Mr. BIDEN. I offer a motion on behalf of Senator Nunn and myself to recommit the conference report with instructions to add a provision to give the military authority in the cases of emergency involving chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. President, once I formally make that motion, I would suggest to my colleagues that we will regret mightily if there is a chemical attack and this does not pass.
I now formally offer that motion to recommit.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], for Mr. Nunn, for himself and Mr. Biden, moves to recommit the conference report with instructions to add provisions.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the motion be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The motion is as follows:
Motion to recommit the conference report on the bill S.735 to the committee of conference with instructions to the managers on the part of the Senate to disagree to the conference substitute recommended by the committee of conference and insist on inserting the following:
SEC. 175. AUTHORITY TO REQUEST MILITARY ASSISTANCE WITH RESPECT TO OFFENSES INVOLVING BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS.
(a) Biological Weapons of Mass Destruction: Section 175 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(c)(1) Military Assistance.--The Attorney General may request that the Secretary of Defense provide assistance in support of Department of Justice activities relating to the enforcement of this section in an emergency situation involving biological weapons of mass destruction. Department of Defense resources, including personnel of the Department of Defense, may be used to provide such assistance if--
`(A) the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General determine that an emergency situation involving biological weapons of mass destruction exists; and
`(B) the Secretary of Defense determines that the provision of such assistance will not adversely affect the military preparedness of the United States.
`(2) As used in this section, `emergency situation involving biological weapons of mass destruction' means a circumstance involving a biological weapon of mass destruction--
`(A) that poses a serious threat to the interests of the United States; and
`(B) in which--
`(i) civilian expertise is not readily available to provide the required assistance to counter the threat posed by the biological weapon of mass destruction involved;
`(ii) Department of Defense special capabilities and expertise are needed to counter the threat posed by the biological weapon of mass destruction involved; and
`(iii) enforcement of the law would be seriously impaired if the Department of Defense assistance were not provided.
`(3) The assistance referred to in paragraph (1) includes the operation of equipment (including equipment made available under section 372 of title 10) to monitor, contain, disable, or dispose of a biological weapon of mass destruction or elements of the weapon.
`(4) The Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense shall jointly issue regulations concerning the types of assistance that may be provided under this subsection. Such regulations shall also describe the actions that Department of Defense personnel may take in circumstances incident to the provision of assistance under this subsection. Such regulations shall not authorize arrest or any direct participation in conducting searches and seizures that seek evidence related to violations of this section, except for the immediate protection of human life, unless participation in such activity is otherwise authorized under paragraph (3) or other applicable law.
`(5) The Secretary of Defense shall require reimbursement as a condition for providing assistance under this subsection in accordance with section 377 of title 10.
`(6)(A) Except to the extent otherwise provided by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General may exercise the authority of the Attorney General under this subsection. The Attorney General may delegate the Attorney General's authority under this subsection only to the Associate Attorney General or an Assistant Attorney General and only if the Associate Attorney General to whom delegated has been designated by the Attorney General to act for, and to exercise the general powers of, the Attorney General.
`(B) Except to the extent otherwise provided by the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense may exercise the authority of the Secretary of Defense under this subsection. The Secretary of Defense may delegate the Secretary's authority under this subsection only to an Under Secretary of Defense or an Assistant Secretary of Defense and only if the Under Secretary or Assistant Secretary to whom delegated has been designated by the Secretary to act for, and to exercise the general powers of, the Secretary.
`(7) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the executive branch in the use of military personnel or equipment for civilian law enforcement purposes beyond that provided by law before the date of enactment of [this Act].'.
`(b) Chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction.--The Chapter 113B of Title 18, United States Code, that relates to terrorism, is amended by inserting after section 2332a the following:
`2332b. Use of chemical weapons
`(a) Offense.--A person who without lawful authority uses, or attempts or conspires to use, a chemical weapon--
`(1) against a national of the United States while such national is outside of the United States;
`(2) against any person within the United States; or
`(3) against any property that is owned, leased or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside of the United States;
shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, and if death results, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
`(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
`(1) the term `national of the United States' has the meaning given in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)); and
`(2) the term `chemical weapon' means any weapon that is designed to cause widespread death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors.
