

on taggants. 

I must say that it never ceases to 

amaze me, because outside people are 

saying they are for legislation to begin 

to tag explosives where safe and not 

adding to the volatility. Yet once 

again, I must tell the Senator, the lobbying of those special interests is 

starting up again to, one by one, move 

Senators off of this legislation. 

This led me to get a little bit of the 

history of taggants before this body. 

While the Senator has been here for a 

long time, I am a relative newcomer, 

21⁄2 years, and I did not realize this 

issue has been raised now for 22 years 

before this body. It might be interesting to go back into a little bit of the 

history. 

It actually began in 1973 when Congress asked ATF to look into possible 

methods of fighting terrorists in criminal bombings. That year, ATF and the 

FAA established an ad hoc committee 

on explosives seeding. That same year, 

ATF formed an inner agency advisory 

committee on explosives tagging. 

Also in 1973, the Law Enforcement 

Assistance Administration, which we 

knew as LEAA, sponsored a study by 

Lawrence Livermore Lab, managed by 

Aerospace Corporation, to study the 

feasibility of identification tagging of 

explosives. 

Several companies, including 3M and 

Westinghouse, began taggant development. By 1976, this was far enough advanced to be the subject of the pilot 

tagging program developed by aerospace under the contract with the Bureau of Mines. The results seemed positive, in 1977, with the Omnibus 

Antiterrorism Act. 

Mr. President, was the Senator here 

in 1977? 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, yes, I was 

here. I was also here in 1973, unfortunately. I have been here, and I have 

been interested in this issue since then. 

That is why I am so happy the Senator 

is pushing it. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is 

interesting to see, because in 1977 Senators Abe Ribicoff and Jake Javits presented language mandating the introduction of explosive tagging over a period of time. 

During consideration of the bill, the 

National Rifle Association—who somebody has just said is for taggants—opposed the inclusion in the program of 

black and smokeless powders used by 

some hunters to hand-load antique rifles. The National Rifle Association 

was successful at the committee level 

at deleting the requirement that these 

powders be tagged. 

Nonetheless, the requirement that 

other types of explosives be tagged was 

left intact. The bill never reached the 

Senate floor. 

In the 96th Congress, the 

antiterrorism legislation was reintroduced with provisions for gradually 

phasing in identification tagging over 

a 21⁄2-year period. The legislation was 

considered in the House by the Aviation Subcommittee of the Commerce 

Committee. 

It was supported by the Airline Pilots Association and the Airline Transport Association. The House Members 

and Glenn Anderson, the subcommittee 

chair, wanted to wait for action on the 

subject in the Senate before taking the 

issue up in the House. 

The Senate Governmental Affairs 

Committee marked it up on May 7, 

1979. The only controversial aspect of 

this Omnibus Antiterrorism Act, Senate bill 333, was explosive tagging. 

Again, the NRA and the Institute of 

Makers of Explosives lobbied hard to 

kill the entire program and made wild 

accusations about the cost, safety, 

utility, and burdensomeness of 

taggants. 

So the principal supporters, Ribicoff 

and Javits, and the principal opponent, 

who was Senator STEVENS at the time, 

agreed to postpone committee consideration pending an examination of 

taggants by the congressional Office of 

Technology Assessments. 

That was the report I held up this 

morning. OTA was not to conduct 

original research, but rather was supposed to review existing data and report its findings back to the Governmental Affairs Committee no later 

than August 6, 1979. 

OTA went out. They established a 

staff drawn from science foundations, 

Lawrence Livermore Lab, to carry out 

the proposal. They also formed an advisory committee composed of representatives from the law enforcement community, the explosives industry, and 

the gun lobby to provide input. It is my 

understanding that one of the explosive 

industry members was later indicted 

for selling explosive materials to Libyan terrorists. 

Despite the efforts on the part of 

OTA to comply with the August 6 deadline, it soon became apparent that the 

deadline could not be met. So a new 

deadline was set for Thanksgiving. In 

the interim, American hostages were 

seized in Iran and the Senate decided 

to postpone consideration of the underlying bill until the situation was clarified. 

This gave OTA more time to develop 

its report, which was finally released 

on April 28, 1980. That is the report I 

mentioned this morning. 

At this point, the National Rifle Association, I am told, hired lobbyists to 

lobby against the bill. I am told that 

the people hired were paid more than 

$250,000 for the effort to defeat this. 

They were successful in getting several 

trade associations in the construction 

industry, including the Crushed Stone 

Association, to launch campaigns 

against the bill on the theory that 

taggants would increase the cost of explosives by more than 100 percent. In 

fact, the estimate is less than 10 percent. I read those figures into the 

RECORD this morning. 

By the date of the markup, it became 

clear that the Javits-Ribicoff approach 

would not win. Senator GLENN offered a 

compromise. That did not go ahead. 

The committee vote was 8–7 in favor of 

an Eagleton motion, who was an opponent of taggants. And on and on and on 

it goes. 

Now here we are with a massive incident in the United States—two of 

them—the World Trade Center and the 

building in Oklahoma City. And now, 

today, this afternoon, the phones are 

heating up. Senators that I thought 

would be for this are calling. They are 

now getting the agriculture communities involved, saying they do not 

want a study. Just the study on ammonium nitrate, the fertilizer that blew 

up the building and killed 168 people, 

we were being told we should not study 

it. 

I cannot believe it. It is unbelievable 

to me that anyone could oppose a 

study to see if fertilizers can be made 

inert so they will not detonate it. 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the 

Senator yield for a moment? 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will yield. 

Mr. BIDEN. I do not mean yield to 

the issue, but yield temporarily on the 

floor. 

Let me ask the Senator somewhat of 

a rhetorical question. She points out 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7690 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE June 5, 1995 

accurately, my recollection, because I 

was here during the entirety of what 

she spoke of. From my perspective, her 

historical analysis is accurate. I remember at the time being dumbfounded, quite frankly, that the chemical industry, a large chemical industry in Delaware, and others would not 

push hard for these actions to be 

taken. I mean, I just assumed, naively, 

that this would be something everybody would be for. 

There is one argument that can be 

made in opposition to what we are trying to do and I think we should state 

it. That OTA study, Office of Technology Assessment study, said that 

there was only one possible exception 

to the circumstance under which adding a taggant might diminish the safety, and that was with regard to smokeless powder. 

The Senator pointed out that back as 

early as 1973, the NRA pointed out that 

they were concerned about people who 

were muzzle loading antique guns and 

using smokeless powder to put them in 

a position to be able to use the guns. 

Probably we could have settled that 

matter then but it turned out that, 

whether the NRA was concerned about 

that or not—and I will not make a 

judgment about that—it ended up 

being the initial device used, the wedge 

used to block anything from happening. 

