S7474 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized. 

f 

MORNING BUSINESS 

Mr. DOLE. I want to ask that there 

be a period for the transaction of routine morning business for about the 

next 10 minutes or so. There are a couple of people who want to speak. Then 

we will turn to the terrorism bill. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for the 

transaction of routine morning business with Members permitted to speak 

for not more than 5 minutes each, and 

that at 6:45 the Senate then turn to the 

consideration of Calendar No. 192, S. 

735, the antiterrorism bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

GRAMS). The Senator from Vermont is 

recognized. 

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Chair. 

(The remarks of Mr. JEFFORDS pertaining to the introduction of S. 856 are 

located in today’s RECORD under 

‘‘Statements on Introduced Bills and 

Joint Resolutions.

f 

’’) 

HEARINGS ON TERRORISM 

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the 

Subcommittee on Terrorism of the Judiciary Committee was scheduled to 

have hearings on terrorism today. 

Those hearings could not be held because the Senate was in session continuously from 9 a.m. with rollcall 

votes of 9 minutes. So those hearings 

had to be postponed. They are going to 

be held on Thursday, June 8. 

A good many people came from substantial distances. I expressed our regrets that we could not hold the hearing. But it was not possible to do so. 

But I did tell them that the statements 

which had been submitted would be put 

in the RECORD at this time so that 

their prepared statements could at 

least be read by Members of the Senate 

or those interested in reading them. 

At this time, I ask unanimous consent that the statement of attorney 

John W. DeCamp, the statement of Mr. 

Norman Olson, the statement of Mr. 

Leroy Crenshaw, and the statement of 

the Militia of Montana be printed in 

the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the statements were ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

Memorandum from: Senator John W. DeCamp, Atty. 

To: Sub Committee on Terrorism, U.S. Senator Judiciary Committee. 

Re: Testimony to Committee. 

To paraphrase an old saying. . . . ‘‘Five 

months ago I couldn’t spell ‘Militia’ and now 

I represent one.’’

It was five months ago I agreed to PROVIDE LEGAL ASSISTANCE TO the leaders 

of the Montana Militia on a dozen felonies. 

Why? I felt the felony charges involved open 

and shut first amendment issues of freedom 

of speech, assembly and right to petition 

Government issues, and have learned a 

wealth of information since that time—particularly in light of the Oklahoma bombing 

and the anti-militia movement. 

Before I go too much further, let me give 

brief background on myself and let me answer the first questions that press and your 

staff asked of me. 

Question: Are you a white supremacist? 

My wife is Vietnamese—one of the 

Boatpeople. Our four home made 

AMERASIAN children are the four most 

beautiful and talented mixed race children 

on the planet. My business partner is African-American. My Comptroller is Indian 

from Bombay & my legal associates over the 

years have been mostly Jewish. You make 

your own conclusions. 

Question: Are these militias dangerous? 

Absolutely yes, and absolutely no. 

First, the media and MOST OF US have 

made the same fundamental error (‘‘Cat Bagging’’ I call it) as was made during the 

McCarthy Era, during the Vietnam War Protest Movement, and during Watergate. 

That is, we lump all the Militias, the So 

Called Patriot groups, and Tax Protesters 

and Free Men & Survivalist Groups together 

as identical cats and then put them all into 

one bag. 

Second, we SELECT An individual or entity that is simply off the spectrum in their 

beliefs, one not tethered to reality and attribute those horrible characteristics to all 

the militias. In short, we ‘‘demonize’’ them. 

Quickly, they are all labeled as white supremacist, racist, anti-government, paranoid 

revolutionaries fixing to blow up the world. 

The truth is that there is as much diversity among these groups as there is among 

religious groups. As a young boy, I remember 

sitting in the front pew and hearing the 

Priest in my small town of 1,800 people explain why the Protestants were all going to 

hell. And, on Monday morning at school my 

best friend, a Protestant kid named Jimmy, 

would explain to me that his preacher had 

told him the same thing about us Catholics 

the day before. 

It has been my observation that many of 

these groups—particularly the ones I considered not tethered to reality—are a bit like 

the Priest and the Preacher * * *. That is, 

much of their effort is devoted to explaining 

to their members why the other group are 

not real patriots, or why Bo Gritz or John 

Trochman are really C.I.A. agents. 

In truth, most of the militia groups—Montana Militia, Oklahoma Militia, New Hampshire Militia—could be classified as middle of 

the road among hard conservatives. What do 

I mean? 

Ten, twenty and thirty years ago they are 

the individuals who were clamoring for ‘‘Law 

and Order.’

I suppose it is ironic, some might say poetic, that what many of them sought, ‘‘Law 

and Order’’ has now come to pass in a FORM 

they deem to be excess * * * that is too 

much oppressive law and abuse of the Constitution. And ‘‘order’’ has become what they 

fear to be ‘‘a new world order.’’ And thru 

speaking out, they want everyone to know 

this attitude on their part and their fears 

and concerns. 

But are they dangerous? 

They are a political movement. All political movements are dangerous to some other 

political movement they run counter to. 

That is how our system of government 

evolves * * * thru political conflict and wars 

fought with words instead of bullets and 

fought in the press and from the bully pulpit 

instead of on the battlefield. 

Ultimately, that is the only truly distinguishing feature separating our 200-year-old 

political system from all others that went 

before it. Namely, the ability thru verbal 

conflict and battle for our system to reverse 

itself (revolution) and go in an opposite direction without the necessity of a violent 

revolution. 

But are they physically dangerous or a 

threat to our Government or our Constitution? 

You judge * * * but do it on the facts, not 

on innuendo or the words of the natural enemies of these militias, namely, other political groups opposed to their philosophy. 

To the best of my knowledge, there are no 

reported incidents of any significance of militias being involved in any of the following: 

1. Drive by shootings. 

2. The drug trade. 

3. Use of children for pornography, 

pedophilia & drug couriers. 

4. Gang wars. 

5. Auto theft. 

6. Murder, rape, robbery, trafficking in illegal arms. 

If militias are involved in these somebody 

is not reporting them. And I doubt that. 

For benefit of those who might differ with 

me on this, I would point out that in each of 

the incidents you might be familiar with, 

Gordon Kahl, Radny Weaver, Waco, the 

events were initiated by the Government in 

an attempt to serve usually misdemeanor 

warrants on contested tax matters using 

overwhelming force and what in hindsight 

seems rather poor judgement. 

