```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 77 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6448-S6452]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

         INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question before the body is the 
substitute amendment reported by the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works to S. 534. Is there further amendment?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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. 754

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on taking all possible 
        steps to combat domestic terrorism in the United States)

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself, Senator Craig, Senator Grassley, and Senator Brown, and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] for himself, 
     Mr. Craig, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Brown, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 754.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) There has been enormous public concern, worry and fear 
     in the U.S. over international terrorism for many years;
       (2) There has been enormous public concern, worry and fear 
     in the U.S. over the threat of domestic terrorism after the 
     bombing of the New York World Trade Center on February 26, 
     1993;
       (3) There is even more public concern, worry and fear since 
     the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in 
     Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995;
       (4) Public concern, worry and fear has been aggravated by 
     the fact that it appears that the terrorist bombing at the 
     Federal building in Oklahoma City was perpetrated by 
     Americans;
       (5) The United States Senate should take all action within 
     its power to understand and respond in all possible ways to 
     threats of domestic as well as international terrorism;
       (6) Serious questions of public concern have been raised 
     about the actions of federal law enforcement officials 
     including agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and 
     the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms relating to the 
     arrest of Mr. Randy Weaver and others in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, 
     in August, 1992 and Mr. David Koresh and others associated 
     with the Branch Davidian sect in Waco, Taxas, between 
     February 28, 1993, and April 19, 1993;
       (7) Inquiries by the Executive Branch have left serious 
     unanswered questions on these incidents;
       (8) The United States Senate has not conducted any hearings 
     on these incidents;
       (9) There is public concern about allowing federal agencies 
     to investigate allegations of impropriety within their own 
     ranks without congressional oversight to assure 
     accountability at the highest levels of government;
       (10) Notwithstanding an official censure of FBI Agent Larry 
     Potts on January 6, 1994, relating to his participation in 
     the Idaho incident, the Attorney General of the United States 
     on May 2, 1995, appointed Agent Potts to be Deputy Director 
     of the FBI;
       (11) It is universally acknowledged that there can be no 
     possible justification for the Oklahoma City bombing 
     regardless of what happened at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, or Waco, 
     Texas;
       (12) Ranking federal officials have supported hearings by 
     the U.S. Senate to dispel public rumors that the Oklahoma 
     City bombing was planned and carried out by federal law 
     enforcement officials:
       (13) It has been represented, or at least widely rumored, 
     that the motivation for the Oklahoma City bombing may have 
     been related to the Waco incident, the dates falling exactly 
     two years apart; and
       (14) A U.S. Senate hearing, or at least setting the date 
     for such a hearing, on Waco and Ruby Ridge would help to 
     restore public confidence that there will be full disclosure 
     of what happened, appropriate congressional oversight and 
     accountability at the highest levels of the federal 
     government.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that hearings should be held before the Senate Judiciary 
     Committee on countering domestic terrorism in all possible 
     ways with a hearing on or before June 30, 1995, on actions 
     taken by federal law enforcement agencies in Ruby Ridge, 
     Idaho, and Waco, Texas.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the thrust of this amendment is clear on 
its face; that is to proceed as promptly as possible, but in a 
reasonable way, to have as comprehensive hearings as possible in the 
U.S. Senate on ways to combat terrorism.
  Pursuant to that general objective, this Senator scheduled hearings 
in the Subcommittee on Terrorism, a series of four hearings, with a 
fifth one planned. The first hearing was scheduled for April 27 on 
legislation which had been pending dealing with terrorism, with its 
focus on transnational terrorism but also with some focus on domestic 
terrorism as it related to FBI counterterrorism strategies. A second 
hearing was scheduled for May 4, with the subject being technical 
aspects of the legislation and also to provide an opportunity to the 
American Civil Liberties Union, the American Jewish Congress, the Irish 
National Caucus, and the National Association of Arab-Americans to be 
heard on the civil liberties issues raised by the legislation. The 
third hearing is scheduled for May 11, which is tomorrow, on the 
subject of the so-called mayhem manuals on how to make bombs being 
transmitted over the Internet. A fourth hearing is scheduled for May 
18, dealing with Ruby Ridge, ID, and Waco, TX. There is a fifth hearing 
planned, which we may be able to schedule for May 25, which would deal 
with the growth of the militia movement around the United States.
