until all of the perpetrators of this evil act are discovered and punished. I am confident that Federal law enforcement officials will bring these terrorists to justice. The Judiciary Committee will support the administration in this effort and will provide them with any assistance, legislative or otherwise, that they may need. Of all the evils of our age, terrorism is one of the greatest. The taking of innocent life in order to make a political statement, advance a cause, or coerce a government is utterly reprehensible. Our Nation has until recently largely been spared from this evil on our own shores. Yet, because we are a free and open society, we are vulnerable to those from within or without who would use that freedom to terrorize our citizens. For years, many in Congress have been fighting for passage of legislation aimed at enhancing our domestic and international counter-terrorism abilities. During this Congress, several counterterrorism bills have been introduced. S. 3, the Dole-Hatch crime bill, embodies a number of key, needed provisions. More recently, the Clinton administration forwarded to Congress some similar proposals, and since the tragedy of last week, I have been working with Senators Dole, Nickles, and Inhofe on a comprehensive terrorism bill which combines the better provisions from both of these bills. We have met with the President and the Democratic leadership about this important bill. Today, Senator Dole and I will introduce the product of these efforts, S. 740. We hope to work with our colleagues and the administration to pass antiterrorism legislation along the lines of S. 740 and any improvements thereto in an expeditious manner. This legislation will enhance and extend the penalties for terrorist acts, add the crime of conspiracy to certain terrorism offenses, increase the ability of the Government to deport suspected terrorists, or even deny them entry into our country before they can strike, and will add new restrictions on providing material support to terrorists. I hope that this legislation can give to Federal law enforcement the tools it needs to combat the scourge of terrorism. We often take our freedom for granted, but we know that there are those among us who would use that freedom to undermine it. We must not allow this to happen. We must not surrender to those who would wage a war of terrorism against us or to those among us who attack our institutions under the guise of defending our rights. Perhaps what troubles us most is the apparent fact that those responsible for the Oklahoma bombing were citizens of this country. But they are not Americans in my book. The true Americans are the men, women, and children who were killed under a sea of rubble. Americans are the rescue workers, investigators, and volunteers who are working to bring order to the chaos in Oklahoma. Americans are all of us who share the same moral outrage. The Judiciary Committee is convened today to take testimony on how best to do this. I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here and I look forward to their testimony. At this time, Senator Biden has graciously consented to allow our chairman of the Terrorism Subcommittee, Senator Specter, to make the next set of remarks, and then we will go to Senator Biden, and then finally Senator Kohl, is the ranking member on the Terrorism Subcommittee. Senator Specter. STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Senator SPECTER. Thank you. This hearing will focus on ways to balance the need for public safety with constitutional rights, and I think that can be done. We have had the dreadful experience a week ago yesterday in Oklahoma City on domestic terrorism, we had the bombing of the Trade Center 2 years ago in New York City, and I believe that there are ways that we can attack this problem. It is a growing problem, one which has a new dimension as reported in the Los Angeles Times. Only hours after the bomb that shook America, someone posted directions for a repeat performance on the Internet. It was all there, even a diagram. Mix two widely available chemicals, slap on a booster, attach a detonator, and almost anyone can have a bomb like the one being called the deadliest in U.S. history in Oklahoma City. I read that short extract to illustrate another dimension of the problem on freedom versus terror and danger. I think it is worthwhile to comment for just a minute or two on some of the matters that can be handled in a preventative context. First, there is no constitutional right to park a big truck in front of a Federal building, a truck capable of having sufficient dynamite to blow up the Federal building in Oklahoma City. Secondly, I think there are things that can be done on substances like fertilizer to reduce or perhaps even eliminate their impact as an explosive. I think that we have to take a hard look at the Attorney General's guidelines, which I have already discussed with Deputy Attorney General Gorelick, who is here today, and Director of the FBI Louis Freeh. To pose a hypothetical against those guideline standards of no investigation before an indication of a crime, take the hypothetical of the Michigan Militia. I am not saying that they were involved, but there you have a large group of men and women; you have training in military outfits, you have high gun power, all within the constitutional rights, the right under the Second Amendment to bear arms. You have the commander, Commander Olson, saying that he can understand why someone blew up the Oklahoma City building. It is beyond my understanding to see how Commander Olson can understand that. Then you have talk of rebellion. I think there is a basis, certainly, under constitutional law for surveillance and infiltration where we have a right