In short, an analysis by you will show that 

the militias themselves have been the victim 

of violence rather than the perpetrator or 

initiator. 

As an example to prove my point, I challenge this committee to examine the most 

notorious & deadly event in American history involving U.S. marshals * * * namely, 

the Gordon Kahl shoot-out 12 years ago in 

which about a half-dozen marshals were 

shot, and Kahl escaped resulting in the largest manhunt in American history. 

Have the courage to OBJECTIVELY examine this event—same with Waco—, and you 

will begin to understand the origins of the 

militia movement, their disenchantment and 

fear of law enforcement and Government. 

Whether you believe Kahl was the most notorious and crazy tax protester in American 

History or whether you believe he was a 

martyr responsible for triggering the militia 

movement, it is only by understanding this 

case in depth that you can understand the 

origins of the Militia movement. 

Question: Are you, John DeCamp, a member of a militia? 

Sure, about twenty-five years ago I was a 

member. We called it the United States 

Army. We had training sessions and exercises in a place called Vietnam. I was an Infantry Captain there specially assigned to a 

man named Bill Colby. Bill subsequently became my friend, Godfather, advisor and 

Legal Associate on a case or two. Bill was 

the individual who insisted I write the book, 

the Franklin Coverup—which book resulted 

in some of the Militias asking me to represent them. You may remember Bill as the 

former head of a group called the C.I.A., Central Intelligence Agency. 

So, since Colby told me to write my book 

the Franklin Cover-up; and since the book 

resulted in my representing the Montana militia and being here today, I suppose I’m here 

because of the C.I.A. just kidding. . . . 

My Militia leader, a chap named McNamara, told us in Vietnam that we were winning; that our government was sincere . . . 

and a lot of other nice things that inspired 

us to get our heads blown off. Then a couple 

weeks ago, I understand Mr. McNamara told 

the world that he was only ‘‘funnin’’ us when 

he told us those things during the war. 

McNamara said that he or our other leader 

Lyndon knew all along that they were lying 

to us. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7475 

That is the about the same thing those war 

protesters were saying twenty-five years 

ago. But twenty-five years ago Mr. McNamara and Lyndon said the war protesters 

were lying and Mr. McNamara and Lyndon 

tried to suspend their right to criticize or 

question government. Lyndon tried to beat 

their heads in, lock them up and shut them 

up using government agencies. Now, I get a 

little gun-shy when I see the Government 

taking the same approach to the Militias 

today. Instead of raiding them, threatening 

them, indicting them for what they say and 

believe, let’s keep open minds and listen to 

their arguments the same as any other political debate. 

Who knows, we might discover that ‘‘truth 

lies somewhere in the middle’’ as it frequently does in all things in life. 

There is no proof at this point, nor any indication of proof, that the militias themselves—unlike Vietnam war protesters—have 

blown up any buildings, media and political 

innuendo to the contrary notwithstanding. 

Question: How should government treat the 

militias? 

The same as any other political movement 

or group. Give them the full benefit of the 

First Amendment. Let the war be fought in 

the press and with words. The legitimate 

ones will survive and maybe evolve. In open 

debate, any crazies will self-destruct. 

The only real danger from the militias is if 

you try to suspend pieces of the Constitution 

to shut them up or destroy them. 

For God’s sake . . . for America’s sake . . . 

don’t rip off a corner of our Constitution to 

address a crisis or threat that has yet to be 

proven to even exist. 

Three times in my short life, I have 

watched panic set in with Government Leaders. Those three times are: McCarthyism, 

Vietnam war protest movement, Watergate. 

Each time, government reacted by trying 

to suspend our Fundamental First Amendment Rights. 

McCarthyism: I remember * * * teachers 

taking loyalty oaths * * * neighbors questioning and accusing their neighbor or competitor of being a Communist. J. Edgar being 

given free reign to suspend the Constitution. 

And everybody was paranoid about their 

neighbor. 

Vietnam war protesters: I sure remember 

that. First reaction was to try to shut them 

up. That simply resulted in violence. 

Watergate: My hero Dick Nixon panicked 

and for his own security also tried to rip off 

a corner of the Constitution and shut up his 

critics. That resulted in a brutal First 

Amendment ‘‘caning.’’

But, in each case, it was not the Government which saved the Constitution for the 

people; rather it was the free and unfettered 

press using their First Amendment which 

saved the Constitution from the Government 

abuse. 

That First Amendment—and the free press 

and robust and wild and wooly free speech it 

promotes—is our ultimate check and balance 

to preserve the Constitution. 

Whether it is Edward R. Murrow exposing 

McCarthy as a Charlatan; or the New York 

Times daring to print the Pentagon Papers; 

or, God Forbid, the Washington Post taking 

on Nixon and the entire government in Watergate, it has been the press operating 

under the First Amendment that has saved 

our Constitution and Americans from Government abuse rather than the Government 

saving our Constitution from press or American citizen abuse. 

So what ever you do, don’t overreact and 

trade pieces of our Constitution for an instant solution to some perceived but 

unproved problem. 

Let me conclude by simply saying this: the 

best way to understand the militias, their 

motives, their agenda, their danger or their 

benefit to America is to understand their 

origins. 

And, you can only understand their origins 

if you will as a governing body publicly, 

openly and thoroughly examine Waco and 

Gordon Kahl and Randy Weaver. 

This is what we ask of you. An open, public, above-board Senate examination of those 

events that will help re-establish, no matter 

the outcome of that objective examination, 

trust and credibility in our Government 

agencies when they speak. 

(From The Alanson Armory: Wolverines, 

May 24, 1995) 

TESTIMONY OF MR. NORMAN OLSON

Thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today. The following statement will attempt 

to answer the question of the legitimacy and 

the need of the citizen militia. 

Not only does the Constitution specifically 

allow the formation of a Federal army, it 

also recognizes the inherent right of the people to form militia. Further, it recognizes 

that the citizen and his personal armaments 

are the foundation of the militia. The arming of the militia is not left to the state but 

to the citizen. However, should the state 

choose to arm its citizen militia, it is free to 

do (bearing in mind that the Constitution is 

not a document limiting the citizen, but 

rather limiting the power of government). 