  The hearing scheduled for April 27 became a full committee hearing 
and proceeded on that basis. Then Senator Hatch, who is on the floor at 
the moment--I had notified him that I would be presenting this sense-
of-the-Senate resolution at about 6:20, as we are doing at this time--
wrote to me saying that he believed the May 18 hearing should not be 
held as scheduled but ought to be held at some time in the future with 
a date not specified.
  It is my view, Mr. President, that it is a matter of urgent public 
interest that the hearing be held as promptly as reasonably possible, 
but in any event that a date certain should be set so 
 [[Page S6449]] that we do not have the vague and indefinite statement 
as to when a hearing might be held in the future.
  This is a matter which I have been concerned about since the incident 
in Waco, going back to April 1993. I had requested, shortly after the 
incident in Waco, that the Judiciary Committee hold hearings on the 
subject. The response which was given at that time was that hearings 
ought to be deferred until internal agency investigations were 
concluded. Once that had happened, other matters overtook the Judiciary 
Committee, and the hearings have never been held. I pursued the matter 
last year, however, by inquiring of the Justice and Treasury 
Departments about some of the conclusions they reached in their 
internal reports.
  There is a great deal of public unrest as to what happened at Waco. 
There has been a report filed pursuant to an investigation initiated by 
the Department of the Treasury which was highly critical of the actions 
of law enforcement officials there. An internal investigation by the 
Department of Justice found little fault, to characterize it, although 
the report speaks for itself.
  The incident at Ruby Ridge drew a tremendous amount of controversy. A 
deputy Federal marshal was killed; others were killed. There was a 
Federal prosecution, and the defendant, Mr. Randy Weaver, was acquitted 
of the most serious charges in that matter.
  As specified in the sense-of-the-Senate resolution, there is 
substantial public concern that the handling of the Waco incident may 
well have been a triggering factor in the Oklahoma City bombing, with 
the Oklahoma City bombing coming on April 19, 1995, exactly 2 years 
after the date of the Waco incident.
  Mr. President, it is hard to emphasize it any more strongly than was 
said in the sense-of-the-Senate resolution, that regardless of what 
happened at Waco and regardless of what happened at Ruby Ridge, there 
was absolutely no possible, no conceivable justification for the 
bombing in Oklahoma City. But there are those who say that the 
triggering factor at the Oklahoma City bombing was the failure to have 
appropriate action taken as to what happened at Waco. The media are 
full of reports of militias being concerned about what is happening in 
the Federal Government and fears expressed by many people that the 
Federal Government will infringe on or abolish the constitutional 
rights of citizens, including their rights under the second amendment.
  I believe that it is incumbent upon the Senate to have hearings on 
this matter so that there may be assurances of full disclosure--let the 
chips fall where they may--so that there may be public assurance that 
the Congress of the United States will exercise its oversight 
responsibilities and that, if we do not act at least to set a hearing 
date, that this issue will fester and who knows what the consequences 
may be.
  I certainly do not want to make any predictions or have any self-
fulfilling prophecies. But I believe as a U.S. Senator, as chairman of 
the Terrorism Subcommittee, as a member of the full Judiciary 
Committee, and also as the chairman of the Senate Intelligence 
Committee--which could conceivably have jurisdiction over these 
matters, but I think it is more properly a matter for the Judiciary 
Committee--that action be taken so that the Congress of the United 
States, the Senate of the United States, in pursuance of its oversight 
responsibilities, will do everything that it can to investigate and 
understand the problem of terrorism and to take all action which it can 
to respond. If we sit by idly without taking as much action as we can 
to allay the public concerns which have been expressed, that there has 
not been appropriate action by the Federal Government to hold 
accountable the Federal officials who were involved in Waco, TX and 
Ruby Ridge, ID, that certainly we would be responsible if anything 
happens in the interim which might be attributable, fairly or unfairly, 
to our inaction.
  There had been reports that the Senate was not acting on Ruby Ridge, 
ID, because of concerns that there might be some interference with the 
investigation which is being undertaken by the prosecuting attorney of 
Boundary County, ID. The prosecuting attorney there, Randall Day, is 
conducting an inquiry to make a determination as to whether there ought 
to be a State prosecution of Federal officials.
  Having had some experience in that particular line and not wanting to 
interfere with whatever the prosecuting attorney of Boundary County, 
ID, might want to do, I called Mr. Day and had an extensive 
conversation with him. There is no objection on Mr. Day's part for 
Congress to undertake whatever kind of an inquiry we choose to 
undertake.
