what the bill seeks to do, and what the Justice Department says the bill seeks to do, is the same as under the Classified Information Procedures Act. Does this, in fact, go farther than the existing law or not? Mr. NOJEIM. Yes, and let me explain why. When push comes to shove in CIPA, if substituted evidence, a fair summary of the evidence would disclose classified information, the evidence is kept out of court. When push comes to shove under this legislation, if that summary couldn't be provided, because provision of a summary would result in exposing an informant, for example, the evidence comes in. So it turns CIPA on its ear. It reverses the key protection that CIPA has to keep that evidence out when a summary can't be provided. Mr. NADLER. So, in other words, under CIPA the evidence would be excluded if it cannot be fairly summarized in open court, and here the evidence would come in if it cannot be fairly Mr. NOJEIM. Exactly. Mr. NADLER [continuing]. Summarized in open court? Now one other thing, under this bill, the President's designation of an organization as terrorist, would not be subject to review. The Deputy Attorney General said before that what that means is that someone prosecuted as a member of that organization could get judicial review at that point. What do you think it means when it says it's not subject to review? If the National Association of Stamp Collectors was determined by the President to be a terrorist organization, do they have standing to go to court and say, "We're not terrorists and we want this expunged."? Mr. NOJEIM. Mr. Nadler, like you, I'm reading the statute, and the statute says that the President's determination is conclusive. Mr. NADLER. And, therefore, they would not be able to go into court on that? Mr. NOJEIM. That-I mean that's what the statute says. Mr. NADLER. And under your reading of the statute, if someone were then prosecuted for being a spokesman for or a contributor to the National Association of Stamp Collectors, which the President determined to be terrorist, would they have standing to raise the issue that the President's determination was erroneous Mr. NOJEIM. No. Mr. NADLER [continuing] In the defense against their prosecution? Mr. NOJEIM. No. Mr. NADLER. They could not? Mr. NOJEIM. No, they could not raise that. Mr. NADLER. So it would be conclusive even to that point? Mr. NOJEIM. It's conclusive as to the donor, and I think that Ms. Gorelick was saying that it was conclusive as to the donor also. I think that she conceded that point, but where we seem to have some conflict is over whether that language in the statute makes it conclusive as to the group itself. Mr. NADLER. Should it be conclusive as to either one? Mr. NOJEIM. It shouldn't be. There should be an opportunity for a person to be able to challenge the designation in fact, the opportunity should come before the designation would ever happen. There should be an opportunity to show that you're not a terrorist organization before you get blacklisted, so that people would then stay away from you and not contribute to legitimate activity. That should happen before Mr. NADLER. But there should be a due process hearing of some sort before you're listed as a terrorist organization? Mr. NOJEIM. Of course. Mr. NADLER. Why Mr. HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. NADLER. Can I have the committee's indulgence for 30 seconds? Mr. HYDE. Thirty seconds. Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Why is that important, given the fact that you can be prosecuted for being a spokesman or a donor to a terrorist organization that's not listed? Mr. NOJEIM. Say it again now? Mr. NADLER. Why is that important, to give due process as to whether you're listed or not, given the fact that someone can be prosecuted for being a donor or a spokesman of an unlisted organization which he should have known was terrorist? Mr. NOJEIM. The persons who can be prosecuted for that are aliens in the sense that they would be deportable for doing that. The aliens would have no warning. For citizens, there would be something printed in the Federal Register. Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Thank you very much. The ranking member of the committee has graciously agreed with me that we can adjourn the meeting. He has a statement to make, but we have a vote on, and rather than keep you here while we run over and then run back, with your indulgence, we will—we would like to submit questions in writing to you, and we shall do So. And I want to yield to my friend, Mr. Conyers. I want to commend this panel, all of the members on it. I'm going to be in touch with ACLU and both the other members, so that we can continue this very important discussion. Your analyses are all valuable to us, and I think that this hearing has opened matters up much wider than they might have otherwise. I'm very grateful to you. Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman. Mr. HYDE. The gentleman from North Carolina. Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, only 30 seconds. I want to thank the panel, and I want to reiterate what Mr. Conyers said. This has been a very good hearing. And, Mr. Chairman, I believe you said there will be subsequent hearings, and I look forward to those and perhaps some hearing from this same panel at another time. Thank you. I thank the chairman. Mr. HYDE. I thank-I thank everybody, and the gentlelady from Texas I especially thank. Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I thank them as well, and I will submit written questions because I do have them. Mr. HYDE. That's great. Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SCHUMER. Yes, I would have liked to have asked questions, but I Mr. HYDE. And we would have liked to have heard them. Mr. SCHUMER. I'm sure you would like to hear every word, but I will defer and submit written questions. Mr. HYDE. You're a real sport, and I thank you. [Laughter.] Mr. HYDE. I want to thank you very much, though, and we will submit written questions. Thank you. The meeting is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 3:43 p.m., the committee adjourned.] INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM: THREATS AND RESPONSES MONDAY, JUNE 12, 1995 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m., in room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry J. Hyde (chairman of the committee) presiding. Present: Representatives Henry J. Hyde, Carlos J. Moorhead, George W. Gekas, Steven Schiff, Charles T. Canady, Bob Goodlatte, Ed Bryant of Tennessee, Steve Chabot, Bob Barr, John Bryant of Texas, Patricia Schroeder, Zoe Lofgren, and Robert C. Scott. Also present: Alan F. Coffey, Jr., general counsel/staff director, Patrick B. Murray, counsel; Thomas Smeeton,_administrator/chief investigator; Paul J. McNulty, counsel; Glenn R. Schmitt, counsel; Cordia Strom, counsel; Perry Apelbaum, minority counsel; Betty Wheeler, minority counsel; and Tom Diaz, minority counsel. Mr. HYDE. The committee will come to order. The perils of holding committee hearings at 9:30 in the morning of a Monday are evident, when the House is not in session. It does not add to the attractiveness of coming in here, but nonetheless, in our witnesses we have a quality presence and among our Members we have a quality presence, and we do have enough for a working quorum. Therefore, we will proceed. On February 9, 1995, President Clinton submitted his proposals relating to the threat of international terrorism for consideration and legislative action by Congress. On February 10, Congressman Schumer introduced his bill, H.R. 896, in the House and it was referred to this committee. On April 6, 1995, the full committee held a hearing on issues related to international terrorism at which time various provisions of H.R. 896 were discussed. Less than 2 weeks later, we experienced the horror of another terrorist attack in this country, but from an apparent domestic source. Shortly thereafter, on May 3, 1995, the Subcommittee on Crime held a hearing to discuss and air the issues involved from the domestic side of the terrorism quandary. On May 15, 1995, Congressman Gephardt introduced H.R. 1635 which provided the administration's response to the Oklahoma City catastrophe. After careful deliberation, and much study of the administration's two proposals, I introduced H.R. 1710 to the House of Representatives on May 25, 1995, which is now before our committee and the subject of this hearing. |