`(c)(1) Military Assistance.--The Attorney General may request that the Secretary of Defense provide assistance in support of Department of Justice activities relating to the enforcement of this section in an emergency situation involving chemical weapons of mass destruction. Department of Defense resources, including personnel of the Department of Defense, may be used to provide such assistance if--
`(A) the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General determine that an emergency situation involving chemicals weapons of mass destruction exists; and
`(B) the Secretary of Defense determines that the provision of such assistance will not adversely affect the military preparedness of the United States.
`(2) as used in this section, `emergency situation involving chemical weapons of mass destruction' means a circumstance involving a chemical weapon of mass destruction--
`(A) that poses a serious threat to the interests of the United States; and
`(B) in which--
`(i) civilian expertise is not readily available to provide the required assistance
to counter the threat posed by the chemical weapon of mass destruction involved;
`(ii) Department of Defense special capabilities and expertise are needed to counter the threat posed by the biological weapon of mass destruction involved; and
`(iii) enforcement of the law would be seriously impaired if the Department of Defense assistance were not provided.
`(3) The assistance referred to in paragraph (1) includes the operation of equipment (including equipment made available under section 372 of title 10) to monitor, contain, disable, or dispose of a chemical weapon of mass destruction or elements of the weapon.
`(4) The Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense shall jointly issue regulations concerning the types of assistance that may be provided under this subsection. Such regulations shall also describe the actions that Department of Defense personnel may take in circumstances incident to the provision of assistance under this subsection. Such regulations shall not authorize arrest or any direct participation in conducting searches and seizures that seek evidence related to violations of this section, except for the immediate protection of human life, unless participation in such activity is otherwise authorized under paragraph (3) or other applicable law.
`(5) The Secretary of Defense shall require reimbursement as a condition for providing assistance under this subsection in accordance with section 377 of title 10.
`(6)(A) Except to the extent otherwise provided by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General may exercise the authority of the Attorney General under this subsection. The Attorney General may delegate the Attorney General's authority under this subsection only to the Associate Attorney General or an Assistant Attorney General and only if the Associate Attorney General or Assistant Attorney General to whom delegated has been designated by the Attorney General to act for, and to exercise the general powers of, the Attorney General.
`(B) Except to the extent otherwise provided by the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense may exercise the authority of the Secretary of Defense under this subsection. The Secretary of Defense may delegate the Secretary's authority under this subsection only to an Under Secretary of Defense or an Assistant Secretary of Defense and only if the Under Secretary or Assistant Secretary to whom delegated has been designated by the Secretary to act for, and to exercise the general powers of, the Secretary.
`(7) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the executive branch in the use of military personnel or equipment for civilian law enforcement purposes beyond that provided by law before the date of enactment of [the Act].'.
(c)(1) Civilian Expertise: The President shall take reasonable measures to reduce civilian law enforcement officials' reliance on Department of Defense resources to counter the threat posed by the use or potential use of biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction within the United States, including--
(A) increasing civilian law enforcement expertise to counter such threat;
(B) improving coordination between civilian law enforcement officials and other civilian sources of expertise, both within and outside the Federal Government, to counter such threat.
(2) Report requirement.--The President Shall Submit to the Congress--
(A) ninety days after the date of enactment of this Act, a report describing the respective policy functions and operational roles of Federal agencies in countering the threat posed by the use or potential use of biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction within the United States.
(B) one year after the date of enactment of this Act, a report describing the actions planned to be taken and the attendant cost pertaining to paragraph (1); and
(C) three years after the date of enactment of this Act, a report updating the information provided in the reports submitted pursuant to subparagraphs (A) and (B), including measures taken pursuant to paragraph (1).
(D) Clerical amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 113B of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2332a the following:
`2332b. Use of chemical weapons.'.
(e) Use of weapons of mass destruction.--Section 2332a(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting `without lawful authority' after `A person who'.