  Mr. Day advised me that there is a report by the Department of 
Justice which he has seen, which is not public, and he has a concern 
that if that report comes into the hands of potential witnesses that 
there may be some problem with those witnesses. But that would be 
unrelated to whatever kind of a hearing the U.S. Senate might want to 
undertake.
  Mr. President, the essence of this resolution is that we move ahead 
with a hearing on Waco and Idaho, as they are, at least in the minds of 
many, related to the problems of terrorism in the United States. I 
personally believe it is totally insufficient to deal with this matter 
by talking about hearings, as Senator Hatch has said, ``in the near 
future'' or ``after the House completes its hearings.'' That is a 
framework which is not sufficiently definable or definite, I think, to 
address this problem as it should be addressed.
  My preference is to proceed with a hearing on May 18. I would be 
delighted to see that hearing in the full committee, as the hearing was 
held on April 27, after the original notification and purpose was sent 
out for a Terrorism Subcommittee hearing. So let there be no mistake, a 
full committee hearing would accomplish all of the purposes which I 
have in mind.
  But I feel very strongly that we should not stand idly by without 
having the hearing or at least setting a date for the hearing. That is 
why the resolution is specifically calling for a hearing on or before 
June 30, which will at least let everyone out there know that there 
will be oversight and that the Senate will take action to put all the 
facts on the table and let the chips fall where they may, so that we 
will be doing everything in our power to understand terrorism and to 
curtail it to the maximum extent that we can.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator from Utah.

                 Amendment No. 755 to Amendment No. 754

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning the scheduling 
         of hearings on Waco and Ruby Ridge in the near future)

  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 legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 755 to amendment No. 754.

  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the first word and insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) The American public is entitled to a full, 
     comprehensive, and open hearing on the circumstances 
     surrounding the efforts of federal law enforcement officers, 
     including agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and 
     the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, to investigate 
     and effectuate (or seek to effectuate) the arrest of Mr. 
     David Koresh and others associated with the Branch Davidian 
     sect in Waco, Texas;
       (2) The American public is entitled to a full, 
     comprehensive, and open hearing on the circumstances 
     surrounding the efforts of federal law enforcement officers, 
     including agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
     the U.S. Marshals Service, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 
     and Firearms, to investigate, and effectuate (or seek to 
     effectuate) the arrest of Mr. Randy Weaver and others 
     associated with Mr. Weaver, in Ruby Ridge, Idaho;
       (3) The Senate has not yet conducted comprehensive hearings 
     on either of these incidents;
       (4) The public interest requires full disclosure of these 
     incidents through hearings to promote public confidence in 
     government; and
       (5) The public's confidence in government would be further 
     promoted if the timing of the hearings takes into 
     consideration the need for such hearings to be conducted in 
     an atmosphere of reflection and calm deliberation.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that hearings should be held in 
      [[Page S6450]] the near future, before the Senate Judiciary 
     Committee, at a time and under such circumstances as 
     determined by the Chairman, regarding the actions taken by 
     federal law enforcement agencies and their representatives in 
     the aforementioned Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as usual, I have a lot of respect for the 
distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania. I know that his intentions are 
honorable. He would like to have these matters examined, and I believe 
that they will be examined.
  I have to say that there were 12 Federal law enforcement officers and 
personnel who were murdered in the Oklahoma City tragedy.
  I understand that memorial services for those Federal law enforcement 
personnel will be held next week. Out of respect for those who were 
victims, I am reluctant to hold hearings on Waco at this time--although 
I believe Congress must do so. I have to admit that nobody has been 
more concerned about the Waco incident and the Ruby Ridge incident than 
I have been. After all, both States are in close proximity to mine. I 
have a lot of friends in both States, and there has been a considerable 
amount of pressure on me to hold hearings in the last month or so, and 
even before that.
  I been frank about the fact that I intend to hold Judiciary Committee 
hearings. When I heard that the House was going to start hearings on 
Waco and Ruby Ridge, with the agenda that we have in the Senate, which 
is a very heavy Judiciary Committee agenda, and also with the 
occurrence at Oklahoma City, I told people that we will hold hearings 
but that I would like to wait at least a reasonable time and allow the 
FBI and other law enforcement agencies to do everything they possibly 
can to catch, convict, and punish those people who were responsible for 
the Oklahoma City bombing. It is certainly the most tragic terrorist 
incident in the history of this country. There are others that I can 
cite, some of which even involve my own forebears. As people will 
recall, the Mormon Church is the only church in the history of this 
country where its members had an extermination order against them, 
issued by a Governor of one of these States, which extermination order 
was rescinded by none other than one of our colleagues when he was 
Governor of that respective State.
