[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 91 (Tuesday, June 6, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7718-S7733]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMPREHENSIVE TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 9:45
having arrived and passed, the Senate will now resume consideration of
S. 735, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 735) to prevent and punish acts of terrorism,
and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Hatch/Dole amendment No. 1199, in the nature of a
substitute.
Hatch (for Smith) amendment No. 1203 (to amendment No.
1199), to make technical changes.
Hatch (for Pressler) amendment No. 1205 (to amendment No.
1199), to establish Federal penalties for the production and
distribution of false identification documents.
Hatch (for Specter) amendment No. 1206 (to amendment No.
1199), to authorize assistance to foreign nations to procure
explosives detection equipment.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to make a brief statement so all my
colleagues understand the situation. We were supposed to start this
amendment at 9:45. I have been prepared since last night. I was here on
the floor at 9:30 this morning and have been here straight through, but
I do feel it crucial that the chairman of the committee be here because
he and I are trying to work out this amendment.
I think it very important that he hears my arguments. It is a very
straightforward amendment that deals with extending the statute of
limitations to give our law enforcement people more of a chance to go
after and arrest and convict those who would violate some very serious
laws that are on our books.
I have brought this amendment to the Senate floor because of Oklahoma
City, and I feel it is so important that I have sent a message through
the Republican leadership that I will be ready [[Page S7719]] to go the
moment that Senator Hatch returns to the floor. He is in a hearing. One
of the problems around here is that we have to be in so many places at
once.
But I do think it is the right thing for this bill, for the American
people that the chairman of the committee be here when I offer this
amendment. I do not think it should be contentious, but it may be
contentious, and I want to make sure we have a fair debate. That is the
reason for the delay.
I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, just a few moments ago, I explained to the
Senate that I was awaiting the arrival of the chairman of the
committee, the Senator from Utah, who is at a hearing at this time. The
reason I was waiting for him is because he expressed some concern with
my amendment and at the same time he expressed an interest in working
the amendment out. Therefore, I thought it would save some time if he
were present when I went through these arguments. But he has sent a
message through the leadership that he would prefer if I lay this
amendment down. So with the indulgence of the Senate, I will send the
amendment to the desk.
Amendment No. 1214 to Amendment No. 1199
(Purpose: To increase the periods of limitation for violations of the
National Firearms Act)
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an
amendment numbered 1214 to amendment No. 1199.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 17, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following new
section:
SEC. 108. INCREASED PERIODS OF LIMITATION FOR NATIONAL
FIREARMS ACT VIOLATIONS.
Section 6531 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (8) as
subparagraphs (A) through (H), respectively; and
(2) by amending the matter immediately preceding
subparagraph (A), as redesignated, to read as follows: ``No
person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any
criminal offense under the internal revenue laws unless the
indictment is found or the information instituted not later
than 3 years after the commission of the offense, except that
the period of limitation shall be--
``(1) 5 years for offenses described in section 5861
(relating to firearms and other devices); and
``(2) 6 years--.''.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what I plan to do is make the case for my
amendment. I believe it is one that should receive the unanimous
agreement of the Senate, both Democrats and Republicans alike. I hope
that it will, and if there is still a problem when the chairman of the
full committee arrives, I will indulge the Senate once again to repeat
for him the reasons why I think this amendment is compelling.
Mr. President, this amendment comes as a direct result of the
Oklahoma experience. That is why my amendment is supported by the chief
of police of Oklahoma City and 44 other chiefs of police around the
Nation.
The amendment I sent to the desk would extend the statute of
limitations for violations of the National Firearms Act from 3 years to
5 years. In other words, it would add 2 years that law enforcement has
to complete its case and put the villains away.
This change would equalize the period of limitations for the National
Firearms Act with the vast majority of other Federal laws. I think that
is the most important point I can make. This is really a conforming
amendment. If you look at all the gun laws in the criminal law, they
have a 5-year statute. This is an anomaly. We have a 3-year statute
here.
So the amendment is fair. It would give prosecutors a badly needed
tool. What is this tool? It is more time. It is more time to build
their case against violent criminals and terrorists. I want to make a
point here. We are not talking about a little game of cops and robbers.
We are talking about terrorists and violent criminals who make bombs,
who make sawed-off shotguns, who make silencers. That is what the
National Firearms Act addresses, and that is why we need this 5-year
statute of limitations.
I want to point out that this provision has been requested by the
Justice Department. It was included in the administration's bill, and
although the pending bill incorporates many of the administration's
antiterrorism provisions, for whatever reason, this section was dropped
out of the new bill. I think it is important to put it back in.
Again, I want to make it clear that this amendment is directly
related to preventing terrorism generally and to the Oklahoma City case
in particular.
It is likely that when the investigation into the Oklahoma City
bombing is completed, the suspects will be charged with illegally
manufacturing a bomb. That crime is a violation of the National
Firearms Act, and only the National Firearms Act.
We need to give law enforcement more time. There may be one person
involved in the Oklahoma City tragedy, or there may be two. There may
be 10 or 100. It is complicated to put the case together. We need to
give law enforcement time.
The National Firearms Act, the act I am amending, governs some of the
most important firearms offenses on the books. The NFA makes it a crime
to make a fully automatic machine gun. That is a crime. It makes it a
crime to possess a sawed-off shotgun, or to make a homemade silencer.
Now, surely those offenses are serious and complex enough to merit a
5-year statute. In addition, it covers the making of a destructive
device, or a bomb. So we have the fully automatic machine gun, a sawed-
off shotgun, a homemade silencer, and an incendiary device, or a bomb.
Surely, law enforcement should have 5 years to complete their case,
just as they do for all other gun laws.
The NFA, the National Firearms Act which I am amending, is the act
which deals with homemade fertilizer bombs, Molotov cocktails. It is
the only statute that deals with them. It has a 3-year statute of
limitations instead of the 5-year. That means that any charges brought
for violations of the NFA must be filed within 3 years of the crime.
To show how important this difference is, I urge my colleagues to
consider this: If a terrorist builds a bomb in 1995, but Federal
prosecutors are unable to gather enough evidence until 1999, they
cannot file those charges. The statute of limitations begins running
from the time the bomb is made. I think this is important. For the
crime of illegal making a bomb, the statutes of limitations runs from
the time the bomb is made--not the date the bomb was used.
Theoretically, we could have a terrorist group make a bomb, store it
for 2 or 3 years, use it, but by then the statute would have expired.
So we could not get the perpetrators. That is why this amendment is so
important. It is not just a technical change. It is a very substantive
change. It needs to be included in this bill.
These investigations are complicated. Yesterday, we were all moved to
see the families from Oklahoma City asking Members to make this bill
the law of the land in the name of the people who died. I want to see
that happen. I want to see that happen. I also want to make sure that
the people who perpetrated the crime are caught--each and every one of
them.
This investigation may lead in 3,000 different directions. We have
heard there are thousands of leads. We should get every last individual
who participated in this vicious crime.
Mr. President, this is not an academic debate about periods of
limitation. This change is badly needed. It has been requested by those
who investigate and prosecute criminals.
I have put on Senators' desks the names of 45 police chiefs who urge
support for the Boxer amendment. These police chiefs are from all over
the country, from Oklahoma City to the [[Page S7720]] east coast, the
West, the South, the North. They are unanimous in this. They need this
time. They need this tool.
It could take years to unravel complex criminal conspiracies. Law
enforcement should not be faced with an unwise artificial deadline to
file charges. I want to say again, this is not an academic debate. I
have been told by Federal investigators that the 3-year statute of
limitations for the National Firearms Act has stopped actual criminal
investigations. Indictments that would have been issued in actual
explosive cases were not issued because of the NFA's short statute of
limitations. Criminals could go free because the statute of limitations
is only 3 instead of the usual 5.
The short statute of limitations is truly an anomaly in Federal law.
For example, possessing or manufacturing an assault weapon in violation
of the ban passed last year has a 5-year statute of limitations, not a
3-year statute of limitations. Manufacturing cop killer bullets has a
5-year statute of limitations, not a 3-year statute. Manufacturing an
undetectable firearm has a 5-year statute of limitations. However, in
the National Firearms Act, unless we pass the Boxer amendment, we have
a 3-year statute of limitations for crimes like making bombs,
silencers, sawed-off shotguns.
No one can explain to me why it makes sense to have a 5-year statute
on carrying an assault weapon or manufacturing an assault weapon and
only a 3-year statute for a sawed-off shotgun or a bomb. It makes no
sense. There is no reason for it.
The Boxer amendment addresses the problem simply. I hope and hope
that we can all reach agreement on this and not have to argue about it.
It is common sense to match the statutes of limitations for the vast
majority of Federal criminal laws. We need a level playing field so
Federal law enforcement can prosecute violent criminals more
effectively.
Again, I want to stress that this change was requested by the Justice
Department and the Treasury Department, and the administration supports
this. This is a bill where we see bipartisan support. We have Senator
Dole, Senator Daschle, and the President of the United States speaking
in one voice that we must pass this bill.
Now, this is one bipartisan amendment we should be able to pass. We
have Federal prosecutors supporting this change. Local police chiefs
who want to keep guns and bombs out of the hands of violent criminal--
45 of them in the time we could organize.
These law enforcement officers know that extending the statute of
limitations for National Firearms Act offenses will make it easier to
put violent criminals behind bars.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the letter signed by the 45 police chiefs.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
June 6, 1995.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Boxer: In the wake of the Oklahoma City
bombing and the recent shootings of police officers around
the country, we, as police chiefs who are sworn to protect
the public and our officers, strongly urge your support for
the following four amendments to the upcoming anti-terrorism
bill:
Cop-killer bullets.--This amendment, to be offered by
Senator Bradley, will prohibit ``cop-killer'' bullets based
on a performance standard rather than the physical
composition of the bullet, as current law requires.
Multiple handgun sale forms.--This amendment, to be offered
by Senator Kennedy, will allow local law enforcement to keep
a record of multiple handgun sales rather than destroy the
forms, as current law requires.
Guns for felons.--This amendment, to be offered by Senators
Lautenberg and Simon, will permanently close the current
loophole that allows some violent felons to regain their
right to possess firearms.
National firearms act.--This amendment, to be offered by
Senator Boxer, will increase the statute of limitations for
violations of the National Firearms Act from three to five
years.
These amendments are designed to close current loopholes in
federal law. They will provide law enforcement with
additional tools to apprehend violent offenders, vigorously
prosecute them and combat crime on our streets.
We strongly urge you to demonstrate your unwavering
commitment to the protection of law enforcement and the
safety of all Americans by supporting these public safety
measures.
Sincerely,
Chief Jerry Sanders, San Diego, CA.
Colonel Clarence Harmon, St. Louis, MO.
Chief Louis Cobarruviaz, San Jose, CA.
Chief Anthony D. Ribera, San Francisco, CA.
Deputy Chief Roy L. Meisner, Berkeley, CA.
Chief Noel K. Cunningham, Los Angeles Port, CA.
Chief Dan Nelson, Salinas, CA.
Chief Robert H. Mabinnis, San Leandro, CA.
Chief James D. Toler, Indianapolis, IN.
Chief Sam Gonzales, Oklahoma City, OK.
Director Steven G. Hanes, Roanoke, VA.
Chief Robert M. Zidek, Bladensburg, MD.
Chief Charles R. McDonald, Edwardsville, IL.
Chief Lawerence Nowery, Rock Hill, SC.
Chief Edmund Mosca, Old Saybrook, CT.
Chief William Nolan, North Little Rock, AR.
Chief David C. Milchan.
Chief Lockheed Reader, Puyallup, WA.
Chief Peter L. Cranes, W. Yarmouth, MA.
Chief Daniel Colucci, Kinnelton, NJ.
Chief Gertrude Bogan, Bel Ridge, St. Louis, MO.
Chief Reuben M. Greenberg, Charleston, SC.
Chief Robert L. Johnson, Jackson, MS.
Chief Robert M. St. Pierre, Salem, MA.
Chief Douglas L. Bartosh, Scottsdale, AZ.
Chief Perry Anderson, Cambridge, MA.
Chief Leonard R. Barone, Haverhill, MA.
Chief Ronald J. Panyko, Millvale, Pittsburgh, PA.
Chief William Corvello, Newport News, VA.
Asst. Chief James T. Miller, Dekalb Co. Police, Decatur,
GA.
Chief Larry J. Callier, Opelousas, LA.
Chief Leonard G. Cooke, Eugene, OR.
Chief Harold L. Johnson, Mobile, AL.
Chief Charles A. Moose, Portland, OR.
Chief Frank Alcala, East Chicago, IN.
Chief E. Douglas Hamilton, Louisville, KY.
Chief Charles E. Samarra, Alexandria, VA.
Chief Allan L. Wallis, Renton, WA.