But should the state fail to arm its citizen 

militia, the right of the people to keep and 

bear arms becomes the source of the guarantee that the state will not be found defenseless in the presence of a threat to its security. It makes no sense whatsoever to look 

at the Constitution of the United States or 

that of any state for permission to form a 

citizen militia since logically, the power to 

permit is also the power to deny. If brought 

to its logical conclusion in this case, government may deny the citizen the right to form 

a militia. If this were to happen, the state 

would assert itself as the principle of the 

contract making the people the agents. Liberty then would depend on the state’s grant 

of liberty. Such a concept is foreign to American thought. 

While the Second Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution acknowledges the existence of 

state militia and recognizes their necessity 

for the security of a free state; and, while it 

also recognizes that the right of the people 

to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, 

the Second Amendment is not the source of 

the right to form a militia nor to keep and 

bear arms. Those rights existed in the states 

prior to the formation of the federal union. 

In fact, the right to form militia and to keep 

and bear arms existed from antiquity. The 

enumeration of those rights in the Constitution only underscores their natural occurrence and importance. 

According to the Tenth Amendment, ultimate power over the militia is not delegated 

to the Federal government by the Constitution nor to the states, but resides with the 

people. Consequently, the power of the militia remains in the hands of the people. 

Again, the fundamental function of the militia in society remains with the people. 

Therefore, the Second Amendment recognizes that the militia’s existence and the security of the state rests ultimately in the 

people who volunteer their persons to constitute the militia and their arms to supply 

its firepower. The primary defense of the 

state rests with the citizen militia bearing 

its own arms. Fundamentally, it is not the 

state that defends the people, but the people 

who defend the state. 

The second line of defense of the state consists in the statutory organization known as 

the National Guard. Whereas the National 

Guard is solely the creation of statutory law, 

the militia derives its existence from the inherent inalienable rights which existed before the Constitution and whose importance 

are such that they merited specific recognition in that document. While the National 

Guard came into existence as a result of legislative activity, the militia existed before 

there was a nation or a constitutional form 

of government. The militia consisting of people owning and bearing personal weapons is 

the very authority out of which the United 

States Constitution grew. This point must be 

emphasized. Neither the citizen’s militia nor 

the citizen’s private arsenal can be an appropriate subject for federal regulation. It was 

the armed militia of the American colonies 

whose own efforts ultimately led to the establishment of the United States of America! 

While some say that the right to keep and 

bear arms is granted to Americans by the 

Constitution, just the opposite is true. The 

Federal Government itself is the child of the 

armed citizen. We the people are the parent 

of the child we call government. You, Senators, are part of the child that We The People gave life to. The increasing amount of 

Federal encroachment into our lives indicates the need for parental corrective action. 

In short, the Federal government needs a 

good spanking to make it behave. 

One other important point needs to be 

made. Since the Constitution is the limiting 

document upon the government, the government cannot become greater than the granting power, that is the servant cannot become 

greater than his master. Therefore, should 

the Chief Executive or other branch of government, or all branches together act to suspend the Constitution under a rule of martial law, all power granted to government 

would be canceled and defer back to the 

granting power, the people. Martial law shall 

not be possible in this country as long as the 

people recognize the Bill of Rights as inalienable. 

Since the power of self defense and the defense of the state is ultimately vested in the 

people, there is no possible way that a Governor or the Chief Executive of the United 

States, or any legislative body can ‘‘outlaw’’

the citizen militia for to do so would rob inherent power from the people. If that were to 

happen, our entire form of government would 

cease. 

Historically, we have found that the Governor’s militia, that is the National Guard, 

is intended to reduce the need for the citizen 

militia. Simply, if the National Guard did 

it’s job in securing the state, the citizen militia would not emerge. That it has emerged 

so dramatically seems to indicate that the 

people do not feel secure. Simply stated, the 

growing threat of centralized Federal government is frightening America, hence the 

emergence of the citizen militia. When government is given back to the people at the 

lowest level, the citizen militia will return 

to its natural place, resident within the body 

of the people. Civil war and revolution can be 

avoided by re-investing governing power to 

the people. 

To summarize: Citizen militia are historic 

lawful entities predating constitutions. Such 

militia are ‘‘grandfathered’’ into the very 

system of government they created. The 

Constitution grants no right to form militia, 

but merely recognize the existing natural 

right of all people to defend and protect 

themselves. The governments created out of 

well armed and free people are to be constantly obedient to the people. Any attempt 

to take the means of freedom from the people is an act of rebellion against the people. 

In order to resist a rebellious and disobedient government, the citizen militia must 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7476 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

not be connected in any way with that government lest the body politic loose its fearful countenance as the only sure threat to a 

government bent on converting free people 

into slaves. 

TESTIMONY OF LEROY CRENSHAW BEFORE THE

SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, MAY

25, 1995 

Good Morning Chairman Hatch and Distinguished Members of this Committee. 

My name is Leroy Crenshaw, and I would 

request that this Committee accept my prepared statement as a part of the record of 

these proceedings. 

I was born and raised in the beautiful 

State of Alabama, and I now live and teach 

school in the great State of Massachusetts. I 

have a faithful and supporting wife and we 

have raised six fine children. 

We all feel privileged to have been born in 

these times when the promise of our forefathers has begun to spread to all races, colors, and creeds, of our countrymen. Ironically however, these times have evolved all 

too soon into conflicts between my countrymen of all races and the officers of their government. For many of my friends who are 

not Black Americans, these times have 

brought circumstances into their lives that 

have no memorable precedent. For me and 

my wife, we see emerging official conduct 

that is all too reminiscent of earlier days of 

‘‘us’’ and ‘‘them’’ that Black Americans have 

known as their daily diet since our country 

began. We welcome our white brethren to 

our sides in this time of burgeoning oppression. 

During recent times, we ordinary Americans have experienced repeated episodes of 

authoritarian confrontation provoked and 

executed by our federal government. We 

have witnessed with horror as each of our individual rights, as enumerated in the first 

Ten Amendments to our Constitution, has 

fallen to attack by our federal government 

at the highest levels. We have repeatedly attempted redress through our courts, through 

our elected Representatives and Senators, 

and through pleading with the agencies of 

our government, all to no avail after a consistent pattern of restatement of our issues 

into ‘‘non-issues’’, in order to avoid dealing 

with the substance of our complaints. 

We have witnessed our federal Government 

make itself a party to the collapse of our 

banking and Savings and Loan institutions. 

We have witnessed our Government commit our young men to foreign military adventurism upon false premise, and upon an 

usurped authority. 