It is my understanding from my discussions with the White House, with 

the Justice Department, my staff and 

others, that when I introduced the 

President’s bill, when Senators KOHL

and SPECTER and I introduced the 

President’s bill containing this provision, that we did not intend—the White 

House did not intend, the Justice Department did not intend—to include 

within the definition of explosive, 

smokeless powder. The ATF indicates 

that they do not include that in their 

definition of explosives. And I would 

think that—I would like to ask the 

Senator whether this is not her understanding as well, that we would be willing to make it very clear in the record 

that our definition—your definition of 

explosives does not include smokeless 

powder. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would be prepared to do that, Senator. It is my understanding this affects gels, slurries, 

dynamite, emulsions and cast boosters, 

and black powder. But it does not include smokeless powder. 

Mr. BIDEN. As further evidence that 

we are not just arriving at this as a 

means of a compromise, it was never 

our intention to include smokeless 

powder. I would read from, as further 

evidence of that although we did not 

make it absolutely clear, I would read 

page 2 of the amendment, subsection 

(e), the bottom, second-to-the-last-line 

of the page. 

Tracer elements to be added to explosive 

materials under provisions of this subsection 

shall be of such character and in such quantity as the Secretary may authorize or require, and such as will not substantially impair the quality of the explosive material for 

their intended lawful use, adversely affect 

the safety of the explosives, or have substantially adverse effects on the environment. 

So we thought that we were dealing 

with this red herring by having the section requiring that the decision would 

have to be made that the tracer elements, the taggants, would not adversely affect the safety of the explosives. 

Since OTA indicated that there was a 

possibility of that with regard to 

smokeless powder, we did not intend 

that to be covered. But I would suggest—I know my friend from California 

who is leading this effort has probably 

had some discussions already with the 

majority staff and others about this. I 

hope we can reach a resolution on it. 

And I sincerely hope, coming from a 

State where agriculture is our single 

largest industry in terms of dollars and 

effect on the economy, and where fertilizers are used a good deal—hope no 

one would be fearful of explaining to 

the agricultural community that they 

supported a study to determine this. I 

cannot imagine the farmers in my 

State, very conservative, hard-working 

folks, would be opposed to a study 

being conducted to determine whether 

or not ammonium nitrate could have 

an element added to it that would not 

in any way diminish its efficacy on the 

land but would diminish its efficacy as 

an explosive component. 

I might point out—I might ask it, actually, in terms of a question. Is it the 

sponsor’s intention that this merely be 

a study relative to means to render 

inert these components, precursors 

that can be used as bombs? And that if 

the study concludes that the only way 

it could be done would be to diminish 

the capacity of ammonium nitrate to 

do its job on the field, that we would 

not move forward? This is merely a 

study, is it not? 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Senator from 

Delaware is 100 percent correct. 

I might say, coming from a State 

that has a $18 billion agricultural industry, I called up to see if we have had 

any phone calls at all from Agriculture, Farm Bureau, anybody else. 

The answer is no. 

I would hazard a guess, knowing the 

agricultural community of California, 

that they would not object to a study. 

So I think this is probably a very targeted lobbying drive at the present 

time. 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I hope we 

follow the advice of the Senator. We 

know this is the right thing to do. We 

know this is the right thing to do. 

We know it is, as a minimum, worthy 

of scientific study to determine whether this can be done with efficacy. And 

we also know—I do not fully understand, frankly—we also know there are 

certain interests that do not want that 

to happen. Because they are fearful—

the only thing I can conclude, Senator, 

is they are fearful that the study will 

come forward and say, ‘‘Guess what? 

You can do this without in any way diminishing the effectiveness of fertilizers used for agriculture.’’

Because, obviously, if the study is 

going to come back and say you cannot 

do this without diminishing significantly the capacity of the fertilizer to 

function, that cannot worry them because if that is the case we are not 

going to do it. There is no way that 

would get done here. 

So I always am confused by this response. I was confused in 1973 about 

why people responded the way they did. 

I hope we will not let interests that I 

do not fully understand sidetrack even 

a study. I might point out, by the way, 

with regard to taggants, originally the 

people who are now opposing the Senator’s language and the President’s 

language were opposed to even a study 

before. Now they are for a study. I hope 

we can just bypass—not have to go 

through another 10 years before we get 

to the point where they see their way 

clear, suggesting we can even look at a 

study. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If the Senator will 

yield? 

Mr. BIDEN. I will be happy to. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I have here an 

amended amendment that may solve 

the problem. There are some technical 

amendments which I can read. But the 

one that deals right now with the situation that my colleague is referring to, 

smokeless or black powder would be as 

follows. 

At the end of subsection (c)(1) insert the 

following: 

For purposes of this subsection, explosive 

material does not include smokeless or black 

powder manufactured for uses set forth in 

section 845(a)(4)(5) of this chapter. 

Which is ‘‘Small Arms Ammunition 

and Components Thereof.’’ That is the 

exception, just for small arms ammunition and components thereof. 

Mr. BIDEN. I say to the Senator from 

California that is probably broader 

than we have to make it, but I would 

agree with her that that is worth doing 

to allay the concerns and fears of our 

friends who think somehow there is 

some nefarious objective here that is 

not obvious on its face. 

The Senator from——

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If the Senator will 

yield? We believe it is already exempted. This is a restatement of that. 

Mr. BIDEN. Again, I would have no 

objection. But I suggest the Senator 

withhold modifying that because the 

Senator from Utah was required—he 

has been on the floor the whole day. He 

said he had to leave for 15 minutes. 

And would I not take any action in his 

absence. So I suggest, and maybe the 

Senator’s staff has already done this, 

make that language available to Senator HATCH’s staff. Hopefully he can 

agree to that. 

But I ask her to withhold modifying 

her amendment which would require 

unanimous consent until he returns to 

the floor and has had a chance to look 

at it. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

June 5, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7691 

Mr. President, while the Senator 

from California is doing that, I will repeat that in both instances, in the instance of requiring tracers and studying the capability of rendering products which do not have a destructive 

purpose but are able to be used for destructive purposes, to render them 

inert—that is incapable of being used 

for destructive purposes—that in both 

instances we are very concerned about 

safety. We do not want at any point 

here, in attempting to create, eliminate, diminish the possibility of one 

bad thing happening, to raise safety 

concerns. So for those explosives with 

potential—and I want to stress potential—safety concerns, the Secretary of 

Treasury can account for those concerns by establishing regulations. The 

point of this amendment is to improve 

the safety of Americans. But it will not 

be done by risking the safety of manufacturers or people who lawfully use 

explosives. This amendment accounts 

for those concerns and addresses the 

underlying concern with illicit use of 

explosives. 

I stress again the action just suggested by the Senator from California 

is further evidence of the fact that we 

are in no way suggesting an amendment that would diminish the safety of 

anyone, the manufacturer or the person who lawfully uses those materials. 

I further note as it relates to precursor 

chemicals, we are not in any way suggesting that any change be made prior 

to a full-blown study. And the purpose 

of that study is to determine whether 

or not we can be assured that we can 

render these precursor chemicals inert, 

without affecting their ability to be 

used effectively as designed for the 

purpose for which they are manufactured in the first instance. 