  I have to say that we will hold hearings and I intend to hold them in 
a reasonable period of time. They will be held, though at the full 
committee which is the proper jurisdictional setting, as the full 
Judiciary Committee has retained jurisdiction over the Department of 
Justice. This issue is a Department of Justice oversight issue, so the 
full committee should hold these hearings.
  One thing I am very concerned about is pulling any FBI leader off of 
the Oklahoma City case until they wrap up the investigation. They are 
making great headway. I am updated almost daily by the Director of the 
FBI, by people at the Justice Department, people in this 
administration, and others who are on top of what is happening 
following the Oklahoma City bombing. And I personally believe we should 
allow our law enforcement community some time--and it may be longer 
than the middle of next month or the end of June--for them to use every 
power at their disposal to resolve the investigation and problems in 
Oklahoma City.
  Now, every time we have one of these hearings--and in this particular 
case, if we hold a hearing, a Department of Justice oversight hearing 
on Waco and Ruby Ridge, the FBI Director is going to have to be there. 
Mr. Potts, who is doing an excellent job of running the investigation 
on Oklahoma City, is getting accolades from everybody involved in this 
particular investigation. Were we to hold hearings now, Mr. Potts would 
have to defer his time from Oklahoma City to prepare for and testify at 
our hearings up here. And there are innumerable other people who may or 
may not be involved in hearings, but who need to be on the job in 
Oklahoma City.
  That is why I am reticent to calling these hearings during the month 
of May, and I am reticent to have a due date of June 30, which is what 
the distinguished Senator has in his sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I 
will be happy to do whatever the Senate says. But it is my prerogative 
as chairman of the Judiciary Committee to determine when these hearings 
are going to be held. I have to say that I hope that the Senate will 
take into consideration the importance of the work that is being done 
to try and uncover the problems and catch those responsible for the 
Oklahoma City bombing.
  I personally think it is the wrong thing to do--to try to push 
hearings too soon on this matter, under these circumstances at this 
time.
  Now, perhaps there is reason to criticize the Senator from Utah for 
not having held hearings before the Oklahoma City incident, but the 
Senator from Utah has been studying these matters and we have people 
looking into them. We do not feel that we are prepared to hold the 
hearings at this particular time, and we certainly were not prepared 
before the Oklahoma City incident. Indeed, much of our attention in the 
Judiciary Committee has been focused on passing the Contract With 
America.
  I want to share with my colleague from Pennsylvania that I have many 
friends who are very concerned in my home State and in the State of 
Idaho, my neighboring State, and in the State of Texas, a State I have 
a great deal of love and respect for, who are very concerned about the 
fact that the Waco and Ruby Ridge matters have been allowed to drag on 
as long as they have. When I heard that the House was going to move 
forward, I thought to myself, good, let them do it and then we will 
watch that carefully and we will follow up with hearings, if necessary, 
to do the necessary things to cover all of the matters that were not 
covered there or that need to be recovered by Members of the Senate.
  There is no desire on my part to avoid holding hearings, no desire to 
ignore these matters. And there is no desire to fight the distinguished 
Senator from Pennsylvania on this issue. I will be happy to hold 
hearings, as I informed the Senator. There will be full committee 
hearings. The distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania will have every 
right to participate as a distinguished member of the committee. He is 
a member whom I respect. But it ought to be done, it seems to me, in a 
reasonable and a considered way, giving consideration to the pressures 
on everybody, including members of the Judiciary Committee but, most 
importantly, on the leadership of the FBI at this particular time. 
Perhaps they will wrap up the Oklahoma City investigation within the 
next week or so. I imagine it is going to take more time than that. But 
they are on their way, and they are making great headway and I do not 
want to pull anybody off from that investigation at this particular 
time.
  If we did, you never know whether some felon or murderer could slip 
through and escape or find some way out, or cover his or her tracks or 
their tracks; we just do not know at this point.