Chief Scott Burleson, Waukegan, IL.
Chief C.L. Reynolds, Port St. Lucie, FL.
Chief Sylvester Daughtry, Greensboro, NC.
Chief Jimmie L. Brown, Miami, FL.
Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske, Buffalo, NY.
Chief Harold L. Hurtt, Oxnard, CA.
Chief Norm Stamper, Seattle, WA.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this amendment should be adopted. It is
fair. It levels the playing field for firearms crimes. It is needed. It
is not this Senator who says it is needed; it is the people who do the
work, the difficult law enforcement work, tracking down these leads,
these thousands of leads, have asked for this additional tool, these
additional 2 years.
Mr. President, Congress talks a lot about getting tough on crime.
There is not one of us I have not heard make a speech about, ``Let's
crack down.'' There is a difference between talking about getting tough
on crime and being tough on crime by giving law enforcement the tools
that they need. This does not cost us any money. They are not asking
for more equipment. They are not asking for bigger office space or
another computer system. They are asking for time to track down these
leads.
We are in a new phase now, unfortunately, in our country. Who ever
dreamed that we would have people within America who would build a
device, a bomb, and kill innocent people and innocent children; turn on
the Government of, by, and for the people, and somehow twist it around
as if it was not America?
It is complicated and it is new and it is different and it is
frightening, and law enforcement needs this additional time.
I have no other comments at this time. I have not organized a team of
speakers because, frankly, I think this amendment is eloquent in its
simplicity and very clear in its common sense. I hope we will have
bipartisan support for the Boxer amendment, and at this time I yield
the floor and reserve my right to regain the floor when the chairman of
the Judiciary Committee makes it here to the floor. I understand he is
tied up in a committee. We expect him here I think at the top of the
hour, and I look forward to debating with him on this amendment if in
fact he feels it is not appropriate.
But I hope against hope that he will in fact embrace this amendment
and we can once again show the Nation we are united across party lines
in our desire to go after those terrorists and give law enforcement the
tools they need to make sure justice reigns in this great Nation of
ours.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
[[Page S7721]]
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Fighting Crime Through Technology
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, as we proceed on this antiterrorism bill,
I would like to discuss for a moment one provision of the bill which I
believe is very noncontroversial but I think is very significant, and
that is the provision of the bill that concerns the increased help, the
increased assistance that we are going to give to local law enforcement
in regard to giving them the tools they need to fight back, and that is
the area of technology. This is one of the essential tools as we fight
against terrorism.
The bill we are discussing today strengthens the ability of local law
enforcement officers to use high technology to combat terrorism and,
frankly, to combat all sorts of crime. It provides for the expenditure
of $500 million over the next 3 years to develop and upgrade some very
important information systems. These systems provide ready access to
criminal histories, fingerprints, DNA, and ballistic information.
The terrorism bill will also help local law enforcement agencies
connect into these data bases. A data base in Washington, DC, will not
do much good if the local communities, the tens of thousands of local
law enforcement agencies that are spread throughout this country,
cannot access that information. Let us make no mistake about it, this
is a very important component of this legislation, just as it has
always been a very important component of our fight against crime.
Last Saturday's Washington Post provided a case in point. It contains
a detailed description of how the Oklahoma City bombing suspects were
tracked down. Every step of the way, the suspects left a physical trail
of evidence that could be fed into the FBI's computer database. The
FBI, according to this story, has set up a very sophisticated computer
system to put all kinds of information in, some relevant and some not
relevant--you never know until it is put in. You try to make the match
and pull it back up and use it. But according to this story, there are
now at least 38 million bytes of information just in this database on
just this one crime alone, the Oklahoma City bombing.
There were 12,800 pieces of evidence collected in Oklahoma City,
almost 13,000 pieces of evidence. The FBI computers are being used to
analyze all this evidence. I have already told my colleagues the story
of how the apprehension of the key Oklahoma suspect came about. It is
truly a compelling story. An Oklahoma City detective found a piece of
tattered metal at the crime scene. On this piece of metal, he found a
vehicle identification number, or a VIN number--one little piece of
evidence. He fed this VIN number into the National Insurance Crime
Bureau. In a matter of seconds, the bombing truck was identified.
Meanwhile, an Oklahoma State trooper had pulled over the fleeing
suspect for driving without a license plate. The trooper had no idea at
that time the person he pulled over was a suspect in a major crime, but
he called the National Crime Information Center to ask for some data on
the suspicious motorist, and when he tapped into the system, that left
a fingerprint into the system. In a moment, we will see the importance
of that.
Later on, the FBI, based on the information they had obtained from
that VIN number--we will jump forward now, a lot of work, a lot of
tracking--they were able to get the name of Timothy McVeigh.
Later, when the FBI fed the name Timothy McVeigh into their
computers, the computer informed them, because of this fingerprint that
had been placed into the system, of his arrest on these unrelated
charges. Thanks to this technological edge, the FBI was able to find
out an obscure arrestee was in fact America's most wanted criminal
suspect.
The McVeigh arrest demonstrates how our technological edge can work
and how in fact it can help solve crime, how in fact it can and does
save lives.
Another story which was in last Friday's paper shows again the
importance of technology. On May 28, a North Carolina State trooper
arrested a motorist for speeding. Using established procedure, the
trooper ran the motorist's name in the North Carolina State computer
databank. The trooper did not run the motorist's name in the national
database. That was apparently the procedure in the State at that time--
just to run it in the State database, but not the national base. The
motorist's name did not show up in the State databank. If the trooper
had run the motorist's name in the national databank, he would have
discovered the driver was wanted for the shooting of two Washington,
DC, police officers and the attempted murder of his girlfriend. Eleven
hours after he was arrested for speeding in North Carolina and
released, the suspect killed an FBI agent in a shootout in the
Washington, DC, metropolitan area.
My purpose in telling the story is not to put blame on anyone, not to
be judgmental, but again to point out how very, very important it is
that these databases be used and how they can in fact not only solve
crime but how they can save lives.
Mr. President, as a result of this incident, North Carolina has
taken, to use the phrase, the ``worthy step'' of encouraging its
troopers to run the names of all out-of-State suspects in the national
computer. You never know. It certainly does not hurt to ask.
Last month I introduced a comprehensive crime bill, and one of the
key elements of my proposed legislation was a renewed focus on
crimefighting technology on making sure that the local crimefighters
are in fact plugged into a truly all-inspiring national database.
Technology is already a proven tool in the fight against terrorism. One
of the suspects in the World Trade Center bombing was tracked down--
listen to this--because he left a DNA sample in the saliva he left when
he sealed an envelope containing a letter to the New York Times. In
that letter he claimed responsibility on behalf of his terrorist group.
But unknown to him, he left indelible proof of his own identity in the
DNA. Mr. President, we have the tools to win this fight. Let us use
them.
I want to thank Senator Dole and Senator Hatch, two individuals who
have worked on this bill, for the job that they have done, and for
including my provision that I wrote and put in the crime bill--taking
that section and putting it in this antiterrorism bill because it has a
lot to do with solving the problem of terrorism in this country and has
a lot to do with this technology in solving all crimes.
It would be a crime--if I could use the term--if we did not make sure
that every law enforcement agency in this country was able to tap into
this national database. It would be wrong if for a relatively small
amount of money we did not make sure that not only did we tap into the
information and pull it back out but that we could get information from
every law enforcement agency in the country.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the two articles which I
just referred to be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, June 3, 1995]
How Detectives Cracked Oklahoma Bomb Case
(By Pierre Thomas)
Oklahoma City.--Three weeks ago, a 40-foot-long tractor-
trailer secretly left here loaded with cargo that holds clues
to the deadliest terrorist bombing in U.S. history.
Riding shotgun on the truck were armed federal agents
guarding more than 7,000 pounds of evidence. The truck
carried parts of a rental truck used to store the massive
bomb that blasted the federal building here April 19 and a
yellow Mercury Marquis, the car of prime suspect Timothy
James McVeigh. Final destination of the truck was a
laboratory at 10th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW in
Washington, the FBI's headquarters.
In coming days, forensics experts plan to reconstruct as
much of the truck as possible and dust every part of
McVeigh's car for fingerprints, using lasers and the latest
in latent fingerprint technology. They also will swab and
vacuum the car to capture tiny particles and chemically
analyze every bit of soil, hair, fiber and residue in an
effort to [[Page S7722]] link McVeigh and others to the
bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.
While the overall probe has been conducted in the glare of
publicity, much of the crucial investigative work has
involved behind-the-scenes forensics technology and use of
computers to a degree never before seen in a criminal
inquiry. In much the same way authorities are
trying to use DNA analysis in the O.J. Simpson murder trial.
FBI officials want to be able to provide a jury with reams
of precise and detailed evidence tying suspects to the
case. ``This case is juxtaposition of 21st century
technology and tried police work,'' a senior enforcement
official said.
The chase for clues began two hours after the bombing.
Oklahoma City detective Mike McPherson, surveying what looked
like a war scene, noticed a piece of tattered metal that at
first glance appeared to be just another mangled reminder of
the explosion that left 168 dead. Looking closer, he could
see the metal was an axle, charred and twisted at both ends,
suggesting it might have been at the explosion's epicenter.
Methodically cleaning it, he found a partial vehicle
identification number (VIN). Law enforcement had its first
big break in the case and immediately turned to computers for
help.
McPherson called the identification number to the National
Insurance Crime Bureau, which keeps a database that stores
300 million automobile VINs and other records. In seconds,
the computer determined the axle came from a 1993 Ford truck
eventually sold to Ryder Rentals of Miami. At the FBI's
request, Ryder found the truck had been sent to Elliott's
Body Shop in Junction City, Kan.
The night of the bombing, agents from the FBI's Salinas,
Kan., office contacted Elliott's and, by morning, had
descriptions of two suspects, John Doe No. 1 and John Doe No.
2. Composite drawings were developed, using computers to make
them appear more lifelike. The FBI also took all the
documents John Doe No. 1 signed to look for fingerprints that
might match McVeigh's.
``It hit me later that the VIN number was a special number,
that this was a very big deal,'' McPherson said, noting the
computers had saved time, doing in seconds work that earlier
might have taken hours.
``From that rental shop, we started to expand the
investigation out in concentric circles,'' one senior law
enforcement official said. ``We planned to go to every
restaurant, gas station, hotel between there and Oklahoma
City.''
More than 1,000 FBI and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms agents were flown in from around the country,
including heads of the FBI's Phoenix, Dallas, Houston and New
Orleans field offices. At sites near the blast, agents
requested store video surveillance tapes and used computers
to enhance the images, hoping McVeigh or others with him
could have stopped at a convenience store in days preceding
the bombing.
On Thursday, April 20, FBI agents reached the Dreamland
Hotel in Junction City. The manager recognized the composite
of John Doe No. 1, a young cleanshaven man with a military
crewcut. The man, hotel officials said, had stayed in Room 25
and had been driving a large Ryder truck. He also had
registered as Timothy McVeigh.
Around that time, a former co-worker of McVeigh's saw the
composite sketch on television and called the FBI, telling
agents McVeigh expressed anger at the federal government and
agitation over the federal-Branch Davidian standoff near
Waco, Tex., court records said.
A day earlier, about 90 minutes after the bombing, Oklahoma
state trooper Charles D. Hangar had seen a yellow Mercury
Marquis without a license plate driving up Interstate 35 near
Perry. The driver was McVeigh, who also was carrying a
concealed semiautomatic pistol.
Curious, Hangar later queried the FBI's National Crime
Information Center (NCIC), a national law enforcement
database that includes details on outstanding warrants and
fugitives. Hangar had no idea he had just arrested the
bombing's prime
suspect, but his data request left a fingerprint in the
system.
At 7 a.m. Friday, April 21, NCIC officials plugged
McVeigh's name into the database and saw information flash on
their computer terminals. It showed he had been arrested and
offered the name of the arresting law enforcement agency.
What they did not know was where and if McVeigh was still
being held.
Two agents--one FBI, the other ATF--were assigned to track
down McVeigh and began calling jails near the location of his
arrest. They learned McVeigh was being held at the Noble
County Jail and soon would be released.
McVeigh then became the investigation's focal point. Even
before bringing McVeigh into custody, agents began to dissect
his life history and associates. The plan was simple: find
out who McVeigh spent time with, and other suspects would pop
up, hopefully even John Doe No. 2, who had not been found.
The plan seemed simple but its execution was complex since
McVeigh, after serving in the Army, had drifted from Michigan
to Arizona.
Agents obtained a Michigan driver's license from McVeigh,
and a computer check of the state's motor vehicle records
listed a Decker, Mich., address. Authorities learned two
brothers, James and Terry Lynn Nichols, at some time had
resided there. McVeigh had been stationed in Fort Riley,
Kan.; had recently lived in Kingman, Ariz.; and had family in
Pendleton, N.Y. Terry Nichols, the second suspect arrested in
the case, lived in Herington, Kan.