We have all been victims of federal incursion into our private financial affairs to the 

point of our right invasion of the sanctity of 

our family domain, under the guise of routing out fraud by us working Americans. 

We have witnessed out right and provable 

lies told to the records of our federal courts 

by the judges appointed to these high positions. 

We have witnessed our own President disclaim our Bill of Rights as ‘‘radical’’ liberties to be granted to ordinary people. 

We have witnessed one Vice President 

(Quayle), along with at least one Attorney 

General (Barr), attempt to convince us to 

abandon our right to jury trials in all criminal cases and an civil case in excess of twenty dollars (1990–1991). 

We have discovered that the CIA, the Department of Justice, and the DEA, along 

with other agencies of government have 

worked in concert to engage and profiteer 

from drug trafficking. 

We have witnessed the compromise of the 

sovereignty of our state governments by federal funding schemes that always contain a 

myriad of control strings. 

We have witnessed our community controlled school systems invaded by ‘‘better 

idea’’ federally funded concepts that offer no 

rational solutions, except mind conditioning 

of our young into ‘‘interdependent’’ concepts 

that scorn the virtue of self reliance and fundamental education. 

We have witnessed repeated instances 

when officers of our federal government, acting under color of federal law, have committed multiple crimes against us, in the 

form of actual violence, and in the form of 

‘white collar’ extortion, theft, embezzlement, and provable fraud. 

We have witnessed the consistent official 

forgiving of these crimes without any authority under our Constitution to grant 

these officers any reprieve for their offenses 

against our laws and our Constitution. 

We have studied our Law, and we have 

found there our fundamental rights still 

stated to be ‘‘protected’’. 

We also have found within our Constitution, the prescription for dealing with these 

perversions to our security that trouble us so 

much. 

We find in the First Amendment to the 

Constitution that the Congress shall pass no 

law abridging our right ‘‘peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.’’, but Congress has 

passed such laws. 

We find the Second Amendment constitutionally prescribed protection of our individual duty to take arms if need be in defense of our Constitution, to be under attack 

by our own Congressmen. 

We find in the Fourth Amendment, our 

protection of our right to be secure in our 

homes from official threats against our persons, our papers, and our effects, against 

searches and seizures upon non-existent or 

warrantless incursions into our private domains, but we know of repeated incidents of 

just such incursions into the homes of persons who are later found to be completely innocent of any wrongdoing, and some of such 

persons have died as a result. 

We find in the Fifth amendment that none 

of us is to be deprived of our life, without 

due process of law, but we know now of many 

unarguably innocent people who have been 

killed by our federal officers who knew of the 

innocence of their victims before their killing acts. 

We find in the Fifth Amendment that none 

of us is to be deprived of our liberty without 

due process of law, but we know that many 

of us have been imprisoned upon trumped up 

charges that are ultimately shown to have 

been knowingly brought upon fraudulent 

grounds. 

We find in the Fifth Amendment that none 

of us is to be deprived of our property without due process of law, but we know that 

many of us has had his cash, possessions, and 

future means of earning a living, seized without any opportunity to oppose such seizure 

before the fact. 

We find in the Fifth Amendment that each 

of us is entitle to obtain ‘‘just compensation’’ as payment from our government before our property of any sort is taken for 

public purposes, but our government is depriving us of that which is ours upon a daily 

basis without any payment what so ever. 

For all the above findings, the officers of 

our government are acting in clear repugnance to our Constitution. Those in government who control the course of redress within our institutions know that we have suffered these crimes under our Constitution. 

Yet, they do nothing, and these facts constitute a condition of officials acting in insurrection and rebellion against our Constitution, as meant in section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

We all know that should our government 

fail to immediately purge itself of such manner of conduct, that we each are empowered 

by Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment 

to suppress any such manner of insurrection 

and rebellion—at the expense of our National 

Treasury. 

Now let us all understand: 

That we the people have always had, and 

still possess, the right, the duty, and the 

power, to ‘‘effect [our] Safety and Happiness.’’

That, ‘‘Prudence . . . will dictate that Governments long established [such as ours] 

should not be changed for light and transient 

causes; and . . . all [our] experience has 

shown, that mankind is more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right 

themselves by abolishing the forms to which 

[we] are accustomed. But when a long train 

of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce [us] under absolute Despotism, it is 

[our] right, it is our duty, to throw off such 

government [or usurping officers within], 

and to provide new Guards for [our] future 

security.’’

‘‘Such has been the patient sufferance of 

[my countrymen]; and such is now the necessity which constrains [us] to alter [our 

present state of oppression].’’ To this end, we 

have commenced to keep and bear our Arms 

upon common respect and allegiance to the 

defense of our Constitution, and to those 

long suffering public servants of our government who are compelled to remain silent 

while a small arrogant elitist sect wield powers never granted to them by us, and destroy 

our nation. 

My humble message to this panel is that 

we know you and your counterparts in the 

House of Representatives are aware of these 

problems, and your sworn duty to suppress 

those federal officials acting against us. We 

urge you to do your duty. We shall not fail 

to do ours. 

Thank you all for your kind attention. 

LEROY CRENSHAW, 

Springfield, MA, May 25, 1995. 

Hon. ROBERT GOLDBERG, 

Subcommittee on Terrorism, Senate Office 

Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I come before this 

subcommittee on terrorism to state my 

views, establish for the record the basic concepts behind the Militia movement, and for 

all American’s who are unable to receive justice from a system that is bogged down in 

red tape and corruption. 

First, I speak for myself. My dealings with 

the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] began at 

a time when I was personally involved with 

two deaths in my immediate family. One was 

our daughter, the other was my wife’s mother. The IRS claimed we owed an additional 

$1,000.00 to $2,000.00 in taxes. This figure skyrocketed from that level to $12,000.00 after 

application of penalties and fines. Upon advice of the federal judge who heard our case, 

we paid nothing pending a class action suit 

against the tax shelter. The IRS subsequently closed down the tax shelter, and all 

participants who were assessed additional 

taxes, fines, and penalties, by the IRS for 

their good faith money management. As I 

said, at that time I was under stress, having 

just lost two loved ones, and so we paid the 

$12,000.00. We were given forms to complete 

that we were told would allow the debt to be 

forgiven. However, nothing has come of this 

assurance to date. The forms were returned 

to the IRS, and we made several telephone 

calls on this matter only to be told that no 

one knew anything about this. Justice has 

not been served in our matter, and I petition 

this chamber to launch an investigation and 

return to myself and every other individual 

that has been targeted by the IRS any and 

all moneys that have been taken under duress and threat of prosecution. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7477 

Another case is that of Thomas M. Read v. 