  So I encourage my colleague from Pennsylvania to work with me on a 
resolution that will certainly express the sense of the Senate to hold 
hearings on this matter but to do so in a timeframe that I think will 
bring people together rather than split us apart. I would like to do 
that, and I am humble enough to be given advice and to try and follow 
it. But in this particular case, I feel very deeply that there is a 
time to hold these hearings and a time not to. And right now is not the 
time to do it. I believe probably next month will not be the time to do 
that as well. I certainly hope that we will hold hearings in a short 
time and in a reasonable time from this particular date.
  So I commend the Senator from Pennsylvania for his desire to do this, 
for his zeal, and for his interest in trying to resolve wrongs that 
exist or may exist in this country with regard to these two incidents 
and any other incident. I also believe that if we are patient and wait 
until we see the outcome of the investigation of the Oklahoma City 
bombing--if we wait a short while longer, not only will we help the FBI 
and others to get the job done, but we may be able to uncover some 
things that will help us to understand improvements that they are 
making at the FBI with regard to terrorism. And I have no doubt that we 
will uncover the truth about whether there is no conspiracy of the 
Government against the American people, or against the 
 [[Page S6451]] militia movement, or against individual citizens. We 
know that there have been mistakes made. In Waco, it was a catastrophe; 
I have said that publicly, and I cannot remember, but I believe I have 
said it on the floor. Ruby Ridge was one of the great tragedies of our 
western lives. I believe that hearings are going to be appropriate and 
we will hold them.
  I hope that we will work this out so that we can work together on it 
rather than work apart.
  Let me just add that I think it is the prerogative of the chairman, 
to determine when hearings within his committee's jurisdiction will be 
held. I intend to stand by that position--for a reasonable time but not 
a definite time--until after I see what happens in Oklahoma City. I do 
not want to put extraordinary pressure on the FBI at a time when they 
have extraordinary pressure on them anyway.
  Especially with the understanding that Ruby Ridge and Waco will not 
go away, with the understanding that we are studying those matters now, 
and trying to figure out what would make the most effective and 
reasonable and worthwhile hearings on the subject, I feel we can 
withhold on hearings. I have no doubt that the administration and 
others with whom my colleague from Pennsylvania has spoken have 
informed him that if the Senate chooses to hold hearings, they will 
appear. I cannot, however, believe that they would take the position 
that hearings at this time, in the midst of the largest criminal 
investigation in history, are a priority for them.
  I commend my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania for his 
efforts in trying to move this issue forward. I hope he will work with 
me on it. If he will, we will get farther than if he does not. If he 
does not work with me, the Senate will vote on a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution--a nonbinding resolution. I will determine when these 
hearings will be held. I just think it would be flying in the face of 
good law enforcement, flying in the face of reality, flying in the face 
of the need to hold hearings which are calm and deliberative, and 
flying in the face of the people who have died in Oklahoma City, who 
deserve a resolution to their problem, to hold Waco and Ruby Ridge 
hearings at this time.
  Now, there are people who have died in Waco, and people who have died 
in Ruby Ridge, both law enforcement people and innocent people in those 
compounds, and they all deserve to have this matter fully reviewed. I 
intend to do so. But these are matters which require a comprehensive 
and full review--not a hurried hearing.
  I intend to work with every member of the Judiciary Committee so that 
every member can have an opportunity to be part of the hearings, to 
have an opportunity to ask the questions, and hopefully they can during 
the time that will be allotted. It may take more than one day of 
hearings. In fact, it will probably take more than one day.
  I have the commitment from the Director of the FBI and from the 
people at Justice that they will cooperate in those hearings. I have 
discussed with them the need to hold hearings and I have made it clear 
to them that we will hold them. And they, themselves, have indicated to 
me that they would like a little bit of time to finish the Oklahoma 
City matter before they have to divert their efforts and come up here 
for full-blown hearings before any committee of the U.S. Senate and, I 
believe, even the House of Representatives.
  They will do it if we demand they do it. I just believe there is a 
time to have them do it. That time is not now, under the circumstances 
of Oklahoma City.
  With that, I offer to work with the distinguished Senator from 
Pennsylvania and see what we can do to resolve this problem. I stand 
ready to work with him.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Kempthorne be added as an original cosponsor of the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, when the Senator from Utah talks about 
patience, it seems to me that the American people have been patient 
long enough, since April 19, 1993. There has been ample time to hold 
these hearings, long ago.
  As I said, I had asked for hearings shortly after the event itself. 
Had they been held in January or February or March or up to mid-April 
of this year, we would not be looking awaiting further action on 
Oklahoma City. It may be that we would not have looked at anything at 
Oklahoma City at all had the hearings been held earlier.