[Page: S3379]
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the antiterrorism bill. In my view, this bill strikes a reasonable balance between the needs of the law enforcement and national security communities and the constitutional rights of the American people. I applaud the efforts of Senator Hatch and other conferees in crafting this important and much-needed piece of legislation.
Perhaps one of the more important provisions of this bill relates to restitution to victims of crime in Federal courts. I am proud to say that key provisions of S. 1404, the Victim Restitution Enhancement Act of 1995, which I introduced on November 8, 1995, with Senator Kyl, have been incorporated into the conference report. This bill, I believe, provides victims of crime with a valuable and important way of vindicating their rights and obtaining restitution. S. 1404 provides that court orders requiring restitution will act as a lien which the victims themselves can enforce. I think this lets victims help themselves and ensures that crime victims will receive the restitution they are entitled to.
To understand why giving victims of Federal crimes the ability to seek restitution from their victimizers is a positive development, you need to understand the nature of most of the Federal crimes which give rise to restitution liability. Federal Crimes, by and large, are not crimes of violence like State crimes are.
Once you exclude Federal drug prosecutions--which do not give rise to restitution liability as that term is generally understood--many Federal prosecutions are for fraud and other so-called white crimes. With fraud and white collar crimes, the victims may have substantial resources. These persons may wish to obtain restitution themselves, rather than relying on overworked prosecutors to do that job. That's what the lien does, its gives victims a powerful tool use to get restitution.
With respect to terrorism, and the Oklahoma City bombing, this means that the families of the bombing victims can seek restitution. So if the bombers come into money from any source, the victims' families can receive restitution. This is very positive development.
How does the current bill, like S. 1404, do this? Section 206(m) of the conference report establishes a lien in favor of crime victims, very similar to the lien procedure contained in S. 1404. I believe that this section will prove to be of enormous value.
Also, the conference report, section 206(n), drew on provisions in S. 1404, which provided that should prisoners who have been ordered to pay restitution file a prisoner lawsuit and receive a windfall, that windfall will go to the victims and not to the prisoner. This should take some of the lure out of prisoner lawsuits. Importantly, the conference report we are debating today also provides that windfalls received by prisoners from all sources, including lawsuits, will go to pay victims.
This conference report, in section 206(d)(3), like S. 1404, requires criminals to list all their assets under oath. This way, if criminals who owe victims try to hide their assets, they can be prosecuted for perjury. This too should help make sure that victims receive more of what they are entitled to.
While the restitution provisions of this bill are an important step in the right direction, I would also like to point out that unlike S. 1404, the conference report does not establish a hard-and-fast time limit within which restitution liability must be paid off. I think that this is a serious shortcoming. Without a bright-line for the payment of restitution, well-financed criminal defense lawyers will use legal technicalities to delay payment as long as possible. The reason that no definite time limit was included is that some Members of the minority opposed a definite time limit. So, in this respect, I believe that S. 1404 is superior to the current bill.
The conference report also makes serious and much-needed reforms of habeas corpus prisoner appeals. As even a casual observer of the criminal justice system knows, criminals have abused habeas corpus to delay just punishment.
I believe that this conference report strikes exactly the right balance on habeas corpus reform. It provides enough in the way of habeas appeals to ensure that unjustly convicted people will have a fair and full opportunity to bring forth new evidence or contest their incarceration in numerous ways. But the conference report sets meaningful limits, which should go a long way toward eliminating many of the flagrant abuses that make a mockery of justice.
If we do not pass this bill, with this habeas corpus reform package, we can pretend that we are for the death penalty. But, in reality, the death penalty will be virtually meaningless and toothless. The families of the bombing victims in Oklahoma City know this, and they support this bill.
Let us not get ourselves in the position of making mere symbolic gestures, which do not really help the American people and which do not really restore faith in the justice system. I agree with President Clinton: Punishment should be swift and sure. Just punishment must be meted out in an appropriate amount of time.
I strongly support these reforms, and again applaud the conferees for bringing this bill to the floor. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
[Page: S3380]
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the conference report on S. 735, the Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act. I would like to congratulate Chairman Hatch, Senator Biden, and the other Senate conferees on both sides of the aisle for their diligent work in conference with the other body. This bill left the Senate June 7, 1995, having passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 91 to 8. Then the bill went over to the House, where it languished for 9 months. When it finally came up in the House for a vote on March 13, the most important anti-terrorism provisions were stripped from the bill.