As the investigation broadened, command posts were set up
in any area offering promising leads--Kingman, Chicago, Los
Angeles and Kansas. A national hotline was established to
take tips, and tens of thousands of calls came in. ``We were
chasing everything that made sense, credit records, telephone
records,''
one senior law enforcement source said.
A Justice Department team flew in computer terminals to
link into the department's Eagle system, which allows federal
prosecutors around the nation to communicate electronically.
At the same site, a Southwestern Bell Co. warehouse downtown
here, the FBI installed 20 to 30 computer terminals and flew
in a team to set up Rapid Start, a three-year-old automated
case filing system used in investigating the World Trade
Center bombing.
As leads came in, they were typed onto a standardized form
and then encoded into Rapid Start. There are now at least 38
million bytes of information on the Oklahoma bombing stored
in the database.
The FBI has subpoenaed records from telephone companies
around the country, which establish more than 66,000 calls
made by McVeigh, Nichols and other associates. Those calls
were punched into the database, allowing investigators to
sort for patterns.
The 12,800 pieces of evidence collected in Oklahoma City,
including some of the rubble and shrapnel taken from the many
victims, now are being analyzed. Much of the work is tedious
as experts will try to match the chemical composition of
explosive residue found at the scene to that allegedly found
on McVeigh's clothes and in his vehicle. Similar work is
being done on items recovered from Terry Nichols's home.
But the technology has not eliminated the need for a
critical component in most investigations--simple luck. If
detective McPherson had not stumbled upon the axle quickly,
it could have taken months to track down McVeigh, one law
enforcement official noted. Computers or nothing else would
have mattered, he said.
____
[From the Washington Post, June 2, 1995]
N. C. Officer Arrested Agent's Killer Hours Earlier
(By Brian Mooar and Bill Miller)
A North Carolina state trooper arrested Ralph McLean for
speeding 11 hours before the Landover man fatally shot an FBI
agent in Greenbelt, but the trooper failed to check his name
against a national database of wanted criminals, officials
said yesterday.
A check of the FBI's National Crime Information Center
computer would have turned up an outstanding warrant for
McLean, who was wanted in the shootings of two D.C. police
officers and in the attempted murder of his girlfriend,
authorities said.
Washington area law enforcement officials privately
expressed frustration over the missed opportunity to catch
McLean before he killed FBI agent William H. Christian Jr.
and then shot himself to death in a wild gun battle early
Monday. North Carolina state police said the trooper followed
the department's policy discouraging federal checks on
stopped motorists who do not behave in a suspicious manner.
But after considering what happened with McLean, North
Carolina on Wednesday adopted a new policy to run checks on
out-of-state motorists pulled over by troopers.
Trooper J. Harold Lee stopped McLean about 2 p.m. Sunday
after clocking the man's blue 1992 Oldsmobile at 82 mph in a
65- mph zone on northbound Interstate 95 in Johnston County
near the hamlet of Smithfield. McLean, who has been described
as having a pathological hatred toward law enforcement
officers, sat next to Lee in his cruiser and made small talk
while the 21-year veteran trooper wrote his speeding
citation.
``He was polite [and] cooperative,'' Lee said. ``No
indication of anything being out of the ordinary. He was in a
little bit of a hurry. That's all that was indicated * * * .
He just wanted to know how long it would take.''
But as McLean followed Lee to the local magistrate's
office, where McLean posted a $200 bond for the speeding
violation, the trooper saw him make a call on a cellular
telephone and became suspicious.
Although the North Carolina Highway Patrol's procedures did
not require a name check on McLean, Lee ran McLean's driver's
license number through a state computer system and found
nothing. If he had entered McLean's name in the FBI computer,
officials said yesterday, he would have learned of a warrant
charging McLean with assault with intent to kill a D.C.
police officer in January.
``There's nothing I could have done any different,'' Lee
said. ``It was a routine stop that we make daily on the
interstate, and there's no other way to do it.''
Capt. Raymond W. Isley, commander of the North Carolina
Highway Patrol's interstate division, said the department has
ordered national checks on all out-of-state motorists pulled
over by its troopers.
``We reviewed this case because . . . it's a tragedy,''
Isley said. Isley said his department has not routinely
conducted federal checks because they tie up dispatchers, and
``we don't want to get implicated with unduly delaying
people. We generally don't do it unless there is a need to do
it. Ninety-nine and nine-tenths of the people are not
criminals. . . . [[Page S7723]]
``If we get suspicious of you, we do [checks],' 'Isley
said. ``But in this case, the man was very polite, very
cordial. This was a seasoned officer, and he was looking for
something out of the ordinary. But [McLean] controlled
himself very well in his presence.''
Hours later, about 1 a.m. Monday, McLean crept up to an
unmarked cruiser in the parking lot of Greenbelt Middle
School and fatally shot Christian, one of 27 investigators
waiting to surprise him. McLean was hit by seven bullets and
then took his own life, the Maryland state medical examiner's
office said.
McLean was carrying the semiautomatic assault pistol used
to kill Prince George's County police Cpl. John J. Novabilski
in an April 26 shooting, and he died of a bullet from
Novabilski's stolen Beretta 9mm service pistol.
The National Crime Information Center is an FBI office that
maintains a database for state and local law enforcement
agencies that receives 1.3 million inquiries a day, the FBI
said. The computer tracks nearly 400,000 people wanted for
crimes, as well as data concerning crime-related categories.
Authorities can learn whether a person has significant
outstanding warrants or a criminal history.
McLean's name was listed on the computer Saturday when D.C.
police obtained a warrant for his arrest in the shooting of
city police Sgt. Eric L. Hayes.
Law enforcement specialists said the service was designed
to protect not only the public but also the nation's police
officers by alerting them to dangerous suspects.
Policies on routine federal checks vary among Washington
area departments. Virginia State Police do not require checks
on traffic violators. Maryland state troopers are urged to
check the driver and the car through the federal system.
``We check for any warrants or wanted [alerts] for the
people or the vehicle,'' said Mike McKelvin, a Maryland State
Police spokesman.
Lee, who retires in 11 days, said the traffic stop was
indistinguishable from tens of thousands he had made until
Monday afternoon, when a Maryland homicide detective called
him after finding the speeding citation among McLean's
belongings.
Lee said he is convinced that he did everything right
during his 45-minute encounter with McLean--and that he was
lucky things didn't turn out differently after McLean opened
the trunk of his car and rooted through luggage to find his
driver's license.
``I was just very fortunate the stop ended like it did for
myself,'' Lee said. ``Maybe the Lord was looking after me.''
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, let me say to my friend from Ohio that I
applaud his efforts. As he knows, in the crime bill that we passed we
provided $100 million for just these purposes. As a matter of fact, it
has been over a decade ago that I initiated an effort in the first
crime bill introduced to get the NCIC up to speed to actually make it
work. We received some considerable resistance then interestingly
enough from the very left and the very right, the right because, as the
Presiding Officer notes, the right is always concerned about anyone
when anything has to do with Government having power, and the left
because they are concerned about the Government having power. So it was
stalled for a while in the so-called Biden crime bill which passed out
of here.
I wanted that number to be higher out of the trust fund. The most we
could get any agreement on was $100 million. I do not quibble with the
notion that we could effectively spend more money.
The Senator may recall, because he was in the House at the time, that
the local authorities thought they could get by with the $100 million
as long as the FBI was essentially going to be the purchasing agent for
them. What we do not want to have happen is a little police department
in central Ohio or southern Delaware--they may be the very people who
pick up the McVeigh's of the world--and we do not want them to be in
the position where in order for them to purchase this equipment and
some of the more automated fingerprinting capability, the
NCIC, the blood and saliva DNA capability, we do not want them to be
out there since they are purchasing a very small quantity of whatever
it is that is being purchased having to pay considerably more than the
police department in Columbus, or New York, or Wilmington, DE, or
Philadelphia has to pay. But as it turns out they have concluded that
they need more help.
Again, I look forward to working with my friend from Ohio on this
issue as the continuation of an effort that he supported when he was in
the House as well. He is not new to this. He knows this area as well as
anyone does.
One of the things at some point--I will not take the time now because
the distinguished Senator from California who has been waiting since
9:30 to go with her amendment is ready to go now that the chairman of
the committee is here. We will have a long day today. Maybe the Senator
and I, as we say, can repair to the cloakroom. I would like to talk
about his formula which he has built in here which is the distribution
based strictly on population which seems at odds with the notion that
we acknowledge that these little police departments, and smaller areas
in population, also in a strange way need the help more than even the
large police departments.
So I acknowledge at the front end the parochial interest in that
Delaware is a small State and under the formula would be in a
disadvantageous position for this additional funding. I do not expect
the Senator to change his formula. I would like to make my case to him
since this is esoteric.
Mr. DeWINE. If the Senator will yield for a moment, let me
congratulate the Senator from Delaware because he really has been a
leader in this area. I had the opportunity about 2 months ago to go to
the FBI and look to see exactly where all of these systems were. It is
amazing the progress that they have made. In the last several crime
bills there has been systems in there, and I know particularly that the
Senator from Delaware has been a prime leader in this area. Frankly,
what the FBI tells me is that they are moving along very, very well.
The background for my writing this section was frankly what the FBI
told me, and also what local law enforcement told me. That was, look, I
say we are moving along very, very well, quite frankly thanks to what
the Congress has done. A significant amount of money Congress has put
in.
But they said, ``Senator, let us tell you the one concern we have;
that is, our database is only as good as the information we get. Our
concern is that some of these small departments--which the Senator from
Delaware is referring to--will not have the resources. They will not
have the ability to tap in.''
So I look forward to working with the Senator from Delaware in regard
to the formula. Our idea, frankly, is to make sure that every police
officer in the country--some way, either through his or her own
department or through a consortium or through the departments going
together--has the ability to put that information into the computer and
to get it back out. Frankly, my only interest is making it work. So, if
we can come up with a formula that works better to do that, I am more
than happy to work with the Senator to do that.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, that is why I rose to speak to this to
divert slightly from the amendment process. I am not being so
solicitous. I know of the Senator's interest, knowledge, and genuine
concern about this. One thing that he did not mention that he has in
the past, but I think it is worth noting here, is this information also
has the ancillary benefit of saving police officers' lives. The
Presiding Officer knows that in his State of Pennsylvania he has had a
rough year already with loss of police officers' lives. It has not been
a good year. The start has not been a good one.
It is very, very, very practical information when that trooper pulls
up behind an automobile. If he has the system and equipment in his
automobile and the database is real, he literally can, before he gets
out of the car, punch in and find out if that automobile is not only
stolen but where and when and how.
He also has the capability, if we give him the capability and if the
States step up to the ball, of using this portable, automatic
fingerprinting operation where they can literally have a driver come up
into their automobile--what the average citizen would think is a
portable fingerprinting machine--to actually have that person get out
of the car, walk up, stick their thumb or forefinger in this machine in
the automobile, and instantly get a readout as to whether or not the
license that they are carrying comports with their identity.
[[Page S7724]]
This not only makes a lot of sense in terms of tracking and using it
as a device to solve crimes, but it also has the immediate benefit of
literally saving lives of police officers. As a former prosecutor, the
Senator from Ohio knows this. In my discussion with police--and, as you
know, the head of the FOP and a number of leading members of the FOP
are from the home State of the Senator from Ohio--they know of his work
and his interest in this area.
So I compliment him on his initiative and thank him for his
willingness to speak with me about the formula. With that, unless the
Senator from Ohio wishes to say anything else, I see the distinguished
Senator from California is on her feet and is ready to go with her
amendment, I think, or is she?
Mrs. BOXER. I am absolutely ready to go with the amendment. My
friend, the good Senator from Ohio, has been with me here since 9:30
this morning. I was ready to go at that time. I did lay down my
amendment. As my friend from Delaware knows, there is some concern on
the other side, although I think it is not all that widely based, that
we should narrow the scope of my amendment. It is not my intention to
do that.
I am ready to vote on my amendment right now. I say to my friend from
Delaware, I would greatly appreciate his views on my amendment because
I have expressed mine. If I can have some time at this point, I can
summarize in 5 minutes and then I would love to have my friend from
Delaware react to the amendment and perhaps express his view as to
whether it is a commonsense amendment.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a moment, I
am anxious to do that. I sincerely hope she does not amend her
amendment. I will, in time, at an appropriate time, explain why I hope
that is not the case. I am of the view that if Senators listen to this
debate or this discussion, I think it is very, very difficult to make a
case why the exception being sought should be granted. I will yield the
floor back to the Senator, have her make her case, and I am prepared
and anxious to speak to her amendment.
Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Amendment No. 1214
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President. About one-half hour
ago, I laid down my amendment which would really, I think, add a lot of
common sense to our gun laws, because we seem to have two sets of
statutes of limitations.
Generally, gun laws and criminal laws have a 5-year statute of
limitations, except for the National Firearms Act, which has a 3-year
statute, which means that the police have to complete their work on
sometimes very complicated cases, in 3 years.
Now, what are these cases? And this is where I think Senators ought
to listen. There are only three cases: The making of a bomb, such as
the bomb that was made in Oklahoma City, is only covered in the
National Firearms Act. So we have to go after these terrorists. This is
the place. Law enforcement is asking us for 5 years, not the 3 that
they have. That is one case.
The other case is the making of a sawed-off shotgun. The only place
where that crime is covered is in this law, and we think there ought to
be a 5-year statute.
And the third, the making of a silencer, is covered in this
particular statute, which I would like to amend to 5 years.
So what we are suggesting is that those three areas--silencers,
sawed-off shotguns, and bombs--ought to be covered by the same statute
of limitations as exists in, for example, the assault weapon ban, cop-
killer bullets, and all criminal laws, which basically have a 5-year
statute.
I see that the distinguished majority leader is on the floor. I was
hopeful that maybe that indicated we could move this along by simply
accepting it because it is, in fact, an amendment that really comes to
this floor via law enforcement.
On Senators' desks I have the names of 45 police chiefs who urge
support for the Boxer amendment. These police chiefs are from
California; Oregon; Washington State; Florida; New Jersey; Arizona;
Pennsylvania; Roanoke, VA; Connecticut; Indiana; Illinois; New York;
Massachusetts; Maryland; Arkansas; Kentucky; South Carolina; Georgia;
Missouri; Alabama, and I do not know whether I mentioned Oklahoma City.
The Oklahoma City chief of police wants us to adopt the Boxer
amendment.
Just now, I was handed a letter from the Fraternal Order of Police.
The Fraternal Order of Police, Dewey Stokes, has sent us a letter that
says:
Senator Boxer will offer an amendment that will assist
prosecutions under the National Firearms Act. The NFA
prohibits the manufacture, sale and possession of machine
guns, sawed-off shotguns and bombs. The statute of
limitations for NFA violations, however, is only 3 years, in
contrast to a 5-year statute of limitation for all other gun
control laws and most criminal laws. The Boxer amendment will
increase the statute of limitations for NFA violations to 5
years.
The Fraternal Order of Police firmly supports . . . this amendment.
And it goes on to write:
You have supported law enforcement in the past and we hope
you will stand with us again by voting to approve these vital
propolice amendments.
So, Mr. President, the Boxer amendment is a propolice amendment
described that way by the Fraternal Order of Police and 45 police
chiefs in this country who are saying to the U.S. Senate: ``Please pass
this antiterrorism bill, but give us the tools we need.''
And here is one tool that does not cost any money, Mr. President.
What we are giving the law enforcement authorities is time, time to
follow the thousands of leads, time to put together the pieces of the
puzzle. I really hope we can have bipartisan support for this amendment
in its entirety. The police chiefs are not just supporting part of the
Boxer amendment, they are supporting the entire Boxer amendment, and I
hope we can come together and move on, because as I watched the
families of the victims of Oklahoma yesterday begging us to move
forward a bill that would help bring these evildoers to justice, it
certainly occurred to me that it would be tragic if the statute of
limitations ran out.
One thing we have to remember, the statute starts running when the
bomb is completed. So if a terrorist builds a bomb and stores that bomb
for a year or 2 before using it, we may be down to a year for the
police to put together all the leads.
So at this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in
the Record the names of the 45 police chiefs who have endorsed the
Boxer amendment and the letter from the Fraternal Order of Police that
we just received.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Fraternal Order of Police,
Washington, DC, June 5, 1995.
Dear Senator: As the Senate prepares to debate the anti-
terrorism bill, on behalf of the 270,000 police officers who
are members of the Fraternal Order of Police, I want to
strongly urge that you support three pro-law enforcement
amendments that will be offered to the bill. The three
amendments concern cop-killer bullets, re-arming felons, and
the National Firearms Act. Specifically, the Fraternal Order
of Police urges your support for the following:
Senator Bradley will offer an amendment to strengthen the
current cop-killer bullet law. In 1986, Congress passed and
President Reagan signed legislation prohibiting the
manufacture, importation and sale of handgun ammunition
capable of piercing the body armor worn by most police
officers. Earlier this year, the ``Black Rhino'' bullet
received a lot of publicity for its supposed armor-piercing
qualities. While the claims turned out to be exaggerated,
manufacture of such a bullet would have been allowed under
current law. Because the 1986 law prohibits bullets based on
their physical composition, manufacturers currently working
to develop ammunition like the ``Black Rhino'' would be able
to manufacture and market them to the public. The Bradley
Amendment will close this loophole by prohibiting the
manufacture and sale of armor-piercing ammunition based on
reasonable performance standards rather than composition.
Senators Lautenberg and Simon will offer an amendment that
will prevent all persons convicted of a violent felony or
serious drug offense from ever possessing firearms. Even
though federal law generally prohibits a convicted felon from
possessing a firearm, ATF can grant a waiver to this
prohibition, following an extensive background investigation.
Although recent appropriations acts have temporarily halted
the use of ATF funds to restore firearm rights to convicted
felons, the Lautenberg/Simon Amendment will permanently close
this loophole by eliminating the waiver procedure. This
amendment will also permanently prohibit any individual
convicted of a violent felony or serious drug offense from
possessing a [[Page S7725]] firearm, even if the state might
have restored other civil rights to the individual. The
effect of this amendment, in addition to keeping guns out of
the hands of felons, will be to permanently free ATF
personnel to take guns out of the hands of criminals, rather
than to put them there.
Senator Boxer will offer an amendment that will assist
prosecutions under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA
prohibits the manufacture, sale and possession of machine
guns, sawed-off shotguns and bombs. The statute of
limitations for NFA violations, however, is only three years,
in contrast to a five year statute of limitation for all
other gun control laws and most other criminal laws. The
Boxer Amendment will increase the statute of limitations for
NFA violations to five years.
The Fraternal Order of Police firmly supports these three
amendments. You have supported law enforcement in the past
and we hope you will stand with us again by voting to approve
these vital pro-police amendments.
Sincerely,
Dewey R. Stokes
National President.
____
Forty-Five Police Chiefs Urge Your Support of the Boxer Amendment
extend the statute of limitations for nfa offenses
Chief Anthony D. Ribera, San Francisco, CA; Chief Charles
A. Moose, Portland, OR; Chief Allan L. Wallis, Renton, WA;
Chief Jimmie L. Brown, Miami, FA; Chief Daniel Colucci,
Kinnelton, NJ; Chief Douglas L. Bartosh, Scottsdale, AZ;
Chief Ronald J. Panyko, Millvale, PA; Deputy Chief Roy L.
Meisner, Berkeley, CA; Chief Dan Nelson, Salinas, CA;
Director Steven G. Hanes, Roanoke, VA; Chief Edmund Mosca,
Old Saybrook, CT; Chief Louis Cobarruviaz, San Jose, CA;
Chief Frank Alcala, East Chicago, IN; Chief Scott Burleson,
Waukegan, IL; Commission Gil Kerlikowske, Buffalo, NY; Chief
Robert M. St. Pierre, Salem, MA; Chief Perry Anderson,
Cambridge, MA; Chief William Corvello, Newport News, VA;
Chief Noel K. Cunningham, Los Angeles Port, CA; Chief Robert
H. Mabinnis, San Leandro, CA; Chief Robert M. Zidek,
Bladensburg, MD; Chief William Nolan, North Little Rock, AR;
Chief Leonard G. Cooke, Eugene, OR; Chief E. Douglas
Hamilton, Louisville, KY; Chief C.L. Reynolds, Port St.
Lucie, FA; Chief Harold L. Hurtt, Oxnard, CA; Chief Reuben M.
Greenberg, Charleston, SC; Chief Leonard R. Barone,
Haverhill, MA; Asst. Chief James T. Miller, DeKalb Co.
Police, Decatur, GA; Colonel Clarance Harmon, St. Louis, MO;
Chief James D. Toler, Indianapolis, IN; Chief Charles R.
McDonald, Edwardsville, IL; Chief Lockheed Reader, Puyallup,
WA; Chief Harold L. Johnson, Mobile, AL; Chief Charles E.
Samarra, Alexandria, VA; Chief Sylvester Daughtry,
Greensboro, NC; Chief Peter L. Cranes, W. Yarmouth, MA; Chief
Robert L. Johnson, Jackson, MS; Chief Gertrude Bogan, Bel
Ridge, MO; Chief Larry J. Callier, Opelousas, LA; Chief Norm
Stamper, Seattle, WA; Chief Lawerence Nowery, Rock Hill, SC;
Chief Sam Gonzales, Oklahoma City, OK; Chief Jerry Sanders,
San Diego, CA; Chief David C. Milchan, Pinellas Park, FL.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my friend from Delaware at this time
if he would be willing to speak to this amendment? I thank the
President and yield the floor.
Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I make an inquiry, are we making progress
this morning?
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, oh, we are doing great, I say to the
leader. Things are moving along swimmingly. At this rate, we will be
done.
Mr. DOLE. I understand the Senator from California was available
earlier. Others were not available. She was here. I do not think the
amendment has been offered.
Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
Mr. DOLE. It has been offered.
Mrs. BOXER. I am ready to vote on it.
Mr. DOLE. Hopefully, we can dispose of that and move on quickly to
the other amendments. It is our intention to finish this bill today. We
will be discussing in our conference trying to further limit the number
of amendments on this side.
Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield, Mr. President, we will make the
same effort in our conference.
Mr. DOLE. I think what we are doing is awaiting the return of Senator
Hatch right now, as I understand it.
Habeas Corpus
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as part of the ongoing debate, not on the
amendment, I wanted to make a brief statement on habeas corpus because
on May 25, President Clinton wrote me urging habeas corpus reform be
excluded, that means excluded from the antiterrorism bill pending
before the Senate.
The President wrote, and I quote:
While I do not believe that habeas corpus reform should be
addressed in the context of the counterterrorism bill, I look
forward to working with the Senate in the future on a bill
that would accomplish this objective.
The President apparently had a change of heart. Last night on the
Larry King Show, the President reversed his position, endorsing the
inclusion of habeas reform in the antiterrorism bill. The President
said:
We need to cut the time delay on appeals dramatically, and
. . . it ought to be done in the context of this terrorism
legislation so that it would apply to any prosecutions
brought against anyone indicted in Oklahoma. And I think it
ought to be done.
I welcome the President's remarks. And I am delighted that he has
finally come around to our position that, of all the antiterrorism
initiatives now before the Senate, the one that bears most directly on
the Oklahoma City tragedy is habeas corpus reform.
Yesterday, the families of some of the victims of the Oklahoma City
bombing traveled all the way to Washington to tell their elected
representatives that habeas reform is an essential ingredient of any
serious antiterrorism plan. The families understand, as we do, that if
we really want justice that is ``swift, certain and severe,'' then we
must put an end to the endless appeals and delays that have done so
much to weaken public confidence in our criminal justice system. We
must have habeas corpus reform now.
It is great news that President has switched his position and now
supports the inclusion of habeas reform in the antiterrorism bill.
Hopefully, the President's support will help speed up the process here
in the Senate and enable us to pass this legislation later tonight.
I ask unanimous consent that the President's quote on the Larry King
Show and his letter of a couple of weeks ago--and they state different
positions--be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Excerpts From the Larry King Show
President Clinton. In death penalty cases, it normally
takes eight years to exhaust the appeals. It's ridiculous.
And if you have multiple convictions, it cold take even
longer. So there is a strong sense in the Congress, I think
among members of both parties, that we need to get down to
sort of one clear appeal. We need to cut the time delay on
the appeals dramatically, and that it ought to be done in the
context of this terrorism legislation so that it would apply
to any prosecutions brought against anyone indicted in
Oklahoma. And I think it ought to be done.
You know, we have some differences about exactly what the
details are and what the best and fairest way to do to apply
to all criminal cases, but I think it definitely ought to be
done.
For 15 years I have been trying to get Congress to clarify
this, and I have strongly believed it for a very long time,
since I was an attorney general and a governor and I'd been
on the receiving end of these interminable appeals.
Mr. King. Are there those in Congress who think you're
against this?
Vice President Gore. There are some in both parties who, in
good conscience, think it would cause problems for criminal
procedure.
Mr. King. Constitutional.
Vice President Gore. Well, they're worried about it. But
the president's for it. And if they want to put the right
version of it on this bill, fine.
Mr. King. Are we----
President Clinton. You know, there are some good and bad.