  I do not know that that is so, but I think that when there is a 
request for patience, I think that there has already been an undue 
amount of patience on the matter. I do not think that it is impatient 
to say, ``Do it by June 30.'' That is 41 days from May 10, as we stand 
here at the present time.
  I discussed these hearings with the Director of the FBI, Louis Freeh, 
who was willing to proceed at this time and has no objection. The 
Attorney General of the United States has publicly stated that she is 
prepared for hearings.
  When the Senator from Utah offers a resolution that ``hearings should 
be held in the near future,'' my judgment is that is totally, totally, 
insufficient.
  When he talks about time, and he says we should wait until we ``catch 
and punish those responsible for Oklahoma City''--punishing them may 
take a matter of years. Some murder cases languish in the courts for up 
to 20 years. I do not think he necessarily means that, but if he is 
talking about waiting for punishment, even a trial would take months or 
more than a year.
  When he talks about awaiting hearings in the House, ``We will wait 
for the hearings in the House, if necessary to see if we proceed,'' the 
Senator from Utah is not even talking in a definite way about hearings 
after the House hearings. We will see after the House hearings, if 
necessary. I firmly believe that the Senate has an independent 
responsibility. We do not have to get involved in being a bicameral 
legislature. We have an independent responsibility to undertake these 
hearings.
  When paragraph 12 of the resolution calls to hearings by the U.S. 
Senate to dispel public rumors that the ``Oklahoma City bombing was 
planned and carried out by Federal law enforcement officials,'' that is 
a statement of the Director of the FBI himself. When Director Freeh was 
at lunch yesterday in the Republican Caucus he talked about rumors that 
the Federal Government itself had caused the bombing in Oklahoma City, 
and that he welcomed the hearings to dispel those rumors.
  On two occasions the Senator from Utah has said that it is ``My 
prerogative''--``My prerogative to decide when the hearings would be 
held.'' I think that that is customarily the situation. When we 
schedule subcommittee hearings, however, it is the prerogative of the 
chairman of the subcommittee to schedule the hearings.
  Or, as I said, it would be conceivable to have hearings in the 
Intelligence Committee which has jurisdiction over terrorism matters. 
And a good bit of what we are considering now in the Judiciary 
Committee relates to the deportation or aliens, which is clearly a 
matter within the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Committee. As 
chairman, I could schedule them there, if we want to talk about 
prerogatives, but I have not done so because I think this is really a 
matter for terrorism as it is defined in the Terrorism Subcommittee of 
the Judiciary Committee. As I say, I would be glad to see the hearings 
held in the full committee, as was the hearing on April 27 after the 
notice had been given by the subcommittee for that hearing.
  When we talk about the prerogatives of Senators, I think that is a 
little excessive, even if the Senators are chairmen, when we have a 
matter of public interest.
  I am a little surprised by the statement by the Senator from Utah, 
again I wrote this down, that even if the resolution passes, ``I am 
going to determine when to hold these hearings, unless the Senate 
orders me.''
  I do not know of any procedure for having an order or a mandamus, or 
direction of that sort under our Senate procedures, but the way we 
determine the will of the Senate is to have a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution, which is what I have offered. It gives a lot of latitude as 
to when the hearings will be held.
  So it is a little surprising to hear that the Senator from Utah is 
going to determine when to hold the hearings, 
 [[Page S6452]] whatever the sense of the Senate may be, unless the 
Senate issues some kind of an order. I know of no such procedure for 
such an order.
  Mr. President, I am very much concerned about the officers, the 
Federal officials, who were murdered in Oklahoma City. I think every 
American is. I know the area very well.
  I went to the University of Oklahoma, which is in Norman, 20 miles 
away, and have a lot of friends in Oklahoma City. It is a catastrophe 
of the first order. I think that we can best serve the public interest 
and best pay our respect to the victims in Oklahoma City and best pay 
our respect to victims of terrorism everywhere if we act and if we do 
what we can to clear the air on any notion which may be current in the 
country that there has been a coverup by the Federal Government, or a 
failure to act or a failure to look into what happened in Waco and Ruby 
Ridge.
  I think this resolution is a very reasonable approach to the issue, 
deferring from the date of May 18, which the subcommittee has set, and 
deferring to the full committee. It is not a matter of who conducts the 
hearings. Let the full committee do it. But let us do it with 
reasonable promptness.