The United States of America, et al. This case 

went to the U.S. Supreme Court upon dismissals all along the way (Supreme Court Docket No. 92–1952). Thomas Read, and his wife 

Sandy, had been hounded for six and one-half 

years by corrupted federal court appointees 

in the Northern California bankruptcy system. Neither Read, nor his wife, has any connection to any bankruptcy—except by the 

fraudulent and false claims lodged under 

Connecticut law against them. In October of 

1986, Read underwent a two week jury trail, 

and he and his wife were found to have been 

completely innocent of the allegations 

lodged against them. It was a jury trial, and 

the jury determined that the plaintiff, a 

bankruptcy trustee, was guilty of knowingly 

inducing the Reads into a fraud, a tort offense under Connecticut law. But the trustee 

ran to his bankruptcy judge in California, 

and sought and received a ‘‘Permanent Injunction’’ against the Reads from ever acting 

upon their judgment upon the issues he (the 

trustee) had brought to trial in Connecticut 

Superior Court. The case had not been removed to federal jurisdiction—because a 

prior federal action brought against the 

Reads had resulted in an abstention by the 

federal courts of exercise of federal jurisdiction over this case, and also because the 

time limitations for removal to federal jurisdiction had long since expired. Mr. Read was 

not aware of the corruption that existed in 

the Northern California bankruptcy system, 

and filed an appeal to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit. That court misstated 

facts, and proceeded to proclaim bankruptcy 

trustees immune from personal liability 

upon the false premise that they possessed 

‘‘derived judicial immunity’’ (This case was 

mentioned in Rodney Stitch’s Book Defrauding America, pp. 109 and 110), even though 

these trustees do not function in a judicial 

capacity. The Reads had already suffered a 

$346,000.00 loss resulting from the years of 

fraudulent suit, and ultimately suffered a 

complete financial collapse, in 1989. 

Since that time, Mr. Read has been railed 

upon by our federal courts when he has stated the facts of this case. The fact remains, a 

jury determined that court appointees did 

conceive and work in concert to perpetrate a 

fraud upon the Reads. If our government, in 

order to serve the public, must commit acts 

constituting torts against ordinary citizens 

and protect its appointed federal actors, then 

the government assumes the burden of justly 

compensating the damaged parties under the 

Fifth Amendment Taking Clause. In this 

case, and many others, it did not. 

Finally we come to the militia movement. 

Because of all of the above incidents, and 

many more, the citizens of this country have 

become disenchanted, skeptical, and suspicious, of our federal government on all levels. I, myself, am not a member of any militia, but having been involved in a dispute 

with the government in the form of the IRS, 

and having seen many friends who have become involved in incidents that were not of 

their making or choosing, I have come to realize that we must force our elected officials 

to do our bidding because they refuse to respond to us. I must conclude that, since 

there is so much corruption in government, 

and there seems to be no way that the ‘‘good 

guys’’ can be differentiated from the ‘‘bad 

guys’’, by the government, then, we have to 

eliminate the ‘‘bad guys’’ ourselves. I am 

here to advise you that the American people 

are waking up, and these awakening Americans are seeing the truth of our times. They 

are seeing many of you, and many of your 

colleagues, lie and deceive us without even a 

thought of remorse. 

The militia movement started because the 

majority of the politicians are not telling 

the truth and the people have no redress for 

their grievances. The politicians are liars 

and the news media are purveyors of these 

lies as if they were the truth. The militia 

movement is comprised of ordinary every 

day people who love their country and the 

way of life that is slowly being sucked away 

by government officers acting upon an 

usurped authority. You were all put in office 

by people who are in the militia, who are 

teachers, like myself, and who are more likely than ever to be unemployed individuals 

due to unconstitutional laws passed by this 

Congress, and Executive Orders signed into 

law that should never see the light of day. 

Certain actions by the ATF, CIA, IRS, and 

other federal agencies have brought attention to themselves and their ‘‘Jack booted 

thugs’’ by the few who need to be eliminated 

from the ranks of federal government. There 

is no justice if the ones who shoot nursing 

mothers and dogs, and little children in the 

back, later get promoted instead of prosecuted. Case in point is Special Agent Potts. 

Let’s get some justice for the American people by putting this murdered (Potts) in jail. 

We don’t want him promoted, we want him, 

and others of his ilk, out of office, with NO 

benefits, NO retirement, and NO chance of 

ever later acquiring them. If a public officer 

dishonors his oath to defend and protect the 

Constitution, that officer should relinquish 

any rights he or she thought that were 

theirs, but instead it is the people of America who end up relinquishing their individual 

rights. That IS a crime. People who break 

the law need to be punished, that includes 

politicians, judges, trustees, or anyone who 

has acted in violation of the public trust. 

The terrorism that has been perpetrated 

against America, has been against all Americans. How dare they insinuate that loyal 

Americans would stoop to hurt other Americans. Yet, individuals in the person of Ms. 

Janet Reno, have the nerve to sit there and 

act indignant about charges spoken against 

her on the Waco massacre. Make no mistake, 

it was a massacre, and I doubt if the truth 

will ever be told because of the corruption 

and graft that permeates the entire justice 

system. These harsh words, but not nearly as 

harsh as the reality that American citizens 

endure each day. 

There is today in America, a resurgence of 

loyalty and if you are not corrupt, if you 

work for the people, and if you uphold the 

Constitution, you have nothing to fear from 

anyone, much less a militia movement. Unfortunately, payoffs, underhanded money 

deals, corruption and illegal use of the power 

of office is the rule rather than the exception. Some believe that the only terrorism 

instigated in this country today, has been at 

the hands of government officials. I don’t see 

the people of this country putting up concrete barriers around their homes. This 

country was founded on the premise that the 

government worked for the people, not the 

other way around. If we are being denied access to our ‘‘elected officials’’ what is the 

next step? The saying ‘‘A guilty mind needs 

no accuser’’ applies here! Only the guilty 

flee, when no one pursues. 