We don't have time to get into all the details of it. There
are things that I like better in some versions than others.
Mr. King. But you're in essence for it.
President Clinton. But we--I'm not only for it; we need to
do it. You can't justify this lengthy appeal process.
____
The White House,
Washington, May 25, 1995.
Hon. Robert Dole,
Republican Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Leader: I write to renew my call for a tough,
effective, and comprehensive antiterrorism bill, and I urge
the Congress to pass it as quickly as possible. The Executive
and Legislative Branches share the responsibility of ensuring
that adequate legal tools and resources are available to
protect our Nation and its people against threats to their
safety and well-being. The tragic bombing of the Murrah
Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19th, the latest
in a disturbing trend of terrorist attacks, makes clear the
need to enhance the Federal government's ability to
investigate, prosecute, and punish terrorist activity.
To that end, I have transmitted to the Congress two
comprehensive legislative proposals: The ``Omnibus
Counterterrorism Act of 1995'' and the ``Antiterrorism
Amendments [[Page S7726]] Act of 1995.'' In addition, the
Senate has under consideration your bill, S. 735, the
``Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995.'' I
understand that a substitute to S. 735, incorporating many of
the features of the two Administration proposals, will be
offered in the near future. I also understand that the
substitute contains some provisions that raise significant
concerns. We must make every effort to ensure that this
measure responds forcefully to the challenge of domestic and
international terrorism. I look forward to working with the
Senate on the substitute and to supporting its enactment,
provided that the final product addresses major concerns of
the Administration in an effective, fair, and constitutional
manner. The bill should include the following provisions:
Provide clear Federal criminal jurisdiction for any
international terrorist attack that might occur in the United
States, as well as provide Federal criminal jurisdiction over
terrorists who use the United States as the place from which
to plan terrorist attacks overseas.
Provide a workable mechanism to deport alien terrorists
expeditiously, without risking the disclosure of national
security information or techniques and with adequate
assurance of fairness.
Provide an assured source of funding for the
Administration's digital telephony initiative.
Provide a means of preventing fundraising in the United
States that supports international terrorist activity
overseas.
Provide access to financial and credit reports in
antiterrorism cases, in the same manner as banking records
can be obtained under current law through appropriate legal
procedures.
Make available the national security letter process, which
is currently used for obtaining certain categories of
information in terrorism investigations, to obtain records
critical to such investigations from hotels, motels, common
carriers, and storage and vehicle rental facilities.
Approve the implementing legislation for the Plastic
Explosives Convention, which requires a chemical in plastic
explosives for identification purposes, and require the
inclusion of taggants--microscopic particles--in standard
explosive device raw materials which will permit tracing of
the materials post-explosion.
Expand the authority of law enforcement to fight terrorism
through electronic surveillance, by expanding the list of
felonies that could be used as the basis for a surveillance
order; applying the same legal standard in national security
cases that is currently used in routine criminal cases for
obtaining permission to track telephone traffic with ``pen
registers'' and ``trap and trace'' devices; and authorizing
``roving'' wiretaps where it is impractical to specify the
number of the phone to be tapped (such as when a suspect uses
a series of cellular phones).
Criminalize the unauthorized use of chemical weapons in
solid and liquid form (as they are currently criminalized for
use in gaseous form), and permit the military to provide
technical assistance when chemical or biological weapons are
concerned, similar to previously authorized efforts involving
nuclear weapons.
Make it illegal to possess explosives knowing that they are
stolen; increase the penalty for anyone who transfers a
firearm or explosive materials, knowing that they will be
used to commit a crime of violence; and provide enhanced
penalties for terrorist attacks against all current and
former Federal employees, and their families, when the crime
is committed because of the official duties of the federal
employee.
In addition, the substitute bill contains a section on
habeas corpus reform. This Administration is committed to any
reform that would assure dramatically swifter and more
efficient resolution of criminal cases while at the same time
preserving the historic right to meaningful Federal review.
While I do not believe that habeas corpus should be addressed
in the context of the counterterrorism bill, I look forward
to working with the Senate in the near future on a bill that
would accomplish this important objective.
I want to reiterate this Administration's commitment to
fashioning a strong and effective response to terrorist
activity that preserves our civil liberties. In combatting
terrorism, we must not sacrifice the guarantees of the Bill
of Rights, and we will not do so. I look forward to working
with the Congress toward the enactment of this critical
legislation as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton.
Mr. DOLE. I suggest that we hope to finish this bill tonight. I urge
my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle that there are a
number of Republican amendments pending, and they are not rushing to
the floor to discuss those amendments with the manager and the chairman
of the committee, Senator Hatch.
Now, if we are going to suggest that the Democrats ought to
cooperate, then we will suggest that Republicans ought to cooperate,
too. So I ask my colleagues on this side of the aisle, or anybody who
may be listening in their offices, if you have amendments, please let
us know before noon. We would like to find out by noon on this side of
the aisle how many amendments we have, serious amendments, and how many
are going to be called up. Then we can go to the distinguished Senator
from Delaware and say we have x number of amendments that will take x
amount of hours. We hope to get time agreements so we can complete
action on the bill later today.
I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 1214
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, let me respond to the question posed to me
by the Senator from California, Senator Boxer. There are a couple of
things I have observed in the years of working with Senator Boxer, and
that is when she thinks she is right, there is nothing that slows her
up. I mean nothing. Almost without exception, in my dealings with her
and the matters we have worked on, she has a commonsense approach to
these things that is, quite frankly, sometimes around this place is not
factored in. If she had stood up today on the floor of the Senate and
said, you know, my colleagues in the Senate, the statute of limitations
for rape is 3 years. Yet, the statute of limitations for robbery is 5
years, and what I want to do is I want to increase the statute of
limitations for rape from 3 to 5 years, I imagine there would be a
chorus of Members in the Senate on both side standing up and saying,
bravo, right.
My goodness, why would we have a serious crime like rape be a statute
that was only 3 years and yet a less serious crime like assault be a 5-
year statute of limitations. Because I want to make it clear--and I
know all my colleagues and everybody on the floor here who has dealt in
this area or are accomplished lawyers in their own right know that--let
us keep in mind what the rationale for the statute of limitations is.
The rationale is, the more serious the crime, the more we are committed
to finding the perpetrator, and ofttimes that means we need more time.
A second factor that goes into this is that some crimes are more
difficult to solve than others because the evidence that is needed to
solve the crime sometimes takes a long time to track down.
Third, we have generally tried--in terms of title 18, the criminal
code in effect for the Federal Government--to standardize the amount of
time we give prosecutors and the Government to find perpetrators of
crime.
Now, the fact of the matter is that I do not think this has anything
to do with gun control. It happens to be that we are talking about a
Firearms Act that affects guns, but it really does not matter. It has
everything to do with equity, and it has everything to do with giving
the victim and the Government a chance to find the person who did the
thing that we think is a very bad thing.
For example, if someone is out there violating the Firearms Act with
a machine gun, then we have as a policy, as a nation, for the past
several decades said that is a very bad thing. Yet, there is a 3-year
statute of limitations for that. Or if we go out and say we do not want
people using chemical weapons or making explosives that can do great
damage, we said in the first instance that is a bad thing to do. It is
unhealthy for Americans, for people to be making these devices or
putting silencers on their guns. Why do people put a silencer on a gun?
Is it because they are target practicing in their basement and they do
not want to disturb the folks on the second floor? Or is it because
they do not want the deer to hear the bullet coming? Why do you use
silencers? You use a silencer to avoid detection. And so if someone is
out there violating the Firearms Act with a silencer or machinegun or
building a bomb, it seems to me, just on the face of it, that we should
give the Government and the victims enough time out there as we give
somebody if they are assaulted. My Lord, if someone is assaulted, the
case stays open for 5 years. Yet, if someone violates what we all say
is a serious problem, we are saying 3 years.
Now, look, I know that some of my friends on both sides of the aisle
are a little concerned about this because I know that it says ``guns
and firearms,'' and when you say that around here, that sets off bells
and whistles and so on. But I respectfully suggest that this is totally
consistent--although I have not spoken to the national NRA, I have
[[Page S7727]] spoken with the NRA in my State and the leadership in my
State. I keep in contact with them. As I said yesterday, in my State,
the NRA are upstanding citizens. The leader in my State is a member of
the ACLU and the NRA and is a practicing lawyer in town. The No. 2 guy
in my State in the NRA is a former captain in a police department in
Dover, DE. These guys are not wackos or nuts; they are serious
citizens.
Now, I have not spoken to them about this, but I have spoken to them
and the national NRA about how we should be dealing with guns and gun
offenses. What do they always say to us? They say, look, do not outlaw
the gun, increase the penalty. So Senator Gramm comes to the floor all
the time and makes a logical, coherent argument. He says, hey, do not
do away with assault weapons, but if you have anybody using one,
violating the law in its use, nail them. Minimum mandatory sentences,
minimum mandatory imprisonment.
And so the philosophy that the NRA has adopted--and to their credit
it is consistent--is that people kill people, guns do not kill people.
And only when they take that inert instrument, that thing called a gun,
and do something bad with it, do you engage the Government.
We have decided as a matter of law under the Firearms Act that it is
a bad thing to go around putting silencers on the end of revolvers, or
rifles for that matter. We decided that it is a bad thing to tote
around a machinegun. We decided that. I do not hear any gun
organization saying, by the way, legalize the sale of machineguns
again. I do not hear anybody saying silencers are something we should
be using. So I am a little surprised that there is any opposition to
the initiative of my friend from California. The one thing she is
probably--I will speak only of the Democratic side, so I do not
implicate any of my Republican friends. She is among the four or five
most successful legislators. She knows how to get things done. I assume
that it comes from her 10 years of experience in the House. I think she
is as surprised as I am that this may be resisted, because I cannot
figure out why it would be. It is consistent with what--I do not want
to put a negative spin on it--the gun proponents say is the way we
should handle the issue of firearms in America. It is consistent. It
relates to penalties, not outlawing them. And it is totally consistent
with the way in which we decide under title 18 to deal with the vast
majority of crimes.
Now, look, this increases from 3 to 5 years the statute of
limitations for the most serious weapons offenses, specifically those
under the National Firearms Act. In doing so, this amendment brings the
statute of limitations into line with the vast majority of Federal
offenses which have to do with guns and do not have to do with guns.
Generally, the statute of limitations is a period which the Government
has following the crime to bring an indictment under Federal law. All
noncapital crimes are subject to a limitation. The National Firearms
Act covers the most dangerous weapons: machineguns, sawed-off shotguns,
silencers, and destructive devices which include any explosive or
incendiary or poison gas, A, bomb, B, grenade, C, rocket having a
propellant of more than four ounces, D, missiles having explosive or
incendiary charges of more than one-quarter of an ounce, and E, a mine.
You know, these are not playthings we are talking about. These are
serious offenses. Again, I do not know anybody, whether they are the
NRA--and I stand to be corrected by anybody else--who says, by the way,
you should not outlaw sawed-off shotguns, machineguns, and rockets
having a propellant and the charges, grenades, bombs, incendiary
charges of more than one-quarter ounce, and missiles.
So all the Senator is asking for is what the police are asking for.
It defies logic to give offenders a break by limiting the statute of
limitations to only 3 years. The statute of limitations in other
Federal crimes is that, as has been pointed out by the Senator from
California, a vast majority of those crimes already are 5 years. Let me
give you a few examples. Crimes with a 5-year statute of limitations
include assault, 18 United States Code section 111; kidnapping, 18
United States Code section 1201; bank robbery, 18 United States Code
section 2113; car robbery, 18 United States Code section 2119;
embezzlement, 18 United States Code section 641.
I also point out that the statute of limitations is also 5 years for
illegally importing lottery tickets, impersonating a Federal employee,
unlawfully shipping, transporting, receiving, possessing, selling,
distributing, or purchasing contraband cigarettes, counterfeiting,
forging, or using any counterfeited or forged postal or revenue stamp
of any foreign government, unauthorized use of the character Smokey the
Bear. It is a misdemeanor, but it is a 5-year statute of limitations.
Unauthorized use of the character Woodsy Owl. That is a 5-year statute
of limitations.
Now, look, if we are going to give the Government 5 years to track
down the guy who impersonates or uses Woodsy the Owl, why in the devil
would we not give 5 years to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to
track down somebody who has violated the most serious weapons offenses
that nobody I know of is suggesting we do away with?
Mrs. BOXER. If the Senator will yield, I think this is such a crucial
point because if people were unhappy with the 5-year statute of
limitations, I would assume there could be an amendment to roll it back
to 3. All we are saying is that it is an anomaly here that three or
four firearms laws do not match up with the vast majority. I think my
friend has gotten it exactly right, as usual.