When this occurred, many of us who strongly supported the Senate bill were dismayed and wondered whether it would even be possible for a conference committee to fashion a final bill that would garner the strong bipartisan support that the original Senate bill enjoyed. To emphasize the importance of this bipartisan support, I joined with Senator Lieberman on March 29, in sending a letter to all five Senate conferees urging that they work to defend in conference key Senate provisions dealing with international terrorism. These included authority to exclude from the United States members of terrorist groups and authority to prohibit terrorist fundraising within the United States, both of which were indeed retained in this final conference report.
Mr. President, I am pleased to support this conference report, and I heartily congratulate our conferees for preserving these provisions. In fact, they went even further, and have given us a strong, positive antiterrorism bill that deserves our wholehearted support.
This legislation contains a broad range of needed changes in the law that will enhance our country's ability to combat terrorism, both at home and from abroad. The managers of this bill have described its provisions in some detail, so I will not repeat their comments. Briefly, however, this bill would increase penalties: For conspiracies involving explosives, for terrorist conspiracies, for terrorist crimes, for transferring explosives, for using explosives, and for other crimes related to terrorist acts.
The bill also includes provisions to combat international terrorism, to remove from the United States aliens found to be engaging in or supporting terrorist acts, to control fundraising by foreign terrorist organizations, and procedural changes to strengthen our counterterrorism laws.
This legislation will enhance the ability of our law enforcement agencies to bring terrorists to justice, in a manner mindful of our cherished civil liberties. This bill will enact practical measures to impede the efforts of those violent rejectionists who have launched an unprecedented campaign of terror intended to crush the prospects for peace for the Israeli and Palestinian people. Most important is the provision in this bill that will cut off the ability of terrorist groups such as Hamas to raise huge sums in the United States for supposedly `humanitarian' purposes, where in reality a large part of those funds go toward conducting terrorist activities. These accomplishments are real, and this legislation deserves our support.
Mr. President, I would like to concentrate the remainder of my comments on two provisions of mine that were retained in this conference report. These two provisions are the Terrorist Exclusion Act and the Law Enforcement and Intelligence Sources Protection Act, both of which I introduced separately last year.
Traditionally, Americans have thought of terrorism as primarily a European, Middle Eastern, or Latin American problem. While Americans abroad and U.S. diplomatic facilities have been targets in the past, Americans have often considered the United States itself largely immune to acts of terrorism. Two events have changed this sense of safety. The first was the internationally-sponsored terrorist attack of February 26, 1993 against the New York World Trade Center, and the second was the domestic terrorist attack just a year ago on April 19 in Oklahoma City.
I first introduced the Terrorist Exclusion Act in the House three years ago, and last year I reintroduced the legislation in the Senate with Senator Brown as my original cosponsor. The Terrorist Exclusion Act will close a dangerous loophole in our visa laws which was created by the Immigration Reform Act of 1990. With its rewrite of the McCarran-Walters Act, Congress eliminated then-existing authority to deny a U.S. visa to a known member of a violent terrorist organization.
The new standards required knowledge that the individual had been personally involved in a past terrorist act or was coming to the United States to conduct such an act. This provision will restore the previous standard allowing denial of a U.S. visa for membership in a terrorist group.
I discovered this dangerous weakness in our visa laws in early 1993 during my investigation of the State Department failures that allowed the radical Egyptian cleric, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, to travel to, and reside in, the United States since 1990. I undertook this investigation in my role as ranking Republican of the House International Operations Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over terrorism issues, a role I have continued in the Senate as Chair of the International Operations Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee.
Sheikh Rahman is the spiritual leader of Egypt's terrorist organization, The Islamic Group. His followers were convicted for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York. The Sheikh himself received a life sentence for his own role in approving a planned second wave of terrorist acts in the New York City area.