If Larry Nichols and Terry Reed are wrong 

in their accusations of massive drug trafficking against Mr. Clinton, let’s put them in 

jail after a fair trial. But, if as we all suspect, they are truthful, let’s put Mr. Clinton 

on the line, Impeach and prosecute and do 

not under any circumstance allow him to 

grant immunity or to pardon anyone. Is this 

too much to ask? I ask all of you, how many 

members of Congress as well as judges, etc., 

would remain in office of forced to be held 

accountable to the laws of the ordinary man. 

As a black man born and raised in Alabama, I’ve been subjected to things most 

Americans only read about in History books. 

Now, today, in this country, land of the free 

home of the brave, white Americans are beginning to be subjected to the same types of 

discrimination and random acts of violence 

that are really not targeted at any one 

group, but at all Americans who love their 

country and are trying to get rid of the corruption and graft that lines our courtrooms 

and legal professions. The few bad applies do 

spoil it for the ‘‘good guys’’ every time. 

Sincerely, 

LEROY CRENSHAW. 

EXCERPT FROM HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND COMMERCIAL

LAW OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

NOVEMBER 6, 1991 

Hamilton described another bankruptcyrelated killing, in which attorney John Scott 

was murdered as his charges of bankruptcy 

corruption started to threaten the established racketeering enterprise and the involved federal judges, trustees and law firms. 

Someone killed Scott near Austin, Texas. 

GIVING THEMSELVES IMMUNITY FROM THEIR

CRIMES

Federal judges of the Ninth Circuit held 

that the private trustees, including embezzler Charles Duck, who committed the nation’s worst Chapter 11 corruption, were officers of the court, and were therefore immune 

from liability. Federal judges, therefore, 

held that a citizen has no claim against an 

officer of the court (i.e., trustee, attorney, 

judge, or one of their employees) arising 

from the criminal acts of that federal official, even though the acts are criminal and 

inflict enormous harm upon an innocent person. They held in effect that officers of the 

court could inflict any type of outrage upon 

the public, and the public has no remedy. 

One of the many people victimized by the 

judicial corruption was Thomas Read of Connecticut. Read had not sought relief in Chapter 11, but was affected by Charles Duck, and 

the federal judges seeking to protect the admitted embezzler. Read obtained a Connecticut judgment against Duck. Bankruptcy Judge Alan Jaroslovsky of Santa 

Rosa, who had protected Duck’s criminal activities, issued an injunction forever barring 

Read from enforcing the judgment. Read argued that the injunctive order exceeded the 

judge’s authority. Read filed an appeal with 

the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate 

Panel (composed of Chapter 11 judges. The 

appellate panel rendered a published decision: 

‘‘Federal judges, seeking to protect these 

criminal acts and themselves, have rendered 

decisions holding that ‘‘judicial immunity 

not only protects judges against suit from 

acts done within their jurisdiction, but also 

spreads outward to shield related public 

servants, including trustees in bankruptcy.’’

‘‘This circuit has adopted a . . . rationale 

stating that a trustee or an official acting 

under the authority of the bankruptcy judge 

is entitled to derived judicial immunity because he is performing an integral part of 

the judicial process. . . . a trustee, who obtains court approval for actions under the 

supervision of the bankruptcy judge, is entitled to derived immunity. 

‘‘It is well settled that the trustee in bankruptcy is an officer of the appointing court. 

Courts other than the appointing court have 

no jurisdiction to entertain suits against the 

trustee, without leave from the appointing 

court, for acts done in an official capacity 

and within his authority as an officer of the 

court. . . . It is . . . axiomatic that the 

Trustee, ‘as a trustee in bankruptcy [and] as 

an official acting under the authority of the 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7478 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

bankruptcy judge, is entitled to derived judicial immunity because he is performing an 

integral part of the judicial process.’

‘‘Sound policy also mandates immunizing 

the trustee. The possibility that we would 

hold trustees personally liable for judgments 

rendered against them in their representative capacity would invariably lessen the 

vigor with which trustees pursue their obligations. Immunity is essential because, as 

Judge Learned Hand noted, ‘‘to submit all 

officials, the innocent as well as the guilty, 

to the burden of a trial and to the inevitable 

danger of its outcome, would dampen the 

ardor of all but the most resolute, or the 

most irresponsible, in the unflinching discharge of their duties. . . . Accordingly, we 

hold that the trustee [Charles Duck], acting 

under the authority of the court, is entitled 

to derived judicial immunity.’’

As the judicial involvement in the Chapter 

11 corruption surfaced, the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals rendered a judgment 103 protecting judges against responsibility for 

their criminal acts. The Ninth Circuit rendered the decision holding that regardless of 

any criminal conduct committed against the 

public or an individual by a judge or person 

acting on his behalf, such as a trustee, the 

public had no remedy against the judges, or 

anyone acting with the judges. The need for 

these self-protective and unconstitutional 

decisions is rapidly increasing as federal 

judges are heavily implicated in some of the 

worst criminal activities ever exposed in the 

history of the United States. Worse judicial 

corruption has yet to be described. 

Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court enlarged upon the protection against their own 

criminal acts (and they may need this protection shortly). The Supreme Court Justices held in Stump v. Sparkman104 that a 

judge could deliberately commit unlawful, 

unconstitutional, and corrupt acts upon a 

citizen, destroy personal and property rights, 

and be immune from financial liability. This 

decision was repeatedly stated by U.S. District Judge Marilyn Patel, San Francisco, as 

I sought relief against California and federal 

judges. 

The Constitution and statutes disagree 

with judge-made law, federal civil rights 

statutes and constitutional rights to seek relief clearly do not provide immunity to federal judges when they violate clear and settled civil and constitutional rights, or 

against corrupt or criminal acts, and who inflict harm upon any member of the American 

public. 

In Stump v. Sparkman the judge entered 

into a conspiracy, ordering a young girl permanently sterilized. The Supreme Court held 

that the girl had no remedy against the 

judge, as the public’s welfare requires that a 

judge be free to exercise his duties without 

fear of the consequences. That is a farce, and 

the public’s welfare isn’t protected by protecting crooked judges. 

APPEARANCE BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTI-TERRORISM, MAY 25, 1995 

Not only is it a pleasure to have this opportunity to define for your and America 

who and what the militia is, what they stand 

for and why all Americans have the constitutional obligation to participate in patriotic 

or militia groups, but it is also saddening 

that this opportunity arose out of the Oklahoma tragedy. 