If I might just say to my friend, I do not know whether he was aware
of this, but there was an article in the New York Times on another
matter that relates to my friend's work here. And that is that under
the Violence Against Women Act, the first arrest was made, and this is
a man who crossed State lines to beat his wife. It is a matter of the
work of my friend, Senator Biden, who, for--I do not know how long--6
years, fought to get the Violence Against Women Act into law. Proudly,
I was the House author when I was there in the House and lived to see
the day when it became law here in the Senate.
The reason I bring that up is my friend is a pragmatist. He sees a
problem and he solves it. He sticks with it. But my friend from
Delaware, the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, is also
somebody who works beautifully with the other side. Senator Hatch
worked with him on the Violence Against Women Act, and, in the end, we
had everybody together. When my friend, Senator Biden, stands on this
floor and says he does not understand why there is a problem with this
on the other side, I think that carries a lot of weight.
Frankly, I say to my friend, I wish we could just have a vote up or
down on this amendment. I think it is common sense. We have 45 police
chiefs from 24 States who have endorsed this. We have the Fraternal
Order of Police.
It may be that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, my friend
from Utah, may wish to lay this aside. We will take a look at it. I
certainly hope that the remarks of the Senator from Delaware will be
heard by both sides of the aisle, because this is a commonsense
amendment. We should not be wasting a lot of time. We should do this in
a bipartisan way.
Frankly, it directly relates to Oklahoma City. It directly relates.
If we find out that those terrorists made that bomb a year earlier, it
would bring the statute down to 2 years, I say to my friend. It is a
very serious amendment. It is directly related to Oklahoma City. I want
to thank my friend so much. I yield back.
Mr. BIDEN. Let me conclude, Mr. President, because again, it is a
little bit like when we first raised the issue of taggants. There was
initially--because a lot of people did not understand it--a lot of
resistance.
Yesterday, we overwhelmingly passed it because we talked about it. I
am sincerely hopeful that as the staff of Senators who were otherwise
occupied now in committee hearings and may not be able to hear this
themselves will understand that this does not have to do with guns. It
has to do with equity.
A person convicted, as I indicated earlier, of impersonating a
Federal employee can get up to a 3-year sentence, while a person
convicted under the National Firearms Act can receive up to 10 years in
prison. [[Page S7728]]
One has to wonder why a statute of limitations is shorter for the
great offense and longer for the shorter offense. It does not seem to
make sense.
Again, although I cannot and do not speak for the NRA, it seems to me
on its face this is totally consistent with the philosophy that the NRA
has adopted relative to gun offenses.
That is, when the law is violated relating to guns and/or explosives,
that person should be punished severely. One of the things that we all
know, in tracking these cases, is the police need time.
It is totally consistent with the way we have dealt with other crimes
and totally consistent with the philosophy on the left and the right,
it seems to me, to just merely standardize the statute of limitations
for these very serious offenses.
I hope, if we are prepared to vote on this, or whatever decision the
Senator from California makes, I hope the Senator sticks to her guns
here. I am convinced if people understand what the Senator is
attempting to do and depoliticize it here and just look at the facts,
the facts are it makes no sense not to give the police what they want,
the additional 2 years to be able to track and apprehend people who
violate only the most serious of the laws relating to firearms and
explosives.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee
has been waiting to speak. I need to take just 1 minute. I think I have
worked this out with the distinguished Senator from California.
I ask unanimous consent that the Boxer amendment numbered 1214 be
laid aside until 2:15 in order for the Senate to consider other
amendments, and that no amendments dealing with the same issue as the
Boxer amendment be in order prior to 2:15 today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me just say, with regard to the
Senator's amendment, that there is a lot of concern because 40 percent
of the people in this country are afraid of their Government.
If we extend a statute of limitations from 3 to 5 years, there is an
awful lot of worry that official prosecutors will dangle and dangle the
accused for the full 5 years until they indict them, the day before the
5 years expires. We have seen it happen before.
Extending the statute of limitations is not a simple little gesture.
It is important. I understand the sincerity of the distinguished
Senator from California, and there are a number of other issues, too.
For instance, I think it is important to answer questions. How many
cases in the past decade have failed to be prosecuted because of the
statute of limitations for violation of the firearms provisions? What
were the reasons for the failure to prosecute the alleged NFA firearms
violations within the 3-year statute of limitations? How many NFA
firearms violators have been prosecuted in the last decade? How many
NFA firearms charges were dropped or reduced by plea bargaining? Has
the BATF stated in congressional testimony, or anywhere, that the 3-
year statute of limitations for firearms violations has been a
significant problem? Out of all the cases prosecuted for NFA firearms
violations in the last 5 years, what is the percentage of the
convictions obtained?
Now, I ask unanimous consent that the rest of these questions be
printed in the Record at this point. It may be important for the
distinguished Senator from California to answer some of these
questions, and I will give her a copy of this so she and her staff can
look it over.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Firearms Act Violations--Statute of Limitations--Proposed
Increase
1. How many cases in the last decade have failed to be
prosecuted because of the three year statute of limitations
of violations of the firearms provisions NFA?
2. What were the reasons for the failure to prosecute the
alleged NFA firearm violations within the three year statute
of limitations?
3. How many NFA firearms violators have been prosecuted in
the last decade?
4. How many NFA firearms charges were dropped or were
reduced by a plea bargain?
5. Has the BATF stated in Congressional testimony, or
anywhere, that the three year statute of limitations for
firearms violations has been a significant problem for them?
6. Out of all the cases prosecuted for NFA firearms
violations in the last five years, what is the percentage of
convictions obtained?
7. In the last five years, what percentage of convicted
felon for NFA firearm violations are currently serving their
sentences in a federal penal institution?
8. Isn't it a fact that under Title I of the Gun Control
Act, which is often the subject of indictments also alleging
NFA offenses, there is a five year statute of limitations?
And isn't also a fact that the three year statute of
limitations is overlooked at times by counsel and others?
Isn't it true that is the real reason for any cases lost
under the NFA statute of limitations is because of human
error?
9. If a potential case is brought to the BATF or other
relevant federal officials attention's, why would a three
year statute of limitations not be sufficient time to bring
an indictment against the alleged violator? Shouldn't the
punishment for such a crime be swift and effective?
10. After the passage of over three years, evidence becomes
stale and witnesses are lost; a defendant is at a great
disadvantage to defend himself against charges, what, in
terms of fairness, would mandate an extension of that time
for prosecutions of NFA firearms violations for another two
years?
Amendment No. 1228
(Purpose: To clarify the procedures for deporting aliens)
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] for Mr. Abraham, proposes
an amendment numbered 1228.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On p. 36, line 16, strike from ``to prepare a defense''
through the word ``imminent'' on p. 37, line 12, and insert
in its place the following: ``substantially the same ability
to make his defense as would disclosure of the classified
information.
``(C) The Attorney General shall cause to be delivered to
the alien a copy of the unclassified summary approved under
subparagraph (B).
``(D) If the written unclassified summary is not approved
by the court, the Department of Justice shall be afforded
reasonable opportunity to correct the deficiencies identified
by the court and submit a revised unclassified summary.
``(E) If the revised unclassified summary is not approved
by the court, the special removal hearing shall be terminated
unless the court, after reviewing the classified information
in camera and ex parte issues findings that--
``(i) the alien's continued presence in the U.S. poses as
reasonable likelihood of causing
``(I) serious and irreparable harm to the national
security; or
``(II) death or serious bodily injury to any person; and
``(ii) provision of either the classified information or an
unclassified summary that meets the standard set out in (B)
poses a reasonable likelihood of causing
``(I) serious and irreparable harm to the national
security; or
``(II) death or serious bodily injury to any person; and
``(iii) the unclassified summary prepared by the Department
of Justice is adequate to allow the alien to prepare a
defense.
``(F) If the Court makes these findings, the special
removal hearing shall continue, and the Attorney General
shall cause to be delivered to the alien a copy of the
unclassified summary together with a statement that it meets
the standard set forth in paragraph (E) rather than the one
set forth in paragraph (C).
``(G) If the Court concludes that the unclassified summary
does not meet the standard set forth in paragraph (E), the
special removal hearing shall be terminated unless the court,
after reviewing the classified information in camera and ex
parte finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that--
``(i) the alien's continued presence in the United States--
``(I) would cause serious and irreparable harm to the
national security; or
``(II) would likely cause ''.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be set aside. I understand Senator Leahy is coming to the floor with an
amendment to take up immediately following, hopefully, Senator
Thompson's remarks.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Tennessee is
waiting, if he allows me 60 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1214
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I listened to my friend raise questions
about the [[Page S7729]] amendment. My response is that all the
questions he raised are totally irrelevant.
Whether or not 40 percent of the American people are afraid of their
Government, the idea is that who they should be afraid of is anybody
walking around with a bomb, grenade, rocket launcher, or a silencer on
their gun, or a machine gun. That is who they should be afraid of.
Whether there have been prosecutions or not is totally unrelated to
whether or not the statute of limitations should be 3 or 5 years. And
the notion of dangling over their head the prospect of prosecution--I
have zero sympathy for anyone, whether they are a Mafia don, whether
they are a rapist, or whether they are someone walking around with a
rocket-propelled device, I could give a darn about their concern, if
they violate the law. The question is did they violate it or did they
not? They will have a chance to prove it in court. The police should
have a chance to bring them to court.
With all due respect, I think his questions raised are irrelevant. I
hope my friend from California will not bother to answer them, but that
is the right of the Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately
following my remarks here the distinguished Senator from Tennessee be
permitted to deliver his remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I do not disagree with Senator Biden. When
you have terrorists and bomb throwers and rocket launchers and things
like that--I do not have any sympathy for them either. But both he and
I have been in court before as practicing attorneys where the Federal
Government has brought unjust actions against people and dangled them
for the full extent of the statute of limitations. We won those cases,
but it was not easy and it ruined lives in the process. I have seen
that happen. That is what I am concerned about and that is what I think
many people are concerned about.
I am not against extending statutes of limitations when they are
justified. Maybe in this case they are. I may very well consider voting
for this amendment or accepting it. But I want to make sure everybody
understands it is not quite as simple as we sometimes paint it on the
floor, when 40 percent of the people in this country are afraid of
their Government. One reason is because they have seen some unjust
prosecutions, criminal prosecutions, that is. That is a matter of
concern to me and I think it is to everybody who is worried about what
people think in this country.
Amendment No. 1229
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress concerning officials of
organizations that refuse to renounce the use of violence)
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for and on
behalf of Mr. Brown and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] for Mr. Brown proposes an
amendment numbered 1229.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new
section--
``SEC. . TERRORISM AND THE PEACE PROCESS IN NORTHERN
IRELAND.
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the Sense of the Congress
that--
(1) All parties involved in the peace process should
renounce the use of violence and refrain from employing
terrorist tactics, including punishment beatings;
(2) The United States should take no action that supports
those who use international terrorism as a means of
furthering their ends in the peace process in northern
Ireland;
(3) United States policy should not discourage any
agreement reached in northern Ireland that is ratified by a
democratic referendum.
(b) Report.--Section 620 of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 is amended by adding the following--
``SEC. 620G. REPORT ON NORTHERN IRELAND.
The President shall provide a biannual report beginning 60
days after the date of enactment of this Act to the
appropriate committees of Congress on--
(1) The renunciation of violence and steps taken toward
disarmament by all parties in the northern Ireland peace
process;
(2) Any terrorist incidents in northern Ireland in the
intervening six months, their perpetrators, actions taken by
the United States to denounce the acts of violence, United
States efforts to assist in the detention and arrest of these
terrorists and U.S. efforts to arrest or detain any elements
that have provided them direct or indirect support;
(3) Fundraising in the United States by the Irish
Republican Army, Sinn Fein or any associated organization and
whether any of these funds have been used to support
international terrorist activities.''
Mr. HATCH. I also unanimous consent this amendment be set aside so we
can have another amendment called up, presumably by Senator Leahy, who
I understand is coming to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the previous order the Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that he yield me 30
seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. The logic of the argument of my friend from Utah would be
to reduce the statute of limitations for embezzlement from 5 to 3
years, reduce the statute of limitations for assault from 5 to 3 years,
to reduce the statute of limitations for most crimes from 5 to 3 years.
I would stand ready to debate him if he wishes to do that.
I yield the floor and thank my friend from Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, we all appreciate the FBI's fine job in
investigating the Oklahoma City bombing and tracking down the
perpetrators. But all the resources that we vote for the FBI, and all
the work that the Marshals Services performs to protect people in
Federal buildings, are meaningless if the courts will not put
terrorists and other criminals in jail for a long time. And those
resources also will be wasted if the Justice Department fails to punish
those who are guilty.
The bill before us will strengthen Federal efforts against terrorism.