So I hope that when we get to this 

amendment that no one will be dissuaded from voting for it. And I say to 

representatives of the NRA who are listening that it is not our intention in 

any way to make anything unsafe for 

hunters, to in any way diminish or 

limit any right of any gun owner in 

America, to in any way put any gun 

owner in America in any jeopardy 

whatsoever. This is not a slippery 

slope. This is not the camel’s nose 

under the tent. This is not all those 

other things that are always stated 

when in fact we do anything at all that 

impacts in any way upon firearms, ammunition, or explosive material. 

There is no subagenda here. It is very 

simple. We want to track down the bad 

guys who use explosives the wrong way 

for criminal purposes, and we want to 

take that material that is sold over the 

counter for purposes totally unrelated 

to criminal activity or for explosive capability and determine whether or not, 

after scientists study the issue, we can 

safely render that explosive capability 

inert, render it incapable being used in 

an explosive compound, and in doing so 

in no way diminish the purpose, the efficacy of the material for which it was 

manufactured in the first place. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I urge the Senate to 

support the Feinstein amendment to 

require that explosives be manufactured with identifying chemical markers. 

These markers, called taggants, are 

an essential tool for law enforcement 

officials in the difficult effort to apprehend terrorists who use bombs. The 

President has asked us to include this 

provision in the pending bill, and we 

should comply with his request. 

Explosives are the weapon of choice 

for any criminal who wishes to kill and 

maim human beings indiscriminately. 

Nothing demonstrates this more starkly than the tragedy in Oklahoma City, 

in which 168 people were killed by a 

bomb in a parked truck outside the 

building. The perpetrators of this atrocious crime caused more death and destruction with an explosive device than 

they could ever have accomplished 

with even the most lethal firearm. 

But Oklahoma City is just the tip of 

the iceberg. Because of their destructive capacity, explosive devices have 

been used repeatedly to perpetrate terrorist acts: 

On February 26, 1993, Islamic extremists used a 1,200-pound bomb to devastate several levels of one of the 

World Trade Center Buildings in New 

York City. Six people were killed, and 

over a thousand were injured. 

Explosives caused seven airline 

crashes between 1982 and 1989, including Pan Am flight 103, in which 270 people, many of them Americans, were 

killed over Lockerbie, Scotland. Seven 

Americans also died in a 1989 plane 

crash in Africa caused by an explosive 

device. 

In 1993, bomb attacks occurred in 

every one of the 50 States, as well as in 

the District of Columbia, Guam, and 

Puerto Rico. In Massachusetts, there 

were 16 illegal explosive incidents that 

year, and 11 of those bombs detonated 

before authorities could disable them. 

In the decade between 1984 and 1993, 

Massachusetts had a total of 141 bombings and 27 attempted bombings. Four 

people were killed, and 28 were injured 

during that period. 

Nationwide, 632 people were killed by 

bombs between 1989 and 1991. 

Of course, bombings are not always 

intended to result in largescale destruction. Explosives are sometimes 

employed in criminal attacks against 

specific individuals, as in the case of 

the assassination of Federal Judge 

Robert Vance several years ago. And 

since 1978, the so-called Unabomber has 

killed 3 and injured 23 people with 

deadly letter bombs delivered through 

the mail to his victims’ homes and offices. In 1993 alone, the postal service 

detected 10 bombs in apparently unrelated incidents. 

The perpetrators of these crimes 

often evade capture and conviction, in 

part because of the difficulty that law 

enforcement officials face in tracing 

the origin of explosive devices and 

components. As the Office of Technology Assessment has noted, ‘‘bombings are particularly difficult crimes 

for law enforcement agencies to handle 

as the bomber is not usually near the 

scene of the crime, the physical evidence is destroyed or damaged by the 

detonation, and the materials necessary to fabricate even a quite catastrophic bomb are easily obtainable.’’

But cutting-edge technology offers 

two ways to assist law enforcement in 

the difficult task of apprehending terrorists. First, there are means to detect explosives when they pass through 

airports and other secure areas. And 

second, explosives can be manufactured 

with chemical taggants that help investigators trace the source of the material after the explosion has occurred. 

The pending bill advances the first of 

these two technologies by requiring 

that explosives be manufactured with 

detection agents that will trigger detection devices at security checkpoints. This requirement implements 

an international convention, and I 

commend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for including this provision in his substitute. 

But the pending bill does not include 

the second of these two technologies, 

and the Feinstein amendment would 

include it. It would give the Secretary 

of the Treasury needed authority to require manufacturers of explosive materials to include taggants in their products. Experts within Federal law enforcement say that the technology is 

feasible and appropriate, and President 

Clinton has asked Congress to give the 

Treasury Department this enhanced 

authority. 

The use of taggants has proved to be 

a highly effective law enforcement tool 

in Switzerland, where the government 

has already implemented the requirement we are now debating. Swiss law 

enforcement agencies credit taggants 

with helping them to identify the 

source of the explosive in 566 bombing 

incidents over a 10-year period. The 

Swiss were able to apprehend a greater 

number of bombing suspects over this 

period by taking advantage of this new 

technology. 

This amendment provides law enforcement with a needed technique to 

trace the origin of bombs and arrest 

and convict the criminals who use 

them. 

I commend the Senator from California for her amendment and I urge 

its adoption. 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support 

the Feinstein amendment to require 

the tagging of explosive materials to 

help law enforcement officials investigate and prevent terrorist bombings. 

The Hatch substitute amendment 

contains a very narrow provision that 

would require the use of taggants in 

only one narrow category of explosive 

materials—plastic explosives. This is a 

mistake. I am convinced that we have 

the technology available today to introduce taggants in a wide range of explosive materials. 

In fact, the Congressional Research 

Service has informed me that Switzerland had required the inclusion of 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7692 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE June 5, 1995 

taggants in explosive materials since 

at least 1980, when that country’s regulation on explosives was enacted. That 

law provides, in relevant part: 

[Each] explosive must contain a tagging 

substance that permits the reliable tracing 

of the origin [of the explosive] even after the 

explosion. The tagging substance requires 

the approval of the Central Office [of the 

Federal Prosecutor] which must consider 

changing circumstances. 

The New York Times recently reported that a Minneapolis company is 

already in the business of manufacturing taggants, which it sells primarily to Switzerland. According to 

the New York Times, the Swiss police 

have used these taggants to trace explosives in more than 500 bombings and 

explosives seizure cases over the last 12 

years. 

Mr. President, the technology needed 

to introduce taggants into explosive 

materials is neither new nor experimental. We have had the technology 

available to us for more than 15 years. 

As long ago as 1980, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee considered a 

provision to require the use of taggants 

as part of the Omnibus Antiterrorism 

Act. Unfortunately, the provision was 

dropped in committee, by an 8 to 7 

vote. 