to inquire into how many people are involved, what is their fire power, what is their purpose, what is their connection with the organizations in some 26 States, without anywhere near running afoul of constitutional protections. I have re-reviewed the cases and have brought them along for our discussion this afternoon. I am concerned that we not go too far and that we not go too fast, and I am concerned with a note from this morning's press about an administration proposal that, "roving wiretaps would be allowed, for example, in cases where it was not practical to specify a telephone number." I have a concern about that, and I think that we need to take our time. We need to have a hard factual analysis and a hard legal analysis, but it is my judgment that we can proceed to get a solid bill. On the legislation forwarded by the administration on international terrorism, which had been the subject for the subcommittee hearings, I believe there is a real problem with a secret determination as to deportation where the FBI does have good cause for not disclosing the source of the information, but I believe that we may well be able to accommodate all the interests by pinpointing the people to be deported who are known terrorists and then deport them on other grounds because they are illegally in the United States. That legislation has another problem which has already been identified, and that is the incursion on First Amendment freedoms of association of having someone on a terrorism list without having an adjudication and, again, the right of confrontation. There will be a further hearing. We have been contacted by many people from the Civil Liberties Union and from a variety of groups, and this is a matter which we will explore in greater detail before coming to judgment. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Specter. STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE Senator BIDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask unanimous consent that my entire statement be placed in the record as if read at this moment and summarize very briefly, if I may. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, all statements of members of the committee will be placed in the record. Senator BIDEN. Mr. Chairman, you and Senator Dole and both our Oklahoma colleagues and the Democratic leadership of the Senate and House met with the President yesterday, and I think, of all the bipartisan meetings with five different Presidents—and I know Senator Dole has been here longer-that I have had down there, it was one of the better meetings that I have attended in that there seemed to be consensus on several very important points. One is that whatever we do, we must do deliberately; we must do in a way that meets the genuine needs of resources and authority that Federal law enforcement agencies need to deal with a changed world, but at the same time do not in any way alter the Bill of Rights or trample on individual freedoms. I think we are all in agreement that that can be done. If it is not done, the only way that would not occur—that is, where civil rights and liberties would be trampled-would be, I think, with us moving too rapidly or without all points of view being heard here because this is some complicated stuff. This is not easy. Those of us, like the witnesses today and the members of this committee who spend much of our professional time trying to understand the case law, the Constitution, and the needs, know it is complicated. But that can be done in a manner, as the Majority Leader said, we hope, well within now and the Memorial Day recess if we concentrate our efforts. The second thing I thought everyone agreed on, and I know we all agreed on, is if there was any time the American people expected us to act in a bipartisan way, this is the time, this is the time. So I hope that the product of this hearing and hearings that Senators Specter and Kohl will hold in their subcommittee, or the Intelligence Committee may hold or whatever anyone else may do-my hope is that we can come out of here with a piece of legislation that is supported, 99 percent of it, by Democrats as well as Republicans, the leadership in both parties. The third thing that I would like to say is that, fortunately, there are provisions in the law that we have passed in a bipartisan way already that were not available even a year ago to deal with this subject. For example, if the law were as it was when the New York City bombing took place and we prosecuted the perpetrators in Federal court, there would be no ability to put them to death. There was no death penalty. But because of the actions of the President of the United States and bipartisan support of a bill passed last year, we have taken one step toward strengthening law enforcement's hands, and that is when we convict whomever the perpetrators were, they are eligible for, and based on what the Attorney General has said and the President has asked, they will get the death penalty. So I don't want us to panic. We have made some progress. I understand you and the Leader are putting in a bill. Senators Specter, Kohl and I have already put in a bill. It doesn't cover all of it. The President, I am told, will be submitting in legislative form his proposal some time tomorrow or early next week for introduction, and it is my understanding from brief discussions with everyone that we are going to put them together and work to get the best out of it, not for purposes of competing to see who does what bill. That is what is expected of us. I am confident we can do that, and I am confident that over the next several weeks, under your leadership, Mr. Chairman, we will be able to produce, along with the House and I might add one thing. Speaker Gingrich