[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E341]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

BASIC RIGHTS SWEPT ASIDE IN RUSH TO FIGHT TERRORISM

______

HON. ZOE LOFGREN

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, March 13, 1996

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, when I was elected to Congress in the fall
of 1994, I was extremely honored to represent the people of the 16th
District of California, and I was also deeply honored to succeed one of
the great legislators in the history of this body, Congressman Don
Edwards. As the longtime chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's
Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, Mr. Edwards is widely
respected as one of the foremost protectors of our Constitution and
civil liberties.
He recently published an analysis of the House antiterrorism bill in
our hometown newspaper, the San Jose Mercury News, and I wanted to
share his expert insight with my colleagues and his former colleagues.

[From the San Jose Mercury News, Mar. 8, 1996]

Basic Rights Swept Aside in Rush to Fight Terrorism

(By Don Edwards)

Once again, in the name of a worthy objective, Congress is
considering legislation that aims straight at the heart of
the Constitution. The concern is fighting terrorism. The
proposed solution, however, is a comprehensive death penalty
and anti-terrorism bill that would do nothing to strengthen
the nation's defenses against terrorism. What it would do is
undermine fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution.
The right to confront your accusers is one of those basic
rights. Our very concept of due process assumes that a person
cannot be punished by the government on the basis of secret
evidence. As the great Supreme Court Justice Felix
Frankfurter observed, ``Fairness can rarely be obtained by
secret, one-sided determination of facts.''
Yet the pending legislation would allow the government to
deport legal aliens, including long-term residents, through
Star Chamber proceedings where the evidence is made known to
a judge, but is kept from the accused and his or her lawyer.
Imagine defending yourself against this charge: ``We are
going to deport you because we think you are a terrorist but
we won't tell you why.''
Another provision in the bill would give Cabinet officials
the power to label a foreign group ``terrorist'' and make it
a crime for American citizens to support the lawful, peaceful
activities of that group. It should be--and already is--a
crime to support violent activity, but Americans have always
been free to support political and humanitarian activities of
foreign groups, from the African National Congress to the
Nicaraguan Contras.
Another step backward in the pending terrorism bill is the
repeal of a modest provision I sponsored to keep the FBI from
investigating political activities of domestic groups. Some
will remember the FBI's worthless investigations in the 1980s
of U.S. citizens opposed to our foreign policy in Central
America. In the name of fighting international terrorism, the
FBI monitored peaceful demonstrations against U.S. military
aid to El Salvador, spied on groups housed in churches, and
interviewed travelers to Nicaragua. After the FBI finally
admitted that the whole exercise was a waste of resources, I
added a small provision to the 1994 crime bill saying that
the FBI could not open an investigation of ``support for
terrorism'' solely on the basis of political activities
protected under the First Amendment. Repealing my amendment
would send precisely the wrong message to the FBI,
encouraging the Bureau to investigate U.S.-based groups that
express lawful political views in a violent struggle abroad.
A terrorism bill already passed by the Senate contains all
of these provisions plus others that would allow FBI agents
to obtain private records without a court order, permit the
use of illegally seized wiretap evidence, and expand federal
jurisdiction over state crimes.
Worse yet, the terrorism bill has become a legislative
Christmas tree, on which an assortment of amendments are
being hung. Most distressingly, an amendment has been added
that would gut the historical right of habeas corpus, under
which federal courts have insisted that the U.S.
Constitution be followed in state court proceedings.
Groups from across the political spectrum--from the ACLU to
the National Rifle Association--oppose the bill. Worried
Congressional leaders have offered what they call a
compromise bill, but they have left untouched the most odious
provisions dealing with secret evidence, criminal penalties
for support of political and humanitarian activities, and
habeas corpus.
It's not as if the United States has been defenseless
against terrorism. To the contrary, the current legal
authorities have proven quite sufficient. In two successful
prosecutions in New York, the Justice Department won
convictions for the World Trade Center bombing and for a
planned series of attacks against the United Nations, tunnels
and other landmarks. The FBI promptly arrested suspects in
the Oklahoma City bombing. In December, federal agents
arrested two men for attempting to bomb an IRS building in
Nevada, and FBI agents reached across the Pacific to arrest a
man in the Philippines plotting attacks on U.S. aircraft.
The success of law enforcement in responding to terrorism
without this legislation should be evidence enough that there
is no need for new government powers. Nonetheless, the
legislative process grinds on, as both parties fear political
fallout for appearing to do nothing about terrorism. Congress
should take note of the near total absence of public support
for this legislation. It is time for Congress to show
restraint and reject this latest legislative assault on the
Constitution.

____________________