At that time, Assistant Secretary of 

the Treasury Richard Davis testified 

that technology was already available 

or would soon be available to tag a 

wide range of explosive materials. Mr. 

Davis provided the following timetable: 

Black powder, October 1979; smokeless 

powder, July 1981; dynamites, water 

gels and slurries, June 1979; fuse and 

detonating cord, November 1979; detonators, June 1981, label method, October 1981 (double plug method). 

In fact, the use of taggants during 

the testing and research period preceding action on the bill produced an 

arrest and conviction in Maryland. As 

Senators Javits and Percy explained in 

the committee report: 

In a May 1979 bombing in Spring Point, 

Maryland in which one man was killed and 

another injured, investigators searched 

through the debris and found the explosive 

used contained taggants as part of a pilot 

program. The taggants led police to a West 

Virginia explosives retailer, where they developed a list of suspects. One of those suspects knew the victim, providing a direct 

link in the chain of evidence. In December 

1979, a Baltimore jury convicted James 

McFillin as being guilty of manslaughter. It 

was the first time a court had admitted the 

taggants as evidence. So, there should be no 

question in anyone’s mind that taggants 

work. 

Mr. President, the opponents of this 

amendment claim that more study is 

needed before taggants can be used. 

That is a needless delay. Taggants have 

been tested in this country and—even 

in the limited test—led to an arrest 

and conviction. They have been required in Switzerland for more than 12 

years, and have proved helpful in hundreds of bombing and explosives cases 

over that period. 

Taggants are a proven technology 

which can significantly assist law enforcement officials in detecting and deterring terrorist acts. We should not 

repeat the mistake we made when we 

deferred action on this provision in 

1980. We should act now, by adopting 

the Feinstein amendment. 

Mr. BIDEN. I note that no one else is 

seeking recognition. The hour of 6 

o’clock is approaching. 

Parliamentary inquiry: Is there a 

time set for the first vote at this moment? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. By 

unanimous consent, the time has been 

set for 6 o’clock. 

Mr. BIDEN. The first vote will be on 

what issue, Mr. President? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to table the amendment No. 1202. 

Mr. BIDEN. Amendment 1202 is the 

taggant amendment of the Senator 

from California. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

amendment of the Senator from California. 

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Chair. 

Again, I sincerely hope we do not 

have to wait for another bombing, another horrendous loss of life, even another day before this body will act on 

an issue that we have debated and discussed since 1973, the first year that I 

came here. There is no hidden purpose 

in this amendment, none whatsoever. 

For the life of me, I cannot understand how anyone would be against 

this amendment. 

I yield the floor at this time. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may, Mr. President, say to the Senator from Delaware, we are prepared to move a modification to the amendment. We require 

unanimous consent to be able to do so. 

I am hopeful that will be forthcoming. 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the majority staff tells me that they are 

checking with Senator HATCH, who is 

just off the floor, occupied in another 

matter at the moment. Also, there is a 

need in order to get unanimous consent 

to amend the Senator’s amendment. 

There are two other individuals I am 

told on the Republican side who are 

being asked to check off. If we are not 

able to get them prior to 6 o’clock, I 

will ask unanimous consent the vote be 

postponed for 5 minutes. I will not do 

that now. Hopefully we will find that 

out—to give us an opportunity to determine whether or not there will be 

agreement. I hope there will be no disagreement on the Senator’s amendment because it makes crystal clear we 

are not intending to deal with small 

arms, we are not intending to deal with 

those folks who are the stated reason 

for concern on the part of those who 

are opposing this amendment. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I might include 

in the RECORD at this time perhaps, if 

the Senator will yield, the Federal 

Register, volume 60, No. 80, Department of the Treasury. This is a listing 

of those explosive materials that we 

are dealing with precisely. So that will 

be in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

COMMERCE IN EXPLOSIVES; LIST OF EXPLOSIVE

MATERIALS

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 

841(d) of Title 18, United States Code, and 27 

CFR 55.23, the Director, Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco and Firearms, must publish and revise at least annually in the Federal Register a list of explosives determined to be 

within the coverage of 18 U.S.C. Chapter 40, 

Importation, Manufacture, Distribution and 

Storage of Explosive Materials. This chapter 

covers not only explosives, but also blasting 

agents and detonators, all of which are defined as explosive materials in section 841(c) 

of Title 18, United States Code. Accordingly, 

the following is the 1995 List of Explosive 

Materials subject to regulation under 18 

U.S.C. Chapter 40, which includes both the 

list of explosives (including detonators) required to be published in the Federal Register and blasting agents. The list is intended to also include any and all mixtures 

containing any of the materials in the list. 

Materials constituting blasting agents are 

marked by an asterisk. While the list is comprehensive, it is not all inclusive. The fact 

that an explosive material may not be on the 

list does not mean that it is not within the 

coverage of the law if it otherwise meets the 

statutory definitions in section 841 of Title 

18, United States Code. Explosive materials 

are listed alphabetically by their common 

names followed by chemical names and synonyms in brackets. This revised list supersedes the List of Explosive Materials dated 

January 7, 1994, (59 FR 1056) and will be effective as of the date of publication in the Federal Register. 

Acetylides of heavy metals. 

Aluminum containing polymeric propellant. 

Aluminum ophorite explosive. 

Amatex. 

Amatol. 

Ammonal. 

Ammonium nitrate explosive mixtures (cap 

sensitive). 

*Ammonium nitrate explosive mixtures (non 

cap sensitive) 

Aromatic nitro-compound explosive mixtures. 

Ammonium perchlorate explosive mixtures. 

Ammonium perchlorate composite propellant: 

Ammonium picrate [picrate of ammonia, Explosive D]. 

Ammonium salt lattice with isomorphously 

substituted inorganic salts. 

*ANFO [ammonium nitrate-fuel oil]. 

Baratol. 

Baronol. 

BEAF [1,2-bis(2,2-difluoro-2-nitroacetoxyethane)]. 

Black powder. 

Black powder based explosive mixtures. 

*Blasting agents, nitro-carbo-nitrates, including non cap sensitive slurry and 

water-gel explosives. 

Blasting caps. 

Blasting gelatin. 

Blasting powder. 

BTNEC [(bis (trinitroethyl) carbonate]. 

Bulk salutes. 

BTNEN [(bis (trinitroethyl) nitramine]. 

BTTN (1,2,4 butanetriol trinitrate. 

Butyl tetryl. 

Calcium nitrate explosive mixtures. 

Cellulose hexanitrate explosive mixture. 

Chlorate explosive mixtures. 

Composition A and variations. 

Composition B and variations. 

Composition C and variations. 

Copper acetylide. 

Cyanuric triazide. 

Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine [RDX]. 

Cyclotetramethylenetetranitramine [HMX]. 

Cyclonite [RDX]. 

Cyclotol. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

June 5, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7693 

DATB [diaminotrinitrobenzene]. 