  I think it is important that we not talk about personal Senatorial 
prerogatives or about being ordered to do something, not talk about 
conduct them ``if necessary,'' after the House holds it hearings, or 
not talk about the vagaries of the near future. We need to set a time 
when at least we will let all Americans know we are going to move 
ahead, we are not stonewalling, and although we are not having the 
hearing on May 18, we will at least set a date that will give public 
assurance--that we will give the public assurance that we will let the 
chips fall where they may and there will be accountability in America 
regardless of how high the officials may be.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I strongly support the call for hearings 
into the Federal Government's handling of standoffs in Naples, ID and 
Waco, TX.
  Some of my colleagues may remember I have been pushing for many 
months to get the Government to tell what it knows about the incident 
in my home State--often referred to as Ruby Ridge. I asked for an 
investigation of the incident, which was done; I pressed for release of 
the reports of that investigation, which is presently awaiting the 
consent of the local Idaho prosecutor; and in January, I asked for 
hearings in the Senate.
  Government agents have already been disciplined for acts and failures 
to act at Ruby Ridge. Just a few weeks ago, the Deputy Attorney General 
released a list of problems that she thinks occurred there and asked 
the heads of three agencies to report how they are addressing these 
problems.
  Yet there still has not been any public accounting as to what 
happened, nor answers to the questions that continue to multiply.
  Mr. President, the public has a right to know. The Senate should hold 
hearings into this matter and into the handling of the Waco standoff, 
as well.
  There are some who have suggested that now is not the time for these 
hearings. They say we should wait until Oklahoma City recovers, or 
until the polls show a more favorable political climate in the country, 
or some other goal is met.
  At the same time, we have been hearing a lot in the press and even in 
this Chamber about the public's so-called ``paranoia''--fear and 
mistrust of the Federal Government that is being labeled as irrational.
  I should not need to remind my colleagues: fear breeds in ignorance. 
Mistrust is fueled by rumor. The worst thing this Congress could do to 
improve the situation would be to put these issues on the shelf or try 
to drive public discussion underground.
  That is not the way a responsive, and responsible, representative 
body should operate. We depend upon our State and Federal
 authorities to maintain order and keep the peace, and we trust they 
will do so in a way that is consistent with the law and in keeping with 
the trust we have placed in them. Sometimes a line is crossed that runs 
the risk of breaking the trust and confidence Americans have place in 
our Federal law enforcement community.

  Many across America fear such a line was crossed at Waco and at Ruby 
Ridge. That fear has only increased, not decreased, as the days and 
months have passed without an adequate Congressional response.
  Surely everyone in this Congress would agree that it would be helpful 
to have answers to these questions before we respond to Federal law 
enforcement requests for greater powers and resources. Hearings in this 
area may well point out areas where additional help is needed; 
conversely, they may point out areas where additional powers may 
contribute to the potential for abuse. And if Congress deserves to know 
the answers to these questions before making such an important policy 
determination, surely the public also deserves it.
  Mr. President, it serves neither the law enforcement community nor 
the interests of civil liberties or delay addressing these incidents. 
We should hold hearings and seek answers to the legitimate questions 
that have been raised--and we should do it now, rather than allow the 
cancer of suspicion and mistrust to grow.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's amendment is currently not 
pending for those purposes. It takes unanimous consent to order the 
yeas and nays on your amendment, Senator.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment 
be considered as a freestanding resolution which, as I understand from 
the Parliamentarian, is permissible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It does take unanimous consent.
  Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent it be considered as a 
freestanding resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator from Minnesota, 
and acting as Chair, I do object.
  Objection is heard.
  Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be 
ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection that it be in order to 
order the yeas and nays at this time?
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is clearly not a sufficient second.
  Mr. SPECTER. All Senators on the floor are voting in favor of the 
yeas and nays.
  Come on now, Mr. President, I have seen the yeas and nays ordered 
with one Senator on the floor asking for the yeas and nays constituting 
a sufficient second.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. According to the Parliamentarian, a minimum of 
11 Senators need to be on the floor for a sufficient second.
  Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Will the 
Parliamentarian represent that the yeas and nays have not been ordered 
in any case he has seen where fewer than 11 Members of the Senate have 
asked for the yeas and nays?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator, there is not a record kept of that, 
according to the Parliamentarian. So the information would not be 
available.
  Mr. SPECTER. I ask for his best recollection but not necessarily a 
record, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be 
ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, so 
ordered.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. 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. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________
```