However, the American people should know that we are acting
thoughtfully, and are not overreacting. For instance, the bill before
us reflects a conscious decision not to pass the administration's
proposals to permit roving telephone wiretaps and to significantly
increase the role of the military in domestic law enforcement. Before
this administration asks for increased authority that could infringe
the civil liberties of innocent citizens, it should exercise its
already significant authority to punish terrorists.
President Clinton has stated that those who bomb Federal buildings
are evil cowards. And he has said that it is wrong for terrorists to
try to kill those who lawfully arrest them. Yet, the record of the use
of the current authority of the President's Justice Department to fight
terrorism fails to match the President's rhetoric.
Rodney Hamrick is a terrorist. He has been convicted of threatening
the life of the President, manufacturing an incendiary device while in
prison, and making bomb threats against Federal courthouses in
Washington and in Elkins, WV. While facing prosecution for threatening
to kill the judge who sentenced him, Hamrick built a bomb from
materials available at the jail: A 9-volt battery, steel wires, and
cigarette lighters. He wrapped the bomb in aluminum and put it in an
envelope between a pad and a piece of cardboard. The bomb was designed
to detonate when the pad was removed from the envelope. If fully
effective, the bomb would have produced a 1000-degree fireball up to 3
feet in diameter.
Hamrick mailed the bomb to the Federal building where the U.S.
attorney responsible for prosecuting him worked. When the U.S. attorney
opened the envelope, the bomb fortunately did not explode. The U.S.
attorney, recognizing the homemade bomb, fled his office. The Marshals
Service, FBI, and ATF were called and an Army bomb disposal expert was
flow to the scene. He ordered the evacuation of the entire wing of the
Federal building. While wearing a full-body kevlar bomb suit, he
dismantled the bomb at a distance of 30 feet and a flight of stairs
away. Hamrick was convicted of a number of [[Page S7730]] charges
related to using a deadly or dangerous weapon and destructive device in
perpetrating his attempted murder of a Federal official.
On appeal, a three-judge panel of the fourth circuit held
that a dysfunctional bomb was neither a ``dangerous or deadly
weapon'' nor a ``destructive device.'' The court made this ruling
despite a unanimous 1986 Supreme Court decision in a bank robbery case
that an unloaded gun is a ``dangerous or deadly weapon.'' While the
Supreme Court had held that a gun is an article that is typically and
characteristically dangerous and instills fear in the average citizen,
the panel rules that a dysfunctional bomb is not characteristically
dangerous and a combination of wires and a lighter cannot instill fear.
It overturned Hamrick's convictions on these counts.
When the Government loses a court case, the Solicitor General
determines whether to appeal the decision. Here was a case where an
evil coward had tried to bomb a Federal building and kill an important
Federal official who had sought to prosecute a terrorist. The facts are
extremely similar to the way the President described the Oklahoma City
bombing. Additionally, a controlling Supreme Court decision suggested
that the fourth circuit panel had decided the case incorrectly.
What did the Clinton Justice Department do? Nothing. As the fourth
circuit later wrote:
The United States, at the direction of the Solicitor
General, did not petition either for rehearing or rehearing
en banc of the panel's reversal of Hamrick's convictions and
sentences on these courts.
Nor did the Justice Department file a petition with the Supreme Court
to hear the case. Instead, in an unusual move, the full fourth
circuit decided on its own to rehear the case. The full court found
that the bomb was a ``dangerous or deadly weapon'' and affirmed
Hamrick's convictions.
Mr. President, a letter bomb mailed to a Federal building is a
dangerous or deadly weapon and a destructive device. That is just
common sense. But where was the administration when the decision was
made to accept the overturning of the criminal charges against this
terrorist? Where was the Justice Department, and the Attorney General?
They need to be held accountable for a decision that shows insufficient
regard for public safety.
And what message does the Justice Department's acquiescence send to
Federal law enforcement officials on the line every day, or to Federal
prosecutors? Before this administration starts talking tough on
terrorism, and about how tough it will act in imposing burdens such as
infiltration, roving wiretaps, and searches on law-abiding citizens, it
should explain why it has failed to take steps to raise the heat on
terrorists.
Consider how the ruling the Justice Department accepted would affect
law enforcement. If the original panel decision were the law, bombs
that could not operate would not be dangerous or deadly weapons or
destructive devices. Now consider how this approach would have applied
to the shockingly similar bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma
City.
Suppose that the bomber had been arrested for speeding while driving
the Ryder truck on the way into Oklahoma City instead of driving the
car on the way out. The police would have seen tons of fertilizer and
fuel oil in the truck. But the bomber could not have been prosecuted
for transporting a destructive device or possessing a deadly or
dangerous weapon because the bomb was not yet rigged to explode.
That the Justice Department was willing to accept a ruling that would
yield such an astounding result is absolutely unacceptable.
Mr. President, even the defendant in the Hamrick case did not argue
that the bomb was not a deadly or dangerous weapon in light of the
Supreme Court decision. The Clinton administration was willing to
accept a judicial decision that was softer on terrorism than the
terrorist himself. The American people are owed an explanation, an
apology, and proof that steps have been taken to ensure that the
serious mistakes the Justice Department made in Mr. Hamrick's case will
not be permitted to happen again. Otherwise, the Clinton administration
will have a difficult time credibly fighting terrorism.
I support this legislation, which will strike a proper balance in
habeas corpus and will restore the FBI to its pre-Clinton
administration hiring levels. But another reason to support the bill is
language in section 626, which, in light of the argument that the
administration accepted in Hamrick, will clarify that a ``deadly or
dangerous weapon'' includes ``a weapon intended to cause death or
danger but that fails to do so by reason of a defective or missing
component.'' This language is truly a clarification. Section 111(b) of
the Federal Criminal Code always covered assaults on Federal officers
with deadly or dangerous weapons, even if by happenstance those weapons
misfired, notwithstanding the Clinton administration's position in the
Hamrick case. No defendant who has committed an assault on a Federal
officer with a defective weapon may use this language to argue that
such conduct was legal prior to the date of the passage of this bill.
We merely want to prevent other courts from following the fourth
circuit's original decision, and we want to prevent the administration
from continuing to argue in future cases that a defective bomb is not a
deadly or dangerous weapon. I commend Senators Dole and Hatch for
including this language in their substitute amendment. And I hope that
the bill sends a message to the administration to apply common sense to
prosecute terrorists like Rodney Hamrick to the fullest extent of
existing law.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has a right to offer
an amendment.
Amendment No. 1238 to Amendment No. 1199
(Purpose: To provide assistance and compensation for U.S. victims of
terrorist acts, and for other purposes)
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair, and, in a moment, I will offer my
amendment.
Let me just mention, Mr. President, we need to look at what happens
when we go after terrorists. As a former prosecutor, I feel that if
somebody commits a crime, especially serious crimes like this, we ought
to be able to have every possible way of going after that person. They
ought to be prosecuted. They ought to be brought to justice. They ought
to pay for their crime.
But also as a former prosecutor, I have seen so often the person who
is neglected is the victim. We can spend sometimes millions of dollars
going after somebody who has perpetrated a crime, especially a heinous
crime, but nothing is done to help the victim.
We saw in the continuing tragedy of the downing of Pan Am Flight 103
over Lockerbie, Scotland, the United States Government had no authority
to provide assistance or compensation to the victims of that heinous
crime. It was the same thing with the victims of the Achille Lauro
incident. There has been no authority in the law for the Department of
Justice to respond to these victims through our crime victims programs.
I think it is wrong, and it can be remedied. The amendment I am about
to offer would do that.
We had a report to the Congress last summer from the Office for
Victims of Crime at the U.S. Department of Justice that identified a
related problem. Both the ABA and the State Department have commented
on their concern. They said that crime victims' compensation benefits
should be provided to U.S. citizens who have been victimized in another
country.
If you are a U.S. citizen and you get hit during a terrorist attack
in another country, because you are a U.S. citizen, you ought to at
least have the benefit of programs that are already in place in this
country. Our citizens are deserving of the same protection whether they
are hit by terrorists in Washington, DC, or hit by terrorists in
Beirut, Lebanon.
The Victims of Terrorism Act, which I am about to offer as an
amendment,
[[Page S7731]] provides authority to respond to the consequences of
violent extremism abroad and also here at home.
We have been shielded from much of the terrorism perpetrated abroad.
We see buildings blown up, cars bombed, people shot, leaders
assassinated in other parts of the world. Now we are witnessing similar
incidents here at home. We see what happened at the World Trade Center
in New York, we see assaults on the White House, the Oklahoma City
situation.
The Victims of Terrorism Act would add to the Victims of Crime Act
provisions for supplemental grants to States to provide emergency
relief in the wake of a violent incident that might otherwise overwhelm
a State. I look at the tremendous job the people of Oklahoma and the
local and State authorities did, but they were overwhelmed. This is the
time when they need help from all of us as citizens. Certainly, if
something this terrible happened in my own State of Vermont, the
sympathy would be there, and I know Vermonters well enough to know all
Vermonters would rally, but there would be no way we could handle all
the problems.
I want to commend the National Organization for Victims Assistance
and all the volunteers and others who have been so critical in
providing timely assistance to the Oklahoma City bombing victims. We
should acknowledge their heroic activities. My amendment would allow
them to do more.
Mr. President, I send to the desk the Victims of Terrorism Act, an
amendment I propose to the amendment proposed by Mr. Dole.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] proposes an amendment
numbered 1238 to amendment No. 1199.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 160, after line 19, insert the following:
TITLE X--VICTIMS OF TERRORISM ACT
SEC. 1001. TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Victims of Terrorism Act
of 1995''.
SEC. 1002. AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE AND COMPENSATION
TO VICTIMS OF TERRORISM.
The Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601 et seq.)
is amended by inserting after section 1404A the following new
section:
``SEC. 1404B. COMPENSATION AND ASSISTANCE TO VICTIMS OF
TERRORISM OR MASS VIOLENCE.
``(a) Victims of Acts of Terrorism Outside the United
States.--The Director may make supplemental grants to States
to provide compensation and assistance to the residents of
such States who, while outside the territorial boundaries of
the United States, are victims of a terrorist act or mass
violence and are not persons eligible for compensation under
title VIII of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and
Antiterrorism Act of 1986.
``(b) Victims of Domestic Terrorism.--The Director may make
supplemental grants to States for eligible crime victim
compensation and assistance programs to provide emergency
relief, including crisis response efforts, assistance,
training, and technical assistance, for the benefit of
victims of terrorist acts or mass violence occurring within
the United States and may provide funding to United States
Attorneys' Offices for use in coordination with State victims
compensation and assistance efforts in providing emergency
relief.''.
SEC. 1003. FUNDING OF COMPENSATION AND ASSISTANCE TO VICTIMS
OF TERRORISM, MASS VIOLENCE, AND CRIME.
Section 1402(d)(4) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42
U.S.C. 10601(d)(4)) is amended to read as follows:
``(4)(A) If the sums available in the Fund are sufficient
to fully provide grants to the States pursuant to section
1403(a)(1), the Director may retain any portion of the Fund
that was deposited during a fiscal year that was in excess of
110 percent of the total amount deposited in the Fund during
the preceding fiscal year as an emergency reserve. Such
reserve shall not exceed $50,000,000.
``(B) The emergency reserve may be used for supplemental
grants under section 1404B and to supplement the funds
available to provide grants to States for compensation and
assistance in accordance with section 1403 and 1404 in years
in which supplemental grants are needed.''.
SEC. 1004. CRIME VICTIMS FUND AMENDMENTS.
``(a) Unobligated Funds.--Section 1402 of the Victims of
Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c), by striking ``subsection'' and
inserting ``chapter''; and
(2) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:
``(e) Amounts Awarded and Unspent.--Any amount awarded as
part of a grant under this chapter that remains unspent at
the end of a fiscal year in which the grant is made may be
expended for the purpose for which the grant is made at any
time during the 2 succeeding fiscal years, at the end of
which period, any remaining unobligated sums shall be
returned to the Fund.''.
(b) Base Amount.--Section 1404(a)(5) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
10603(a)(5)) is amended to read as follows:
``(5) As used in this subsection, the term `base amount'
means--
``(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), $500,000; and
``(B) for the territories of the Northern Mariana Islands,
Guam, American Samoa, and Palau, $200,000.''.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, when the bomb exploded outside the Murrah
Federal Building in Oklahoma City last month, my thoughts and prayers
and I suspect that those of all Americans turned immediately to the
victims of this horrendous act. The terrorism legislation that has been
introduced for our consideration, however, is silent with respect to
victims of terrorism.
This amendment is intended to fill that void left in this bill and
include attention to those who suffer immediately and directly from
violent extremism. It is my desire that this amendment, to include
attention to victims of terrorism in the bill, will provide a series of
changes in our growing body of law recognizing the rights and needs of
victims of crime on which we can quickly reach agreement.