The case of Sheikh Abdel Rahman is significant because he was clearly excludable from the United States under the pre-1990 law, but the legal authority to exclude him ended with enactment of the Immigration Reform Act that year. He was admitted to this country through an amazing series of bureaucratic blunders.
Then in 1990, as the U.S. government was building its deportation case against him, the law changed. As a result, the State Department was forced to try to deport him on the grounds that he once bounced a check in Egypt and had more than one wife, rather than the fact that he was the known spiritual leader of a violent terrorist organization.
A high-ranking State Department official informed my staff during my investigation that if Sheikh Abdel Rahman had tried to enter after the 1990 law went into affect, they would have had no legal authority to exclude him from the United States because they had no proof that he had ever personally committed a terrorist act, despite the fact that his followers were known to have been involved in the assassination of Anwar Sadat.
It is urgent that we pass this provision. Every day in this country American lives are put at risk out of deference to some imagined first amendment rights of foreign terrorists. This is an extreme misinterpretation of our cherished Bill of Rights, which the founders of our nation intended to protect the liberties of all Americans.
In my reading of the U.S. Constitution, I see much about the protection of the safety and welfare of Americans, but nothing about protecting the rights of foreign terrorists to travel freely to the United States whenever they choose.
The second of my bills contained in S. 735 is the Law Enforcement and Intelligence Sources Protection Act. This legislation would significantly increase the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to share information with the State Department for the purpose of denying visas to known terrorists, drug traffickers, and others involved in international criminal activities.
This provision would permit a U.S. visa to be denied for law enforcement purposes without a detailed written explanation, which current law requires. These denials could be made citing U.S. law generically, without further clarification or amplification. Individuals who are denied visas due to the suspicion that they are intending to immigrate to the U.S. would still have to be informed that this is the basis, and they would then be allowed to compile additional information that may change that determination.
Under a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a precise written justification, citing the specific provision of law, is required for every alien denied a U.S. visa. This requirement was inserted into the INA out of the belief that every non-American denied a U.S.-visa for any reason had the right to know the precise grounds under which the visa was denied, even if it was for terrorist activity, narcotics trafficking, or other illegal acts. This has impeded the willingness of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to share with the State Department the names of excludable aliens.
These agencies are logically concerned about revealing sources or compromising an investigation by submitting the names of people known to be terrorists or criminals--but who do not know that they are under investigation by U.S. officials--if that information is then revealed to a visa applicant, as current law requires. This is information the United States should be able to protect until a case is completed and, hopefully, law enforcement action is taken. But for the protection of the American people we should also make this information available to the Department of State to keep these individuals out of our country.
Mr. President, I again congratulate Chairman Hatch, and all of the other Senate conferees on this bill for their achievements in negotiations with the House. Obviously, there were some Senate provisions that had strong bipartisan support in this body that I regret could not be sustained in conference. But I urge my colleagues to concentrate on the very substantial and important achievements of this conference report, and I urge broad bipartisan support for its adoption.
[Page: S3381]
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if the Senator might yield for a question before the quorum call.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold his quorum call?
Mr. HATCH. Yes. I am happy to.
Mr. CHAFEE. I am a little confused why we do not vote on this motion right now. Everybody is familiar with the issue.
Mr. HATCH. I think we are but the majority leader asked me to put the quorum call.
Mr. CHAFEE. Could I safely say that, if things go right, we are going to vote in a very few minutes?
Mr. HATCH. I hope so. I think so.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the motion?
Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the motion to recommit, by the Senator from Delaware.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to table the motion and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been noted. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the consideration of the conference report to accompany the terrorist bill, the time on the conference report be limited to 20 minutes equally divided in the usual form, and all motions to recommit be limited to the following time restraints; that they be relevant in subject matter of the conference report or Senate- or House-passed bills and that they not be subject to amendments: 30 minutes equally divided in the usual form on each motion.
I further ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of all motions to recommit, if defeated or tabled, the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the conference report, all without any intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent request? Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table the Biden motion to recommit.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] and the Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack] are necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], is absent due to death in the family.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Alaska, [Mr. Murkowski] would vote `yea.'
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 46, as follows:
So the motion to lay on the table the motion to recommit was agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.