Contrary to popular opinion, the Militia Of 

Montana does not base its existence upon the 

legal definition of militia. The foundation 

for the right to exist is clearly a First 

Amendment issue, freedom of speech and 

freedom of assembly, as a private organization. At this time there are approximately 

ten million American citizens participating 

in patriot/militia activities in all fifty 

states, with the numbers growing steadily 

every day. 

The Militia Of Montana, created by a few 

loyal American citizens, has become a national ‘‘guide-post’’ for newly founded patriot groups. 

Why people need to participate in militia/ 

patriot organizations and activities is best 

shown in the Declaration of Independence. It 

is too lengthy to read at this time, however 

it speaks for itself and for American patriots. We would like to request that this document be entered into the permanent record 

at this time, as a partial support document 

to our statements. 

The Declaration of Independence gives excellent insight and explanation as to why individuals go to extreme measures when flagrant injustices continue by ‘‘out of control’’, oppressive public servants. This same 

restrictive oppression is once again rearing 

its ugly head, only this time in America. 

The following are just a few examples as to 

why American citizens are becoming more 

and more involved in militia/patriot organizations: 

The high Office of the Presidency has 

turned into a position of a Dictator through 

the abusive use of Executive Orders and Directives. This must be stopped. The Senate 

and the House of Representatives have been 

stripped of their power and authority and act 

only as mouth pieces for ‘‘public policy’’. 

When the President over rules the Congress 

by Executive Order, Senators and Representatives wonder why their constituents are so 

upset. 

When government corruption, fraud, deception and secret government theft has not 

been tried and adjudicated, Senators and 

Representatives wonder why their constituents are so upset. 

When government plans and authorizes the 

assassination of 87 Americans in their home 

and church, or directs the sniper to kill a 

mother while holding her infant in her arms 

and then awards those responsible with a job 

promotion, Senators and Representatives 

wonder why their constituents are so upset. 

When government takes private property 

from American Citizens to protect the kangaroo rat, Senators and Representatives 

wonder why their constituents are so upset. 

When government law enforcers, dressed 

like local gang members in total black, bust 

down your door, often the wrong door, Senators and Representatives wonder why their 

constituents are so upset. 

When the President, Senate and House of 

Representatives infringed upon the Second 

Amendment, are attempting to infringe upon 

the Fourth Amendment (H.R. 666) and are 

now, through these hearings, contemplating 

on infringing upon the First Amendment, 

Senators and Representatives wonder why 

their constituents are so upset. 

When private interest groups like ‘‘The 

World Government of World Citizens’’ can 

sell their own stamps and their own passports to their own members and the government allows and accepts them as valid, contrary to the law, Senators and Representatives wonder why their constituents are so 

upset. 

When government allows our military to 

be ordered and controlled by foreigners, Senators and Representatives wonder why their 

constituents are so upset. 

When government allows foreign armies 

(some of whom are using them to kill their 

own citizens) to train in our land, Senators 

and Representatives wonder why their constituents are so upset. 

When government allows the military to 

label patriots as the enemy, Senators and 

Representatives wonder why their constituents are so upset. 

When government defines human beings as 

a biological resource under ecosystem management, Senators and Representatives wonder why their constituents are so upset. 

When government sends billions of dollars 

in aid to foreign countries while there are 

millions of homeless and starving Americans, Senators and Representatives wonder 

why their constituents are so upset. 

When government forces Americans to 

work over five months to pay their income 

taxes alone, Senators and Representatives 

wonder why their constituents are so upset. 

When government refuses to hold hearings 

on government sanctioned abuses, Senators 

and Representatives wonder why their constituents are so upset. 

When government tampers with and destroys evidence needed to solve a crime, Senators and Representatives wonder why their 

constituents are so upset. 

When government now considers the very 

idea of infringing upon the people’s rights of 

freedom of speech, assembly and the right to 

redress, Senators and Representatives wonder why their constituents are so upset. 

‘‘The Law perverted and the police powers 

of the state perverted along with it!! The law 

not only turns from its proper-purpose, but 

made to follow a totally contrary purpose, 

the law becomes the weapon of every kind of 

greed. 

Instead of checking crime the law itself becomes guilty of the evils it is supposed to 

pursue. 

Since this is now true, it is a grave and serious fact. Moral duty to my fellow man requires us to call these facts to the attention 

of our fellow citizens.’’

These were the words of a French Patriot, 

Frederick Bastiat, in 1884 as he watched his 

nation move into Socialism and an oppressive police state. 

These are identical concerns echoed today 

by the militia/patriot groups and organizations. These groups and organizations represent lawyers, doctors, soldiers and laborers. 

Militia/patriot organizations are not terroristic, aggressive or offensive in structure 

or design. We have, and presently deplore 

and denounce the senseless act of violence 

that took place in Oklahoma. We have and 

will continue to assist in any manner to apprehend all persons that may have planned 

or carried out that deed. At whatever level 

they may hide. 

Militia/patriot groups are only aggressive 

in our means by which we educate a docile 

American public. Our singular mandate, 

which is public and overt, is the preservation 

of the Constitution of the United States (a 

Republic), as it was founded and the Sovereignty of this great nation. 

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate and 

House of Representatives the people would 

like to know where and when it will end? 

Will it end with America turning into a Socialist Republic (which we all know is the 

end result of a Democracy)? Or, will you do 

your duty to fulfill your oath which all of 

you took to defend this country from all enemies foreign and domestic? 

If you decide to fulfill your oath the first 

thing you must do is stop relying upon 

rumor and gossip. Do not rely upon the press 

or other organizations which have their own 

agendas. Rely upon your own investigations. 

As one example, we would like to refer you 

to the Congressional Record of the 92d Congress, First Session, Vol. 117, No. 189, Monday, December 6, 1971, House of Representatives. Congressman John R. Rarick (D-La.) 

exposed the Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) 

vast world-wide spy network. According to 

Congressman Rarick the ADL provides information to the press which accepts it as 

truth, Congressman Rarick also stated the 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7479 

ADL uses its information ‘‘to suppress free 

speech and discussion and to influence public 

thought and sentiment of an unsuspecting 

citizenry.’’

Lo and behold what do we now have? Legislation that will suppress freedom of speech 

and discussion. 

In 1983 the Department of Justice (DOJ) 

paid the ADL $20,000 in taxpayers’ money to 

produce a report on so-called ‘‘hate groups’’. 