No one will deny that a comprehensive approach to terrorism demands
attention to the victims of terrorism. That is what this amendment will
provide.
The amendment helps correct a gap in the law for residents of the
United States who are victims of terrorism that occurs outside the
borders of the United States and who are not in the military, civil
service or civilians in the service of the United States and,
therefore, not eligible for benefits in accordance with the Omnibus
Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986.
Thus, this amendment, the Victims of Terrorism Act, adds to the
Victims of Crime Act provisions that authorize supplemental grants to
the States to provide compensation and assistance for residents of such
States who are victims of terrorism or mass violence while overseas.
One of the continuing tragedies of the downing of Pan Am flight 103
over Lockerbie, Scotland, is that the United States Government had no
authority to provide assistance or compensation to the victims of that
heinous crime. Likewise, the U.S. victims of the Achille Lauro incident
could not be given aid. There has simply been no authority in our law
for the Department of Justice to respond to these victims through our
crime victims' programs. This is wrong and will be remedied by this
amendment.
In its report to Congress last summer, the Office for Victims of
Crime at the U.S. Department of Justice identified a related problem.
both the ABA and the State Department have commented on their concern
and their desire that crime victims compensation benefits be provided
to U.S. citizens victimized in other countries. This is an important
step in that direction.
Certainly U.S. victims of terrorism overseas are deserving of our
support and assistance.
In addition, this Victims of Terrorism Act provides authority to
respond to the consequences of violent extremism here at home. We in
this country have been shielded from much of the terrorism perpetrated
abroad. That sense of security has been shaken by the bombing in
Oklahoma City, the destruction at the World Trade Center in New York,
and the assaults upon the White House.
The Victims of Terrorism Act adds to the Victims of Crime Act
provisions for supplemental grants to States to provide emergency
relief in the wake of an act of terrorism or mass violence that might
otherwise overwhelm the resources of a State's crime victims
compensation program and crime victims assistance services.
We all applaud the efforts of our Office for Victims of Crime in the
wake of the Oklahoma City bombing. It helped to organize a crisis
response team of specially trained professionals who were dispatched
within hours to the disaster. I know that the National Organization for
Victims Assistance was critical in providing timely assistance to
Oklahoma City victims and
[[Page S7732]] thank and acknowledge their heroic efforts.
This amendment will allow them to do more. I want to thank the
dedicated officials at the Department of Justice Office for Victims of
Crime, John Stein of the National Organization for Victims Assistance,
Dan Eddy of the National Association of Crime Victims Compensation
Boards, and David Beatty of the National Victim Center for their help,
counsel, and suggestions in connection with this amendment.
The amendment builds on the crime victims assistance programs of the
States and Federal victims assistance provided through our U.S.
attorney's offices to furnish emergency assistance in times that demand
it. I propose that we allow the Attorney General and the Office for
Victims of Crime, additional flexibility in its targeting of resources
to victims of terrorism, mass violence, and the trauma and devastation
that they cause.
The Victims of Terrorism Act's supplemental grants to provide
compensation and assistance to victims of terrorism and mass violence
are funded through an emergency reserve established as part of the
crime victims fund. I do not intend for this emergency reserve to be
established at the expense of our States' ongoing compensation and
assistance programs. Indeed, funds are not available for the reserve
until the full annual compensation grants are funded and the crime
victims fund has received in excess of 110 percent of the amount
deposited in the previous year so that assistance programs will be
adequately funded, as well.
The emergency reserve will also serve as a rainy day fund to
supplement compensation and assistance grants to the States for years
in which deposits to the crime victims fund are inadequate. There have
been deep swings in the amount of funding deposited annually and,
therefore, available for distribution. This emergency reserve will
provide the Director with the means to even out what would otherwise be
wide variations in annual grants and allow those providing these
critical services some additional confidence that funding will be
available even following a year of poor deposits.
The emergency reserve's ceiling of $50 million is intended to allow
confidence and the vital resources needed to take action to supplement
grants in down years. In order to serve its intended purposes, the
emergency reserve and, for that matter, the entire crime victims fund
must be accorded respect and security. This is a trust fund that is
dedicated to critical needs.
I hope through the provisions of this act to provide some greater
certainty to our State and local victim's assistance programs so that
they can know that our commitment to victims programming will not wax
and wane with events. Accordingly, the amendment would allow grants to
be made for a 3-year cycle of programming, rather than the year of
award plus one, which is the limit contained in current law. This
change reflects the recommendation of the Office for Victims of Crime
contained in its June 1994 report to Congress.
Our State and local communities and community-based nonprofits cannot
be kept on a string like a yoyo if they are to plan and implement
victims' assistance and compensation programs.
They need to be able to program and hire and have a sense of stability
if these measures are to achieve their fullest potential.
I know, for instance, that, in Vermont, Lori Hayes and Pat Hayes at
the Vermont Center for Crime Victims Services; Judy Rex and the Vermont
Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Abuse; Karen Bradley from
the Vermont Center for Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Abuse; and
others, provide tremendous service under difficult conditions. Such
dedicated individuals and organizations will be greatly aided by
increasing their programming cycle by even 1 year. Three years has been
a standard that has worked well in other settings.
Unfortunately, even with the recently announced decreases in violent
crime, it is certain that we will have too many crime victims who need
assistance in the years ahead. While we have made progress over the
last 15 years in recognizing crime victims' rights and providing much-
needed assistance, we still have more to do. It is in recognition of
these needs and the additional authorities and scope being added to the
Victims of Crime Act by this Victims of Terrorism Act that I include a
provision to raise the base amount for small States from $200,000 to
$500,000 for their assistance programs. This is funding that will be
put to good use.
I am proud to have played a role in passage of the Victims and
Witness Protection Act of 1982, the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, the
Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 and the victims provisions
included in such measures as the Federal Courts Administration Act of
1992 and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
My greatest hope would be that the Victims of Terrorism Act, while
improving our responsiveness to national tragedies, need never be
invoked. My concern is that we have not seen the end to terrorism or
mass violence and that its provisions will be important in our future.
A number of our colleagues have great interest in crime victims
legislation, including Senators Hatch, Biden, Ford, DeWine, Kyl, and
McCain and I look forward to working with them on these important
matters. In connection with this amendment I want to thank, in
particular, Senators Hatch, Biden, and McCain for working with me on
it.
We can do more to see that victims of crime, including terrorism, are
treated with dignity and assisted and compensated with Government help.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter of
support for this amendment from the National Organization for Victims
Assistance, which outlines many of the its benefits.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
National Organization
for Victim Assistance,
Washington, DC, June 5, 1995.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: I write to express the enthusiastic
support of the National Organization for Victim Assistance
for your proposed amendment to the anti-terrorism bill now
before the Senate--an amendment that would establish vitally
needed services for the victims of terrorism through the
structure of the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) and its Crime
Victims Fund.
Let me give you a sense of the need for such an emergency
service from our perspective:
When we tried to assist the relatives of Americans held
hostage in Beruit, one service we tried to give them was the
wherewithal to make telephone calls to friends and family--a
healthy coping device which virtually every hostage family
uses extensively, often causing them financial hardship. We
found a charitable businessman who volunteered to organize
contributions to a free phone service for a designated member
of each family. Sadly, the contributions dried up before the
hostage crisis ended.
We also tried to help the niece and nephew of Peter
Kilbourne return his body from the East Coast for burial in
his home state of California (the State Department being
authorized to transport the remains of the slain hostage only
to the nearest U.S. port of entry). Happily, we connected the
relatives to an imaginative victim advocate in Santa Clara
County, who persuaded the state victim compensation program
to underwrite the transportation and burial costs.
Unfortunately, few American victims of terrorism overseas
have such a connection to a victim advocate, and very few
compensation programs have the authority to assist its
citizens who are victimized beyond the borders of the United
States.
And as the coordinator of NOVA's Crisis Response Team that
arrived in Oklahoma City the same day that its Federal
Building was bombed, I sensed immediately that which is now
being slowly documented--that those who had experienced
significant, immediate emotional crisis numbered in the
scores of thousands, that those at risk of experiencing
persistent crisis reactions are surely in the thousands, and
that those at risk of debilitating post-trauma stresses
number at least in the hundreds. NOVA's ongoing planning work
with just one institution--the city school system--shows us
that, whatever good has been done by our
volunteer crisis counselors and their counterparts in
Oklahoma City, the need for caregiving services over the
next year or two far exceeds available resources, and that
full-time crisis counselors and post-trauma therapists
must be hired for the task if society is to perform the
same healing services for these victims as for victims of
other violent crimes.
Your proposal to meet this need is not merely timely and
compassionate but inspired:
It would rename the existing financial reserves in the
Crime Victims Fund by calling [[Page S7733]] them an
``emergency reserve,'' which precisely describes both its
original purpose--to cover any shortfall in the Fund's
revenues in a given year--and to circumscribe the purposes
for which the new authorization is being created--a class of
emergencies for which there are no victim assistance
resources at present;
It would raise additional revenues for the Fund to help
cover the new expenses;
It would cover domestic acts of ``mass violence'' so that
one need not immediately ascertain the motives of a terror-
inducing criminal before acting to assist the affected
community; and
It would place on the Director of the Office for Victims of
Crime the task of devising appropriate regulations,
presumably in consultation with the State Department and
administrators of state victim assistance and compensation
programs, among others, so that the emergency authority can
be invoked quickly, frugally, and imaginatively.
Let me add a final thought: in our ongoing work with
``Operation Heartland'' in Oklahoma City--the cooperative
enterprise of city, county, state, and federal agencies to
ease the pains of thousands of victims of the Murrah Federal
Office Building bombing--we have seen just how the resources
of your amendment would be put to use--quickly and
effectively. The same is true of the monumental task that
will someday face city, county, and federal criminal justice
agencies, that is, how to meet their burdens of preserving
the victims' rights when prosecuting a crime which, by
design, produced thousands of anguished and grieving victims
of violence.
For these reasons, we very much hope that your amendment
will enjoy bipartisan support and speedy enactment.
Sincerely,
John H. Stein,
Deputy Director.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Committee on the floor, who is seeking recognition. I
will yield to him for whatever purpose he may need.
Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague. I wonder if we can defer further
debate on his amendment, so that I can file a bill and make a speech on
the bill.
Mr. LEAHY. Of course.
Mr. HATCH. Senator Bennett is coming over as well. Maybe we can do it
right after lunch.
Mr. LEAHY. I also have an amendment somewhat related that I was going
to offer on behalf of Senator McCain and myself. I will withhold doing
that so that the Senators from Utah can offer their bill.
Mr. HATCH. Why do you not call it up and then we will set it aside.
Amendment No. 1240 to Amendment No. 1199
(Purpose: To increase the special assessment for felonies and extend
the period of obligation)
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of Senator McCain and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for Mr. McCain, for
himself and Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 1240 to
amendment No. 1199.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place insert the following new section:
SEC. . SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON CONVICTED PERSONS.
(a) Increased Assessment.--Section 3013(a)(2) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$50'' and inserting
``not less than $100''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$200'' and inserting
``not less than $400''.
Mr. LEAHY. I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment, which mirrors
provisions contained in legislation previously introduced by the
Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], and provisions contained in the
amendment I had filed to this bill.
In 1984 when we established the crime victims fund to provide Federal
assistance to State and local victims compensation and assistance
efforts, we funded it with fines, penalties, and assessments from those
convicted of Federal crime. The level of required contribution was set
low; 10 years have past and it is high time to adjust the assessments.
The amendment serves to double the assessments under the Victims of
Crime Act against those convicted of Federal felonies. This should
provide critical additional resources to assist all victims of crime,
including those who are victims of terrorism or mass violence.
I do not think that $100 is too much for those individuals convicted
of a Federal felony to contribute to help crime victims.
I do not think that $500 is too much to insist that corporations
convicted of a Federal felony contribute to crime victims. The
amendment would raise these to be the minimum level of assessment
against those convicted of such crimes and provides judges with the
discretion to assess higher levels when appropriate.
In connection with these provisions, I acknowledge the work of our
colleague, the senior Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain]. I know that he
has been actively seeking to raise these special assessments for some
time and I am glad that we are able to join together in this effort. He
deserves much credit for his ongoing efforts on behalf of crime
victims.
I look forward to our continuing to cooperate in additional efforts
on behalf of victims of crime, terrorism, and mass destruction. We have
much to do if we are to improve collections for the crime victims fund
and if we are to augment the critical resources needed by our victims
compensation and assistance programs. This is an amendment that will
help provide additional resources for meeting critical needs.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
(The remarks of Mr. Hatch and Mr. Bennett pertaining to the
introduction of S. 884 are located in today's Record under ``Statements
on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
____________________