was at that meeting and he indicated that he would like to see his counterpart committee deal with us, and so I really am hopeful that this tragedy may be a unifying element at a time that this country sorely needs it. Last, I want to compliment my two colleagues from Oklahoma. This has been a very difficult time for them professionally and personally, and our hearts go out to you and to all of your friends. I know Don has even mentioned some of his personal friends had direct impact on what happened in that bombing, and we can all appreciate that. You obviously are very proud of the people of Oklahoma, as you should be, and proud of the thousands of firefighters from all over the country and rescue personnel who have come. My mom has an expression. Out of everything bad, something good should come or we have paid a dear price for nothing. Something good should come from this, and we ought to be able to do that in a bipartisan way. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Senator Biden follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. Today, the Judiciary Committee convenes this hearing in response to one of the most terrible attacks on innocent American citizens in our Nation's history. In Oklahoma City, rescue workers from throughout America continue the painful task of sifting through the shattered remains of the Federal building. And today, across the Nation, Federal, State and local law enforcement officers continue their manhunt and investigation into this terrible bombing. My thoughts and hopes are with these rescue workers and with these law enforcement officials. The teamwork of all these professionals is a worthy example for us all. It is my hope and intention that our legislative efforts to strengthen our ability to fight terrorism legislation exemplify these same standards of teamwork and professionalism. Two years ago, almost to the day-on April 21, 1993-the Judiciary Committee convened hearings to review the tragic bombing of New York City's World Trade Center. That terrorist attack took six lives and left thousands injured. At the hearing two years ago, the committee heard testimony about the need for the death penalty to deliver society's ultimate sanction to the thugs responsible for that attack. Because the antiterrorism legislation I introduced in 1991 had not been passed into law at the time of the Trade Center bombing, any of the defendants found guilty for the World Trade Center attack will not be subject to the death penalty. Thankfully, today, however, what was a proposal two years ago is now the law of the land. As a result of the terrorist death penalty provisions that passed as part of the 1994 Crime Law, Attorney General Reno now has the authority to seek the ultimate punishment for the cowardly thugs who killed so many children in Oklahoma City. Earlier this year, at the President's request, Senators Specter, Kohl, and I introduced the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism bill of 1995 to target international terrorism with a number of provisions expanding the Government's ability to exclude from the United States aliens involved in terrorist activities. Limiting fundraising for foreign terrorist organizations. Expanding wiretap authority for the FBI to investigate and prevent-terrorism offenses, both domestic and foreign; And, creating a new Federal terrorism offense to cover those few situations that are not already covered under Federal law. Under current law, virtually any bombing can be prosecuted under Federal law-unless there is no relationship to interstate commerce. Under last year's crime bill, we also covered other mass terrorism offenses such as releasing poison gas into a building. But there are other types of violent terrorist offenses such as opening fire on a crowd of civilians-which are not now prosecutable under Federal law. Today, I want to focus on what we can add to the tough laws against terrorism already on the books. In particular, we must look at what is needed to address the domestic as well as the international threat of terrorism. I also want to welcome our witnesses here today. In particular, those from the Justice Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Treasury Department. The remarkable investigation of the Oklahoma City bombing has made those of us who have worked for so many years with Federal law enforcement very proud-you have done a tremendous job so far. As we focus on what more we can do to prevent terrorist attacks before they take the lives of our citizens, I just want to pose three questions. Just as I did at the Judiciary Committee's hearings on terrorism two years ago. First, what are the causes of terrorist acts? Although terrorist violence often claiming innocent men, women and children as victims-seems senseless, there is usually an underlying, although perverse, logic behind it. How can we learn to identify these danger signals, particularly in the context of domestic terrorism? Second, can we respond to terrorist acts, when they do occur, so as to deter future violence? For example, when airport security measures were improved following a wave of hijacking, the incidence of such acts decreased dramatically. What steps can we take now to deter domestics groups that might turn to violence? Third, does law enforcement have the tools it needs to prevent terrorist acts from occurring? Here, the primary question seems to be, do we have the resources sufficient to target all those reasonably capable of inflicting such injury? In my view, these are the key questions we face today. They are identical to those I posed at the Judiciary Committee's hearing on the World Trade Center bombing two years ago. And, just as I emphasized then, throughout our review of these is |