DDNP [diazodinitrophenol]. 

DEGDN [diethyleneglycol dinitrate]. 

Detonating cord. 

Detonators. 

Dimethylol dimethyl methane dinitrate 

composition. 

Dinitroethyleneurea. 

Dinitroglycerine [glycerol dinitrate]. 

Dinitrophenol. 

Dinitrophenolates. 

Dinitrophenyl hydrazine. 

Dinitroresorcinol. 

Dinitrotoluene-sodium nitrate explosive 

mixtures. 

DIPAM. 

Dipicryl sulfone. 

Dipicrylamine. 

Display fireworks. 

DNDP [dinitropentano nitrile]. 

DNPA [2,2-dinitropropyl acrylate]. 

Dynamite. 

EDDN [ethylene diamine dinitrate]. 

EDNA. 

Ednatol. 

EDNP [ethyl 4,4-dinitropeotanoate]. 

Erythritol tetranitrate explosives. 

Esters of nitro-substituted alcohols. 

EGDN [ethylene glycol dinitrate]. 

Ethyl-tetryl. 

Explosive conitrates. 

Explosive gelatins. 

Explosive mixtures containing oxygen releasing inorganic salts and hydrocarbons. 

Explosive mixtures containing oxygen releasing inorganic salts and nitro bodies. 

Explosive mixtures containing oxygen releasing inorganic salts and water insoluble fuels. 

Explosive mixtures containing oxygen releasing inorganic salts and water soluble 

fuels. 

Explosive mixtures containing sensitized 

nitromethane. 

Explosive mixtures containing tetranitromethane (nitroform). 

Explosive nitro compounds of aromatic hydrocarbons. 

Explosive organic nitrate mixtures. 

Explosive liquids. 

Explosive powders. 

Flash powder. 

Fulminate of mercury. 

Fulminate of silver. 

Fulminating gold. 

Fulminating mercury. 

Fulminating platinum. 

Fulminating silver. 

Gelatinized nitrocellulose. 

Gem-dinitro aliphatic explosive mixtures. 

Guanyl nitrosamino guanyl tetrazene. 

Guanyl nitrosamino guanylidene hydrazine. 

Guncotton. 

Heavy metal azides. 

Hexanite. 

Hexanitrodiphenylamine. 

Hexanitrostilbene. 

Hexogen (RDX). 

Hexogene or octogene and a nitrated Nmethylaniline. 

Hexolites. 

HMX [cyclo-1,3,5,7-tetramethylene 2,4,6,8- 

tetranitramine; Octogen]. Hydrazinium 

nitrate/hydrazine/aluminum explosive 

system. 

Hydrazoic acid. 

Igniter cord. 

Igniters. 

Initiating tube systems. 

KDNBF [potassium dinitrobenzo-furoxane]. 

Lead azide. 

Lead mannite. 

Lead mononitroresorcinate. 

Lead picrate. 

Lead salts, explosive. 

Lead styphnate [styphnate of lead, lead 

trinitroresorcinate]. 

Liquid nitrated polyol and trimethylolethane. 

Liquid oxygen explosives. 

Magnesium ophorite explosives. 

Mannitol hexanitrate. 

MDNP [methyl 4,4-dinitropentanoate]. 

MEAN [monoethanolamine nitrate]. 

Mercuric fulminate. 

Mercury occalate. 

Mercury tartrate. 

Metriol trinitrate. 

Minol-Z [40% TNT, 40% ammonium nitrate, 

20% aluminum]. 

MMAN [monomethylamine nitrate]; methylamine nitrate. 

Mononitrotoluene-nitroglycerin mixture. 

Monopropellants. 

NIBTN [nitroisobutametriol trinitrate]. 

Nitrate sensitized with gelled nitroparaffin. 

Nitrated carbohydrate explosive. 

Nitrated glucoside explosive. 

Nitrated polyhydric alcohol explosives. 

Nitrates of soda explosive mixtures. 

Nitric acid and a nitro aromatic compound 

explosive. 

Nitric acid and carboxylic fuel explosive. 

Nitric acid explosive mixtures. 

Nitro aromatic explosive mixtures. 

Nitro compounds of furane explosive mixtures. 

Nitrocellulose explosive. 

Nitroderivative of urea explosive mixture. 

Nitrogelatin explosive. 

Nitrogen trichloride. 

Nitrogen tri-iodide. 

Nitroglycerine [NG, RNG, nitro, glyceryl 

trinitrate, trinitroglycerine]. 

Nitroglycide. 

Nitroglycol (ethylene glycol dinitrate, 

EGDN). 

Nitroguanidine explosives. 

Nitroparaffins Explosive Grade and ammonium nitrate mixtures. 

Nitronium perchlorate propellant mixtures. 

Nitrostarch. 

Nitro-substituted carboxylic acids. 

Nitrourea. 

Octogen [HMX]. 

Octol [75 percent HMX, 25 percent TNT]. 

Organic amine nitrates. 

Organic nitramines. 

PBX [RDX and plasticizer]. 

Pellet powder. 

Penthrinite composition. 

Pentolite. 

Perchlorate explosive mixtures. 

Peroxide based explosive mixtures. 

PETN [nitropentaerythrite, pentaerythrite 

tetranitrate, pentaerythritol tetranitrate]. 

Picramic acid and its salts. 

Picrainide. 

Picrate of potassium explosive mixture. 

Picratol. 

Picric acid (manufactured as an explosive). 

Picryl chloride. 

Picryl fluoride. 

PLX [95% nitromethane, 5% ethylenediamine]. 

Polynitro aliphatic compounds. 

Polyolpolynitrate-nitrocellulose explosive 

gels. 

Potassium chlorate and lead sulfocyanate 

explosive. 

Potassium nitrate explosive mixtures. 

Potassium nitroaminotetrazole. 

Pyrotechnic compositions. 

PYX (2,8-bis(picrylamino))-3,5- 

dinitropyridine. 

RDX [cyclonite, hexogen, T4, cyclo-1,3,5,- 

trimethylene-2,4,5,-trinitramine; 

hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro S-triazine]. 

Safety fuse. 

Salutes, (bulk). 

Salts of organic amino sulfonic acid explosive mixture. 

Silver acetylide. 

Silver azide. 

Silver fulminate. 

Silver oxalate explosive mixtures. 

Silver styphnate. 

Silver tartrate explosive mixtures. 

Silver tetrazene. 

Slurried explosive mixtures of water, inorganic oxidizing salt, gelling agent fuel 

and sensitizer (cap sensitive). 

Smokeless powder. 

Sodstol. 

Sodium amatol. 

Sodium azide explosive mixture. 

Sodium dinitro-ortho-cresolate. 

Sodium nitrate-potassium nitrate explosive 

mixture. 

Sodium picramate. 

Special fireworks. 

Squibs. 

Styphnic acid explosives. 

Tacot (tetranitro-2-3,5,6-dibenzo-1,3a,4,6atetrazapentalene). 