The DOJ refused to publish the report because it was so sensationalized that the DOJ 

could not consider it credible. The ADL went 

ahead with it’s own copyright and published 

the report anyway, feeding it to the press. 

The DOJ forced the ADL to relinquish the 

copyright. Now the ADL is once again feeding the press lies, rumor and gossip which 

the press accepts as gospel. 

The press then takes this mis-information, 

rumor and gossip, sensationalizes it to spin a 

tale until it grows and grows so out of proportion that the press starts scrambling to 

create a better story than the other guy. 

Law enforcement, military and government 

officials then pick up on it believing in a literal ‘‘feeding-frenzy’’ of the press. This has 

become a story that had lost control and 

those who do not investigate it for themselves are totally irresponsible, especially 

law makers. 

As we are now witnessing, Americans are 

questioning the press. This is evidenced by 

the phenomenal growth of the patriot/militia 

movement. 

As this patriotic awareness expands, millions of Americans will expect a new view 

from a more responsive government. A new 

re-birth of responsibility from a government 

that has strayed from it’s ‘‘job-description’’

as mandated by the Constitution. A government created by the people and for the people. Not the limited few. 

May God be with all America as he watches over the shoulders of you who write her 

laws. A nation can survive it’s fools and even 

the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason 

from within. 

America has nothing to fear from patriots 

maintaining ‘‘vigilance.’’ She should, however, fear those that would ‘‘outlaw’’ vigilance. 

f 

WACO AND RUBY RIDGE INQUIRIES 

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had 

been looking for some time to talk on 

my own inquiries into the events at 

Waco and Ruby Ridge, but since the 

leader has scheduled the terrorism bill 

to come up and has limited the opening 

statements in morning business to 5 

minutes, it is my intention to try to be 

the lead speaker tomorrow. That will 

fit into some of my opening comments 

on terrorism. I will present the findings of my preliminary inquiry at that 

time. 

I thank the Chair and yield the floor. 

f 

CONCLUSION OF MORNING 

BUSINESS 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that morning business be closed. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

COMPREHENSIVE TERRORISM 

PREVENTION ACT 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report S. 735 by title. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

A bill (S. 735) to prevent and punish acts of 

terrorism, and for other purposes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection to the immediate consideration of the bill? 

There being no objection, the Senate 

proceeded to consider the bill. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1199

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute 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], for 

Mr. DOLE, for himself, Mr. HATCH, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. GRAMM, and Mr. BROWN, 

proposes an amendment numbered 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 printed in today’s 

RECORD under ‘‘Amendments Submitted.’’) 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today the 

Senate begins consideration of the 

Dole-Hatch Comprehensive Terrorism 

Prevention Act of 1995. This amendment has within it one of the most important pieces of criminal law in this 

country’s history, and that is the DoleSpecter-Hatch habeas corpus reform 

bill. That is only one part of it, but 

that is the one part that will make a 

difference with regard to the Oklahoma 

City bombing. 

This legislation represents a landmark bipartisan effort to address the 

issue of grave national importance; 

that is, the prevention and punishment 

of acts of domestic and international 

terrorism. 

This legislation adds important tools 

to the Government’s fight against terrorism and does so in a temperate manner that is protective of civil liberties. 

In short, I believe that this bill is the 

most comprehensive antiterrorism bill 

ever considered in the Senate. 

This legislation increases the penalties for acts of foreign and domestic 

terrorism, including the use of weapons 

of mass destruction, attacks on officials and employees of the United 

States, and conspiracy to commit terrorist acts. 

It gives the President enhanced tools 

to use his foreign policy powers to 

combat terrorism overseas, and it gives 

those of our citizens harmed by terrorist acts of outlaw states the right to 

sue their attackers in our own courts 

of law. 

Our bill provides a constitutional 

mechanism to the Government to deport aliens suspected of engaging in 

terrorist activity without divulging 

our national security secrets. 

It also includes a provision that constitutionally limits the ability of foreign terrorist organizations to raise 

funds within the United States. 

Our bill also provides measured enhancements to the authority of Federal 

law enforcement to investigate terrorist threats and acts. In addition to 

giving law enforcement the legal tools 

they need to do the job, our bill also 

authorizes increased resources for law 

enforcement to carry out its mission. 

The bill provides for $1.8 billion over 5 

years for an enhanced antiterrorism effort at both the Federal and the State 

level. 

The bill also implements the convention on the marking of plastic explosives. It requires that the makers of 

plastic explosives make the explosives 

detectable. 

Finally, the bill appropriately reforms habeas corpus, as I mentioned 

before. 

The Specter-Hatch habeas corpus bill 

will correct some of the deficiencies in 

criminal law that exist today. It will 

stop the frivolous appeals that have 

been driving people nuts throughout 

this country and subjecting victims 

and families of victims to unnecessary 

pain for year after year after year. 

Habeas corpus allows those convicted 

of brutal crimes, including terrorism, 

to delay the just imposition of punishment for years. And this will correct 

that while still preserving and protecting the constitutional rights of 

those who are accused. 

Several points, however, should be 

addressed. I have long opposed the unchecked expansion of Federal authority and will continue to do so. Still, 

the Federal Government does have a legitimate role to play in our national 

life and in law enforcement. In particular, the Federal Government has an 

obligation to protect all of our citizens 

from serious criminal threats emanating from abroad or those that involve the national interest. Over 140 

years ago, Abraham Lincoln had this 

to say about the role of Government. 

The legitimate object of Government 

is—

. . . to do for the people what needs to be 

done, but which they cannot, by individual 

effort, do at all, or do so well, for themselves. If some men will kill, it is a common 

object with peaceful and just men to prevent 

it. 

Similarly, it is the responsibility of 

the Federal Government to assist the 

States in meeting those threats that 

none alone can adequately meet. The 

terrorist threat, whether posed by foreign entities or domestic interests, 

meets this test. 

We must, nevertheless, remember 

that our response to terrorism carries 

with it the grave risk of impinging on 

the rights of free speech, assembly, petition for the redress of grievances, and 

the right to keep and bear arms. We 

cannot allow this to happen. It would 

be cruel irony if, in response to the 

acts of evil and misguided men hostile 

to our Government, we stifled true debate on the proper role of Government. 

Nor shall we exchange our precious 

Constitution which has protected us 

for over 200 years for false promises of 

‘‘increased security.’’ For as Ben 

Franklin said: 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS