[The prepared statement of Ms. Lansner follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RUTH LANSNER, CHAIR, NATIONAL LEGAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE OF B'NAI B'RITH

Good afternoon, my name is Ruth Lansner and I chair the National Legal Affairs Committee of the Anti-Defamation League. On behalf of the League, I want to thank Chairman Hyde for his leadership in introducing the Comprehensive Antiterrorism Act of 1995 and for expeditiously convening these hearings. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this legislation and its effectiveness in broadening U.S. capabilities and jurisdiction to combat terrorism both here and abroad.

ADL, through its Leon and Marilyn Ninghoffer Memorial Foundation and the Gorowitz Institute on Terrorism and Extremism, works to combat international and domestic terrorism through educational, political and legal means. The League publishes materials on the origins and backgrounds of international and domestic terrorist groups which threaten U.S. interests.

In the last Congress, ADL supported a number of new provisions enacted as part of the 1994 crime bill and the State Department authorization bill which enhance the profile, resources and capabilities of US. counterterrorism efforts. In November, the League developed a Counterterrorism Action Agenda for consideration by the Administration and the 104th Congress which outlined a range of legislative proposals which are addressed in this bill as well as a number of multilateral steps that could be taken. We look forward to working with Congress and the administration to promote improved international coordination to enactment of complementary legislation in other countries as well.

Some organizations have criticized the legislation as an unnecessary and unconstitutional response to a rare and declining problem. Yet, the number of civilian casualties of terrorism is actually on the rise. As terrorism continues unabated and aims at more vulnerable civilian targets like the Tokyo subway system and the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building—it is clear that law enforcement agencies and the criminal justice system must be better equipped to confront a new level of sophistication and danger posed by terrorist groups.

As one of the nation's oldest civil rights and human relations organizations, the Anti-Defamation League is committed to helping ensure that efforts to crack down on terrorism are sensitive to civil liberties and due process concerns. In May, we joined other Jewish and Arab American organizations in issuing a joint statement condemning terrorism and urging a vigorous U.S. response which protects Constitutional freedoms.

We support the broad policy objectives articulated in the Comprehensive Antiterrorism Act of 1995, and also reflected in the Administration's proposal, as a significant component of America's national and global strategy against this escalating terrorist threat.

As the legislation moves through the House and goes to Conference, we look forward to working with Members and with the Conferenees to strive for an appropriate balance between the need for an aggressive response to this danger and necessary Constitutional safeguards.

Well before the tragic Oklahoma City bombing, incidents like the World Trade Center bombing, the murder of two Americans in Karachi, Pakistan, the death of an American student in a suicide bombing in Gaza, and the plot to bomb American airliners in the Philippines demonstrated that Americans were unquestionably the targets of choice and that terrorism can and will occur within our borders. In fact, attacks against American citizens and interests over the past five years account for roughly 40 percent of the total incidents worldwide.

Statistics alone cannot adequately measure the magnitude of human suffering that result from even a single terrorist incident such as the tragedy that befell the families of the victims of Pan Am 103 or of the American hostages in Lebanon. Fortunately, most terrorist plots are prevented or fail, but had those averted attacks been carried out, the potential casualties are estimated in the tens of thousands. In addition to state-sponsored or well-established groups, small fragmented cells have emerged which make tracking and countering them more difficult and complex. Activists and supporters of some terrorist organizations have found sanctuary in the U.S. where they take advantage of democratic freedoms to organize violent activities here and abroad. Their motives and methods present new challenges for prevention and counteraction by law enforcement that this legislation addresses.

The chairman's bill includes essential provisions that provide legal and investigative means to confront these challenges. Among them are: expanded federal jurisdiction to prosecute terrorist acts, expanded restrictions on access to the U.S. for representatives of terrorist groups, a ban on fundraising for designated terrorist organi

zations, provisions expanding nuclear materials prohibitions and implementation of the Convention on Plastic Explosives, and increased penalties for explosives conspiracies. The bill also includes an array of useful tools to enhance U.S. investigative capability to pro actively counterterrorism within the U.S.

FUNDRAISING

With increasing indications that terrorist organizations may be using this country as a base to organize and finance terrorist acts here and abroad, there is a need to establish a framework to stop the transfer of funds to terrorists.

The Anti-Defamation League strongly supports the bill's broad ban on fundraising for presidentially designated terrorist groups. The League supports criminalizing an individual's knowing contribution of material support to a terrorist organization, regardless of whether this support is provided directly, or indirectly. While the right to associational freedom includes the right to donate money, it is well-established that the government may restrict this right when it has a compelling interest in doing so. The Act's prohibition of fundraising is also narrowly tailored since it applies only to presidentially designated organizations and only to individuals who knowingly contribute to those groups.

Since money is fungible and it is virtually impossible to determine the final destination or ultimate use of funds, a broad ban is essential, notwithstanding any intended or claimed nonviolent purposes of a presidentially designated group. Similarly, we believe any ban on fundraising must cover all subgroups including domestic conduits or affiliates of designated terrorist groups. A broad ban also provides an incentive for legitimate, non-violent groups to disassociate from or disband terrorist wings.

The League supports the inclusion of a review procedure of the presidential designation of terrorist organizations barred from both entering the U.S. and raising funds. We firmly believe that some form of review is essential to ensure accountability, but that the review procedure must not impede the government's ability to act expeditiously.

The Senate passed antiterrorism bill included an impractical and onerous review process that renders the provision unworkable. The Senate procedure would require the government to locate and prove that an organizations "control group" had "actual knowledge" that the funds were being used for "terrorism activities." Separately we would support a freezing of terrorist assets as provided for in the Senate and administration proposals, as well as the involvement of U.S. financial institutions in restricting financial transactions of terrorist organizations.

ACCESS TO THE U.S.

The ADL strongly supports the Act's ban on entry into the U.S. for representatives of presidentially designated terrorist groups. It is well established that admission to the U.S. is a privilege and that aliens outside the U.S. have no due process rights. The government unquestionably has the constitutional right-and the dutyto keep our country from being used as a base to organize terrorist activity here and abroad. While known terrorists are already excludable under current law, representatives of terrorist groups should bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that the aim of their visit is unrelated to support for terrorism activities.

However, we are troubled by the inclusion of "membership" in a terrorist organization as grounds for denying entry into the U.S. since we hold that exclusion should be based on an individual's current conduct, and not on his affiliations or associations. Furthermore, since most terrorist organizations do not have card-carrying members, it will be difficult to determine what constitutes membership. If the definition of membership is too broadly interpreted, aliens may be erroneously associated with terrorist groups.

We do believe that a broad ban on access for officials, spokespersons, activists and influentials of designated terrorist groups effectively expands the universe of excludable individuals while helping to ensure that conduct and not beliefs or ideology are the standard for exclusion.

The ADL supports, in principle, the expedited exclusion hearings for alien terrorists seeking political asylum. Admission to the U.S. is a privilege which should not be abused by individuals who come to this country to engage in acts of terror. However, any expedited procedure must include adequate review procedures to ensure that individuals seeking political asylum are granted a fair hearing.

EXPEDITED DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS

According to law enforcement officials, there are known alien terrorists in the U.S. today who cannot be deported because revealing the full range of evidence required by normal deportation proceedings would endanger intelligence sources and methods.

ADL clearly recognizes the unique government interests in these cases, including the risk to national security and the significant need to avoid revealing confidential sources. The League also strongly supports the safeguards contained in the Act since we recognize that due process concerns are raised when defendants are provided with less than full disclosure of evidence. Among the due process safeguards proposed in both the chairman's bill and the Administration proposal, are the establishment of a special court composed of five federal district court judges, the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General's required approval of the proceeding, and the right to counsel, including at government expense for any alien unable to afford counsel. In addition, the special removal hearings are open to the public.

In certain limited circumstances where full disclosure would pose a risk to national security, ADL supports the bill's requirement that aliens in these special proceedings receive a summary of the classified evidence against them which must be sufficient to "permit the alien to prepare a defense against deportation."

ADL recognizes the serious due process concerns raised in limited circumstances in which providing even a summary "would likely cause serious and irreparable harm to national security or death or serious bodily injury to any person." We therefore, welcome the new provision in the chairman's bill which establishes a panel of attorneys with security clearance empowered to act as an advocate on behalf of permanent resident aliens who would not otherwise have access to even a summary. We believe this provision is a creative means of balancing the government's legitimate security interests with the defendant's right to due process. We believe, however, that this provision should be expanded to cover permanent as well as non-permanent resident aliens who also have procedural due process rights.

CONCLUSION

Tragedies such as the World Trade Center bombing illustrate the critical need for strong American leadership in world-wide counterterrorism efforts. Terrorists have struck at the heart of America, killing innocent people and instilling fear among private citizens. As terrorists use increasingly sophisticated weapons and seek out softer civilian targets, the American criminal justice system must be better equipped to confront a new level of danger posed by terrorist groups.

There is no doubt that we must be cautious against alarmism and the ensuing panic that could lead to the erosion of fundamental freedoms. At the same time we must recognize that we live in an era in which destructive technology gives those who use violence to advance their cause the capability to take hundreds of lives in a single incident. What is called for is a balanced, cautious approach which avoids both extremes and implements tough, appropriate measures to prevent future attacks. Through this approach, the American people and their policy-makers can maintain a high level of awareness, preparedness and serve as a model for effective counterterrorism policy world-wide.

Again, we applaud your commitment and that of Representative Schumer who introduced the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act, and other Members of Congress who have demonstrated resolve to take forceful action on this critical issue. You may be sure that the Anti-Defamation League will continue to work with you in support of this important legislation as it moves forward.

Mr. HYDE. Thank you very much.

I think the House is in recess for a memorial service for Les Aspin, so we need not, unless Members wish to attend that, we need not interrupt our hearing.

Mr. Shenefield.

STATEMENT OF JOHN H. SHENEFIELD, CHAIRMAN, STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND NATIONAL SECURITY, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

Mr. SHENEFIELD. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am delighted to be testifying once again before this great committee and in this committee room.

I will summarize my statement and ask that it be printed in full in the record, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HYDE. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. SHENEFIELD. In general, members of our committee support the Comprehensive Antiterrorism Act of 1995, because they believe that it strikes an appropriate balance between the prevention of terrorism and the detection, efficient apprehension and conviction of terrorists on the one hand and the protection of civil liberties on the other.

The bill does grapple with some extremely vexing issues and it does so in an admittedly aggressive way. But there can be no question that credit is due both the Congress and the executive branch in their efforts to bring the full weight of Federal law enforcement subject to constitutional limitations to bear on terrorism.

Let me offer, Mr. Chairman, an appropriate analytical context within which to consider proposals in H.R. 1710 or indeed any other proposals. First and foremost, as Americans, we live in an open society undergirded by the rule of law.

In seeking to combat terrorism, we are defending that way of life. It is what we are fighting for. Therefore, in seeking to deal effectively with the problems of terrorism, domestic and international, we must be vigilant to preserve and maintain the openness of our society and the legality of our counterterrorism policies and practices. Our citizens must be clear and have confidence in that essential point. So also our security officials.

How then to deal with the immense variation in terrorist activity? How best to develop a sufficiently flexible response so that the serious threats can be investigated without impinging unduly on civil liberties? To these questions there are no simple answers, but I believe that the key concepts for this committee to have in mind as it assesses these provision and proposals are balance and proportion.

Not all terrorists are created equal. Not all terrorists' acts are equally threatening, yet some terrorism can strike at the very heart of an open society.

Government must, therefore, have at hand capabilities to deal with conspiracies of the most dreadful import where loss of time or investigative effectiveness risks catastrophe. At the same time, not all investigative powers need to be used in every case. Certain of the most intrusive techniques should be thought of and regulated within the Government as techniques of last resort.

In part, the judgment of balance and proportionality is a legislative one. Powers that can never be used in our society should never be legislated into existence. That is not to state the obvious, a justification for failing to provide society and its government with the ability to use powers in times of emergency or need. The investigative tool kept in reserve is nevertheless available for use when needed. To put it beyond use, even when needed, would be both unwise and immoral.

But the judgment on balance and proportionality is also a question for the executive branch, for the implementors of the policy, for the security officials. It is not at all common in Washington these days to be reassured by such a statement, and yet it must be the case.

Our Government, especially our law enforcement agencies and most especially the Department of Justice, are operated by men and women of great competence and dedication who work long hours, mostly without recognition to protect and defend our open society under the rule of law.

Until the contrary is demonstrated as to any individual, I strongly believe that a presumption of integrity and legality should be accorded our law enforcement community, and it is that presumption that must ultimately guide the Members of Congress in assessing the proposals in this bill.

That is not to say that mistakes will not be made. Of course, they will. That is the price we pay for living in the real world, but they will certainly be infrequent, and when they are made, they are more often than not failures of the system rather than examples of the system gone bad.

The overheated rhetoric about government conspiracies to deprive citizens of their rights is wrong. The notion of investigative agencies straining at the leash to break the law is wrong.

The fear that government officials when given great power will always, or sometimes, or ever abuse that power is mostly wrong. We must always be alert to that possibility. We cannot be immobilized by it.

And so the question to ask of any proposal in H.R. 1710 is whether on balance it is proportional to the danger it targets, flexible enough to be available when necessary and under appropriate safeguards and regulation, and what are the ways to ensure that these great powers are actually used only in appropriate cases?

Mr. Chairman, the rest of my statement then picks out several specific provisions of H.R. 1710 and offers support, in some cases, and suggestions for your consideration as improvements, in others. For instance, with respect to section 102, the prohibition on the provision of support and resources to terrorist organizations, we offer for the consideration of the committee the exception for funding intended exclusively for religious, charitable, literary or educational purposes was contained in some earlier versions.

No doubt the problems of policing and enforcement inherent in any such licenses regime persuaded the drafters that it risks being essentially unworkable. Nevertheless, it may help in defending against constitutional attack. If you are inclined to go in that direction after consideration, we have in mind a number of technical changes to the versions incorporated in earlier statutes and we would be happy to work with the staff.

Sections 104 and 105 strike us as sensible efforts to make a coherent antiterrorist prosecutorial framework for use by prosecutors, and we put particular emphasis on subsection D of section 104, which provides the limit requiring the critical exercise of judgment. as to balance and proportionality. And that is the provision that requires that no indictment or information may be sought unless certain findings are made.

It is my experience, Mr. Chairman, that the fixing of individual responsibility for certification, as in other similar situations, is an effective method of ensuring the integrity of the implementation of the statute's clear intention that section 104 is used only to prosecute terrorism. That is quintessentially the kind of judgment we