TATB (triaminotrinitrobenzene). 

TEGDN [triethylene glycol dinitrate]. 

Tetrazene [tetracene, tetrazine,] (5-tetrazolyl)-4-guanyl tetrazene hydrate). 

Tetranitrocarbazole. 

Tetryl [2,4,6 tetranitro-N-methylaniline]. 

Tetrytol. 

Thickened inorganic oxidizer, salt slurried 

explosive mixture. 

TMETN (trimethylolethane trinitrate). 

TNEF [trinitroethyl formal]. 

TNEOC [trinitroethylothocarbonate]. 

TNEOF [trinitroethylothoformate]. 

TNT [trinitrotoluene, trotyl, trilte, triton]. 

Torpax. 

Tridite. 

Trimethylol ethyl methane trinitrate composition. 

Trimethylolthane trinitrate-nitrocellulose. 

Trimonite. 

Trinitroanisole. 

Trinitrobenzene. 

Trinitrobenzoic acid. 

Trinitrocresol. 

Trinitro-meta-cresol. 

Trinitronaphthalene. 

Trinitrophenetol. 

Trinitrophloroglucinol. 

Trinitroresorcinol. 

Tritonal. 

Urea nitrate 

Water bearing explosives having salts of oxidizing acids and nitrogen bases, sulfates, 

or sulfamates (cap sensitive). 

Water-in-oil emulsion explosive compositions. 

Xanthamonas hydrophilic colloid explosive 

mixture. 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I suggest 

the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1202, AS MODIFIED

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is my 

understanding, and I ask the Senator 

from California if she desires to modify 

her amendment. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I do. 

Mr. HATCH. I have no objection to 

modifying the amendment. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I proceed to 

do so? 

Mr. HATCH. That would be fine. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Is the Senator 

from Delaware present? 

Mr. BIDEN. I have no objection. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7694 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE June 5, 1995 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I 

send a modification to the desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection to the modification to the 

amendment? 

Without objection, the amendment is 

so modified. 

The amendment (No. 1202), as modified, is as follows: 

On page 152, strike line 6 through line 17 on 

page 153, and insert the following: 

SEC. . STUDY AND REQUIREMENTS FOR TAGGING OF EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS, 

AND STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RENDERING EXPLOSIVE 

COMPONENTS INERT AND IMPOSING 

CONTROLS ON PRECURSORS OF EXPLOSIVES. 

(a) the Secretary of the Treasury shall conduct a study and make recommendations 

concerning—

(1) the tagging of explosive materials for 

purposes of detection and identification; 

(2) whether common chemicals used to 

manufacture explosive materials can be rendered inert and whether it is feasible to require it; and 

(3) whether controls can be imposed on certain precursor chemicals used to manufacture explosive materials and whether it is 

feasible and cost-effective to require it. 

In conducting the study, the Secretary 

shall consult with other Federal, State and 

local officials with expertise in this area and 

such other individuals as shall be deemed 

necessary. Such study shall be completed 

within twelve months after the enactment of 

this Act and shall be submitted to the Congress and made available to the public. Such 

study may include, if appropriate, recommendations for legisation. 

(b) There are authorized to be appropriated 

for the study and recommendations contained in paragraph (a) such sums as may be 

necessary. 

(c) Section 842 of title 18, United States 

Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (k), a new subsection (1) which reads 

as follows: 

‘‘(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to 

manufacture, import, ship, transport, receive, possess, transfer, or distribute any explosive material that does not contain a 

tracer element as prescribed by the Secretary pursuant to regulation, knowing or 

having reasonable cause to believe that the 

explosive material does not contain the required tracer element.’’. 

‘‘(2) For purposes of this subsection, explosive material does not include smokeless or 

black powder manufactured for uses set forth 

in section 845(a)(4)(5) of this chapter.’’

(d) Section 844, of title 18, United States 

Code, is amended by inserting after ‘‘(a) 

through (i)’’ the phrase ‘‘and (1).’’. 

(e) Section 846 of title 18, United States 

Code, is amended by designating the present 

section as ‘‘(a),’’ and by adding a new subsection (b) reading as follows: ‘‘(b) to facilitate the enforcement of this chapter the Secretary shall, within 6 months after submission of the study required by subsection (a), 

promulgate regulations for the addition of 

tracer elements to explosive materials manufactured in or imported into the United 

States. Tracer elements to be added to explosive materials under provisions of this subsection shall be of such character and in 

such quantity as the Secretary may authorize or require, and such as will not substantially impair the quality of the explosive 

materials for their intended lawful use, adversely affect the safety of these explosives, 

or have a substantially adverse effect on the 

environment.’’. 

(f) The penalties provided herein shall not 

take effect until ninety days after the date 

of promulgation of the regulations provided 

for herein. 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I suggest 

the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

INHOFE). Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent 

that my motion to table the modified 

Feinstein amendment be vitiated. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection? Without objection, it is so 

ordered. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask for 

the yeas and nays on the Feinstein 

amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1202, AS MODIFIED

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question occurs on agreeing to amendment 1202, as modified, offered by the 

Senator from California [Mrs. FEINSTEIN]. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll. 

Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. FAIRCLOTH], the Senator from Texas [Mr. 

GRAMM], the Senator from Oregon, [Mr. 

HATFIELD], the Senator from Vermont 

[Mr. JEFFORDS], the Senator from Indiana [Mr. LUGAR], and the Senator from 

Arkansas [Mr. MURKOWSKI] are necessarily absent. 

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. BRADLEY], 

the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. 

KERREY], the Senator from Vermont 

[Mr. LEAHY], and the Senator from 

Washington [Mr. MURRAY] are necessarily absent. 

I further announce that, if present 

and voting, the Senator from New Jersey, [Mr. BRADLEY] and the Senator 

from Vermont [Mr. LEAHY] would each 

vote ‘‘aye.’’

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber 

who desire to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 90, 

nays 0, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 234 Leg.] 

YEAS—90 

Abraham 

Akaka 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Bennett 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Bond 

Boxer 

Breaux 

Brown 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Burns 

Byrd 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Conrad 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

Daschle 

DeWine 

Dodd 

Dole 

Domenici 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Frist 

Glenn 

Gorton 

Graham 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Harkin 

Hatch 

Heflin 

Helms 

Hollings 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Inouye 

Johnston 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kennedy 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Kyl 

Lautenberg 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Lott 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Mikulski 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Nickles 

Nunn 

Packwood 

Pell 

Pressler 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Roth 

Santorum 

Sarbanes 

Shelby 

Simon 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

Wellstone 

NOT VOTING—10 

Bradley 

Faircloth 

Gramm 

Hatfield 

Jeffords 

Kerrey 

Leahy 

Lugar 

Murkowski 

Murray 

So the amendment (No. 1202), as 

modified, was agreed to. 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I move to 

lay that motion on the table. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1207 WITHDRAWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent to withdraw my 

amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

So the amendment (No. 1207) was 

withdrawn. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I understand we can accept a few of the 

amendments. Senator DOLE has informed Members that is the last vote of 

the day. 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we are 

trying to clear additional amendments. 

We are prepared to accept the Pressler amendment, renaming a Federal 

building in his State. We are seeing 

whether we can clear additional 

amendments. 

While I have the floor, let me ask, 

the Senator from California, Senator 

BOXER, was prepared to go with her 

amendment tonight, but since that was 

the last vote, I would like to ask 

whether or not the chairman would object to her being the first amendment 

tomorrow? 

Mr. HATCH. I have no objection to 

that. Why do we not schedule that 

right before the caucus meetings tomorrow? 

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, that is 

perfect. 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would be 

prepared to move Senator PRESSLER’s 

amendment regarding renaming the 

Federal building, if that is appropriate. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There 

are two Pressler amendments. 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I was referring to the Pressler amendment renaming a Federal building. It is 

amendment numbered 1204. However, I 

have just been informed by the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction 

that he would like an opportunity to 

look at that. Therefore, I withdraw my 

request to act on Pressler amendment 

numbered 1204. 

What I am saying is we do not have 

an amendment to clear at the moment. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I do not 

have any authority to set a vote on the 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

June 5, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7695 

Boxer amendment. I think we have to 

look at the amendment and go from 

there. Hopefully, that can be the first 

vote, if we can work it out. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

Chair would observe that the pending 

amendment is No. 1206, offered by the 

Senator from Utah on behalf of Senator SPECTER. 

Mr. HATCH. As I understand it, 

maybe we can accept that amendment 

if it is permissible on the part of the 

minority. 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, there are 

two committee members that have a 

hold on this amendment. I am not sure 

it will not be able to be accepted, but 

I cannot clear it at this moment. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1204

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the Senator who had objected to moving to 

consider Pressler amendment numbered 1204 has now withdrawn his objection. 

We, on the Democratic side, are prepared to accept Pressler amendment 

numbered 1204. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the amendment. 

The amendment (No. 1204) was agreed 

to. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote. 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I move to 

lay that motion on the table. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wonder 

if the distinguished Senator from Delaware is prepared to accept the Smith 

amendment, which appears to be a 

technical amendment. 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, at this 

moment, we are trying to clear the 

Smith amendment and several others. I 

am not in a position to clear any 

amendment at this moment. We are 

running that down right now. 

If the Senator could withhold for a 

few minutes. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest 

the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask that 

the order for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the managers have been accepting some of 

these amendments. I would like to get 

some idea of how many are left. 

We started off this morning with 99, 

and I do not know whether we are down 

to 90, 85, 25, or 10. There will be a cloture vote. If we cannot get consent to 

vote tomorrow, it will be early on 

Wednesday morning. 

One way or the other, we are going to 

dispose of this bill. If people are not 

willing to offer their amendments, we 

cannot work them out—it is only 6:30 

and we thought we would be here late 

tonight. Obviously, no one wants to 

stay. 

The President says he wants the bill 

passed. But this is all he says, ‘‘I want 

the bill passed.’’ We need some action. 

Tomorrow we will have a full day. We 

are not going to dispose of the 99 

amendments tomorrow or 85 or 75 

amendments. We would be prepared to 

exchange lists. We have been able to 

eliminate many of ours. If the Democrats are willing to give what they 

have, we will know if we have a chance 

of completing this tomorrow. If not, I 

would like to move to the telecommunications bill. 

We have accepted four or five minor 

amendments. That is about all we have 

gotten today. I am glad we accepted 

those rather than have 95–0 votes. 

Some of our colleagues returned today 

thinking there would be multiple 

votes. I obviously cannot manufacture 

votes, unless we just have Sergeant-atArms votes. I am not trying to punish 

anybody. We need to finish this bill, 

the President says so. Everybody says 

so. 

How many amendments do we have 

left: 80? 50? 60? 100? 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I say to 

the majority leader, I think we have 

about 20 amendments left. I expect 

that by midday tomorrow we will have 

fewer than that left. 

I might point out to the majority 

leader that two of the four amendments accepted, when we met last, 

there was no possibility of them being 

accepted. They were two of the six 

major amendments that the Democratic side felt were essential to be included in the Republican core bill. 

Although we did accept them and 

they turned out to be overwhelming 

votes—taggants—when I spoke this 

time before we adjourned, I said the 

taggant amendment and the amendment that the Senator from California 

had regarding the distribution of material on how to build explosive devices 

were two of the most contentious 

amendments, and they were so advertised at the time. They had been 

worked out through the cooperation of 

Senator HATCH and the Republican 

side. So I do not want the Senator, the 

leader, to think we have only been 

dealing with those things, with the 

easiest things on the list. The big 

items left on the list are some gun-related amendments and the habeas corpus amendments. We are ready to go at 

those starting first thing in the morning. I imagine we will be joined, for example, by the Senator from New Jersey, who has an amendment on doing 

away with the $25 million program the 

Defense Department makes available 

for ammunition for target practice. He 

is willing to agree to a half-hour on 

that amendment. I do not think we are 

going to take very much time on the 

remaining very controversial amendments. 

I cannot say to the Senator what one 

or two people on either side may do 

based on what the final outcome of the 

habeas corpus vote is, or a gun vote is. 

I do not know. But I think disposing of 

the amendments will go relatively 

quickly and I think we will be able to 

get time agreements on almost all of 

them. 

Several Senators addressed the 

Chair. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me just 

reply. We understand we have maybe 

five amendments. The Senator is saying he has, still, 20 on that side? 

Mr. BIDEN. I ask my staff how many 

amendments we have on the Democratic side left? 

I am told we have 15 to 20. We can 

give a closer estimate, but I suspect at 

least a third of those amendments are 

place holders that are not likely to be 

moved at all. But one thing for sure, 

the list is decreasing, not increasing. 

I was asked by the Democratic leader 

if we thought we could finish this bill 

by tomorrow night. I believe we can 

finish it by tomorrow night, at least 

the amendments by tomorrow night. 

Hopefully we will not move into 

Wednesday on this legislation. I certainly want to move it. Thus far I have 

seen cooperation on both sides to move 

contentious amendments. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

Democratic leader. 

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me 

commend the ranking member and 

chairman on the work they have done 

on the last couple of legislative days 

we have been on this bill. This is really 

just the second day we have been on 

the bill. As everyone recalls, this is not 

a piece of legislation that went 

through committee. We did not have 

the opportunity to review any of it in 

a committee. So even though the issue 

was subject to hearings, there was no 

specific hearing on this particular bill. 

We only had the opportunity to see it 

about a day prior to the time we recessed. Everyone now has, clearly, read 

the bill and had the opportunity to 

study it. So as a result, I think some of 

the amendments that were anticipated 

may no longer be required. 

But this is not a simple bill. This is 

not a small matter. This is a far-reaching piece of legislation that deserves 

our consideration. I think, given that, 

it is all the more remarkable that perhaps in a period of the next 48 hours, 

maybe less than that, substantially 

less than that, we will be able to complete our work. 

Senators have legitimate concerns 

that have to be addressed in the form 

of amendments. They will be addressed. 

They are cooperating on our side. As 

the ranking member said, I think there 

is a reasonable expectation we can 

bring that list down even more. People 

are cooperating, and I think together 

we can work this thing through and be 

finished certainly within the next couple of days at the latest. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank the 

Democratic leader. I hope that is an accurate assessment. We would like to 

finish the bill tomorrow night and 

start on telecommunications on 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7696 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE June 5, 1995 

Wednesday. I made promises, in effect, 

to Senators PRESSLER and HOLLINGS

that we would take it up. I am not certain we will even have five amendments offered. This is a bill the President wants very much. It would seem 

to me, on the other side, if they have 20 

amendments, maybe they would be 

willing to forgo offering all those on 

this bill unless they relate to this bill 

or toughen this bill or somehow 

strengthen this bill. 

It is important legislation, there is 

no question about it. Nobody knows 

how important it is any more than the 

Presiding Officer, Senator INHOFE, and 

Senator NICKLES, from Oklahoma. We 

want to look back on it a year from 

now and say we did the right thing, we 

just did not do something in the emotion of the moment that might infringe 

on somebody’s constitutional rights a 

year from now or 10 years from now. 

But I think there is basic agreement. 

As I just listen to the two managers 

here it seems to me Senator BIDEN and 

Senator HATCH have a pretty good grip 

on what they would like to accomplish. 

Hopefully we will work together tomorrow. Maybe we can get it done tomorrow night, late. 

We did not quite get it done on Memorial Day but at least we made the 

effort. There is no way you can complete it with 97 amendments out there, 

67 on that side and 30-some on this side. 

So we have it down to a total of 20. 

Maybe some of those are not—I do not 

say they are not serious amendments—

maybe what we call around here, place 

holders. 

It seems to me if we start fairly early 

tomorrow morning we can complete action on the bill tomorrow night. 

Mr. BIDEN. I hope so. 

Mr. DOLE. Is that possible? 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I think 

that is true. Again, I do not think we 

are going to have trouble finishing the 

amendments. I think the outcome of 

the amendments may affect what one 

or two people on your side or one or 

two people on my side might end up 

doing. But my guess there as well is if 

we finish these amendments we will go 

to final passage and there will not be 

much in the way of that. But I cannot 

make a promise to the leader on that. 

Mr. DOLE. Is there anything else to 

do this evening? Any other amendments that can be dealt with? 

Mr. HATCH. I think it is better for us 

this evening to work on what we are 

going to do tomorrow, come in early 

and do our very best to finish this by 

tomorrow night. I really appreciate the 

good will on the part of the minority 

here to work with us and get this done. 

But I would like to finish it by tomorrow night if we can. If it means getting 

into the habeas amendments pretty 

early tomorrow, it means getting into 

the difficult amendments. 

Hopefully, once we resolve those one 

way or the other, we can move ahead 

to final passage. 

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield 

for a question? Shall the Senator be 

here prepared at 9:45 to offer the 

amendment? Can we perhaps incorporate that into a unanimous consent 

so we can make sure it is the business 

at hand? 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent the first amendment tomorrow be the amendment of 

the Senator from California, Senator 

BOXER. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleague. 

Mr. HATCH. I suggest to my distinguished colleague from California, if 

she will work with us on the amendment it might not be as difficult as it 

might be. So I would like to chat with 

her and see what we can do. 

Mrs. BOXER. I will be glad to do 

that. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest 

the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 

quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

EXTENDED USE OF MEDICARE 

SELECTED POLICIES 

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask that 

the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House on H.R. 483, the 

Medicare select bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate a message from the 

House of Representatives announcing 

its disagreement to the amendment of 

the Senate to the bill (H.R. 483) to 

amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to permit Medicare select policies to be offered in all States, and for 

other purposes, and requesting a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon. 

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move the 

Senate insist on the Senate amendment and agree to a conference on the 

disagreeing votes of the two Houses 

and the Chair be authorized to appoint 

conferees. 

The motion was agreed to; and the 

Presiding Officer appointed Mr. PACKWOOD, Mr. DOLE, and Mr. MOYNIHAN

conferees on the part of the Senate. 

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would 

like to note that this has been cleared 

with the leadership on the other side of 

the aisle. I do have a unanimous-consent request now. 

f 

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT 

Messages from the President of the 

United States were communicated to 

the Senate by Mr. Thomas, one of his 

secretaries. 

f 

EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED 

As in executive session, the Presiding 

Officer laid before the Senate messages 

from the President of the United 

States submitting sundry nominations 

which were referred to the appropriate 

committees. 

(The nominations received today are 

printed at the end of the Senate proceedings.) 

f 

MEASURES PLACED ON THE 

CALENDAR 

The following bill was read the second time and placed on the calendar: 

H.R. 1045. An Act to amend the Goals 2000: 

Educate America Act to eliminate the National Education Standards and Improvement Council, and for other purposes. 

f 

REPORTS OF COMMITTEE 

The following reports of committee 

were submitted: 

By Mr. ROTH, from the Committee on 

Governmental Affairs: Special report entitled ‘‘Fourth Interim Report on United 

States Government Efforts to Combat Fraud 

and Abuse in the Insurance Industry: Problems in Blue Cross/Blue Shield Plans in West 

Virginia, Maryland, Washington, DC, New 

York, and Federal Contracts

f 

’’ (Rept. 104–93). 

EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF 

COMMITTEES 

The following executive reports of 

committees were submitted: 

By Mr. ROTH, from the Committee on 

Governmental Affairs: 

Robert F. Rider, of Delaware, to be a Governor of the United States Postal Service for 

the term expiring December 8, 2004. 

(The above nomination was reported 

with the recommendation that he be 

confirmed.) 

f 

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND 

JOINT RESOLUTIONS 

The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the first 

and second time by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: 

By Mr. DASCHLE: 

S. 879. A bill to amend the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act to limit acquisition of land on the 

39-mile headwaters segment of the Missouri 

River, Nebraska and South Dakota, designated as recreational river, to acquisition 

from willing sellers; to the Committee on 

Energy and Natural Resources. 

By Mrs. HUTCHISON: 

S. 880. A bill to enhance fairness in compensating owners of patents used by the 

United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

By Mr. PRYOR (for himself and Mr. 

GRASSLEY): 

S. 881. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify provisions relating to church pension benefit plans, to modify certain provisions relating to participants in such plans, to reduce the complexity of and to bring workable consistency 

to the applicable rules, to promote retirement savings and benefits, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance. 

By Mr. PRESSLER (for himself and 

Mr. DASCHLE): 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS