TERRORIST PROSECUTION ACT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP87B00858R000600950030-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 3, 2011
• Sequence Number: 30
• Publication Date: February 19, 1986
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Approved For Release 2011/03/04: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600950030-3
'S 1382 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
coin and Jefferson Memorials and,
over in the distance, the Capitol.
He said, "Just to think, this is the
most powerful city in the world and
you and I are right in the middle of it,
making decisions that are affecting
the course of history."
Senator Eastland looked at Senator
Holland and said, "Spessard, are you
drunk?" [Laughter.]
It captures the attitude of Seantor
Eastland; that he was not going to let
service here in Washington go to his
head. He was a person who took his
obligations seriously, but he did not
take himself seriously.
He was not one to really tell stories,
but he has become the subject of
many flattering stories about the
great sense of humor that he pos-
sessed all these years and which he
brought to his job and endeared him
to people throughout our State.
He was a person who had a great
deal of influence throughout Missis-
sippi. All of my life he has been our
Senator. Along with Senator STENNIS,
their combined service has probably
not been surpassed by two Senators
from any other individual State in
terms of tenure of service, and I might
add distinguished service.
So this is a time when I feel that it is
appropriate for us to recognize the
contributions that Senator Eastland
made to this institution as chairman
of the Judiciary Committee and as
President pro tempore. He has had a
distinguished career that we can all
observe and praise.
He has a fine family, a wife, Libby
Eastland, a wonderful woman; and
four children, Nell, Ann, Sue, and his
son Woods.
Most of his staff and his family were
together just recently in Mississippi
when we had an opportunity to dedi-
cate the Federal court building in
Jackson, MS, to Senator Eastland and
name it for him.
On that occasion, there were many
good things said about him. Roman
Hruska was there, his close friend on
the Republican side of the aisle of the
Judiciary Committee where they had
served for many years, Gov. J.P. Cole-
man spoke and so did Judge Charles
Clark, Chief Justice of the Fifth Cir-
cuit Court of Appeals.
What came through, Mr. President,
is that all Mississippians respected and
appreciated the way Senator Eastland
had served and worked for Mississip-
pi's interest in the Senate for the
years he served here.
It is my hope that we will be able to
have a delegation of Senators attend
his funeral on Friday. The services
will be in Ruleville at the Methodist
church there at 10 o'clock in the
morning.
We have lost a great citizen in Mis-
sissippi with the passing of Senator
Jim Eastland, and I have lost a very
good friend.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield for 1 minute?
Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I want
to commend and thank the Senator
from Mississippi for the very earnest,
sincere, and meaningful remarks
which he has made about our former
colleague and friend.
Senator Eastland and I served to-
gether for years in the Mississippi
house of representatives. That is an
experience that is worthwhile. We
both distributed that around on Cap-
itol Hill as best we could. We knew
each other mighty well. We did not
have to ask each other how we were
going to vote on a matter because we
already knew. We knew each other so
well.
Quite seriously, Jim was a man that
applied himself in a quiet way, and he
knew how to get the jobs done. He was
very appreciative, too, of the people's
attitude because of the matters he had
done and tried to do.
With respect to his fine family, men-
tion has been made of the splendid
young ladies, daughters, and sons,
which they are. Libby Eastland is one
of the finest ladies I have known. I
talked to her by telephone yesterday,
and she had her usual courage of
moving forward.
Again, I commend the Senator from
Mississippi for his remarks as well as
the expression, feeling, and tone of
them all.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield to me?
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am
happy to yield to the Senator from
North Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the di~tin-
guished Senator.
Mr. President, I came to Washington
the first time in late 1951. I came as
administrative assistance to one of
North Carolina's Senators who was a
good friend of Jim Eastland. So many
times Mr. Jim would come by our
office. I was struck by the fact that he
would take the time to pay a little at-
tention to a young fellow from North
Carolina who was then on the lower
side of 30 years of age. I got to kno
him very well.
The Senator said that he did not tell
many stories. I have to correct the
Senator on that. He told me a lot of
stories. They were all good. But he
gave a lot of good advice as well. I re-
member one time I walked down the
corridor with him, and a vote was on. I
very proudly pushed the elevator
button three times. As the Senator
knows, pushing the elevator button
three times back in those days was a
command to the elevator operator to
come no matter where he was headed
or where he was. Senator Eastland no-
ticed that. He said, "Jesse, do not do
that around me anymore." He said,
"That is the trouble with the U.S.
Senate. People come up here enam-
ored with the idea of pushing that
button three times."
February 19, 1986
Senator Eastland endured his share
of criticism in the media and else-
where. I always reflected upon the
fact that those who criticized Jim
Eastland did not know him because
here was a man totally devoted to the
Constitution of the United States, and
to the fundamentals of this country,
and he was faithful to his people of
Mississippi. Many times I observed
people from the State who came to see
him. They did not merely like Jim
Eastland. They did not merely support
Jim Eastland. They loved Jim East-
land. So did I.
I think it is accurate to say that the
exception of the distinguished senior
Senator from Mississippi and the dis-
tinguished Senator form Louisiana, I
have been around the U.S. Senate
about as long as anybody. Of course, I
was here as a staff member originally.
But anybody who has known Jim
Eastland has benefited from him. As
the saying goes, we are diminished by
any man's death, but I am enormously
diminished by his. I will miss him. I
know both Senators from Mississippi
will miss him.
I thank the Senator for yielding to
me.
I yield the floor.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I
thank the distinguished Senator from
North Carolina.
Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Mississippi yield?
Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield
to the distinguished Senator from Ala-
bama.
Mr. HEFLIN. I know the Senate
wants to move forward. I do not want
to take much time. I would like to
concur with the remarks that have
been made. I did not serve with Sena-
tor Eastland. But I have known him
over a number of years. I know that
his reputation as being an effective,
hard-working Senator, chairman, and
President pro tempore will live in the
annals of the history of the U.S.
Senate.
Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the distin-
guished Senator from Alabama, Mr.
President.
yield the floor.
TERRORIST PROSECUTION ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under
he previous order, the clerk will now
report Calendar No. 507.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1429), to amend title 18, United
States Code, to authorize prosecution of ter-
rorists who attack United States nationals
abroad, and for other purposes.
The Senate proceeded to consider
the bill (S. 1429) to amend title 18,
United States Code, to authorize pros-
ecution of terrorists who attack
United States nationals abroad, and
for other purposes, which had been re-
ported from the Committee on the Ju-
diciary, with an amendment to strike
out all after the enacting clause, and
insert the following:
Approved For Release 2011/03/04: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600950030-3
 Approved For Release 2011/03/04: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600950030-3
February 19, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
In many ways this victory today is his
as well and I only regret that he could
not be with us today to share it. He de-
serves to share in it as few individuals
do.
In those early years, Hugh Scott,
who went on to become minority
leader for the Republicans; Frank
Church, who later became chairman
of the Senate Foreign Relations Com-
mittee; TED KENNEDY and CLAIBORNE
PELL, who is now the ranking minority
member of the Foreign Relations
Committee all joined with me in this
effort.
And in those years, Tom Dodd, the
father of Senator CHRIS DODD, contrib-
uted a special zeal to this effort. Tom
Dodd had first testified in favor of
ratification as a private citizen during
the Foreign Relations Committee's
original hearings in 1950, and as a
member of the American Bar Associa-
tion's Special Committee on Peace and
Law through the United Nations; a
commitment he maintained through
his years as Senator and imparted to
his son, the present Senator from Con-
necticut.
But it took a lot of work in the
trenches as well. Individuals who
wrote about the Genocide Convention,
spoke out on its behalf and helped to
keep the issue alive over these years.
At the risk of offending some individ-
uals I might inadvertently forget to
mention, I want to thank a few of
those who have labored with me and
my staff in the vineyards:
Bill Korey and Warren Eisenberg of
B'nai B'rith; Arthor Goldberg, the
chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on
the Genocide and Human Rights
Treaties and its executive secretary
for many years, Betty Kaye Taylor,
who deserves a special vote of thanks;
Hyman Bookbinder of the American
Jewish Committee who brought his
tremendous knowledge of Washington
to this effort; John Norton Moore and
Charles Smith of the Conflict Analysis
Center; Roger Cochetti, who, for many
years as director of the Washington
office of UNA-USA brought together
the many outside groups working on
the Genocide Convention; his succes-
sor in that role, Craig Baab of the
American Bar Association, which has
been such a great help in this effort;
Neil Kritz; and Pat Rangel and Estrel-
lita Jones of the Washington office of
Amnesty International.
In addition, Marjorie Brown and
Vita Bite of the Congressional Re-
search Service deserve recognition for
their scholarly contributions on this
subject and their tireless hours of re-
search in response to my requests and
those of my staff. The Congressional
Research Service has set a high stand-
ard for professional, nonpartisan re-
search work of the highest caliber,
serving Members on all sides of an
issue. They have carried out that task
ably and deserve credit for their
yeoman service.
And last, but not least, I want to ex-
press my heartfelt appreciation to all
of the members of my legislative staff,
who have worked with me over the
last 19 years to keep this issue before
the Senate. There are far too many in-
dividuals, both former and present
members of my staff to mention but I
want to particularly thank Larry
Patton, who has carried this burden
for the last 13 years.
Few individuals have written more
frequently regarding the Genocide
Convention nor understand the provi-
sions, and drafting history of this
treaty, better than Larry and I am
deeply appreciative of his work on this
issue.
Mr. President, all of these individ-
uals have contributed to this day and I
want the record to show their contri-
butions. Without their efforts, this
day would not have been possible.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senator
from Mississippi, Senator COCHRAN, be
permitted to speak as in morning busi-
ness for not to exceed 5 minutes, and
following that that we then turn to
Calendar Order No. 507, S. 1249, the
prosecution of terrorists who attack
United States nationals abroad, and
that there be a time agreement of 30
minutes, equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving
the right to object, and I do not intend
to object, does the distinguished ma-
jority leader mean that 30 minutes
would be the overall time on the meas-
ure, including any amendments, and
that no amendments would be in
order, other than the committee-re-
ported substitute and no motions to
recommit would be in order?
Mr. DOLE. That is correct.
Mr. BYRD. There is no objection on
this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOLE. There will be a rollcall
on that and that will be the last roll-
call of the day.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
SENATOR JAMES O. EASTLAND
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, earli-
er today Senator STENNIS and I
brought to the attention of the Senate
the fact that early this morning the
former Senator from Mississippi,
James O. Eastland passed away at the
Greenwood-LeFlore Community Hos-
pital.
Mr. President, it was my honor to
succeed Senator Eastland when he de-
cided not to seek reelection to the
Senate in 1978. He had served our
State in the United States Senate
since 1941. He was appointed to serve
in the Senate by former Gov. Paul B.
Johnson, Sr., when Pat Harrison, who
was at the time chairman of the
Senate Finance Committee, died in
office. There was a special election
S 1381
held soon thereafter to fill the une'-
pired term. Senator Eastland did not,
seek election at the special election
but he did run in 1942 for the full 6-
year term and he was elected, defeat-
ing Senator Wall Doxey, who had
been elected in the special election.
He served for 36 years after that. He
had five races for reelection and was
successful in all of them. For 22 years
he served as chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee and during the
last several years of his service here in
the Senate he was President pro tem-
pore, serving in that capacity during
the administrations of President
Nixon, President Ford, and President
Carter. So he was very much a nation-
al figure and our State was very proud
of him and proud of his service in the
Senate.
It was my good fortune to have an
opportunity to get to know him well
while I was a Member of the House of
Representatives and he was serving
here in the Senate. I would have an
opportunity, from time to time, to be
with him when we would meet as a
delegation with Mississippi constitu-
ents and to meet with him in his office
to talk about matters of mutual inter-
est back home and about politics: I
came to respect him very sincerely as a
person who was concerned about the
average citizens. Whenever someone
from Mississippi would call upon him
and tell him about a problem they had
with the Federal Government, he got
to work on it. He was enthusiastic and
aggressive about trying to ensure that
the citizens of our State were treated
fairly by the Federal Government.
He surrounded himself with a staff
of men and women who were, likewise,
very aggressive in trying to be sure
that our State got its share of Federal
program dollars and that the legisla-
tion enacted here took into account
the interests of our State; people like
Bill Simpson and Frank Barber and
Sam Thompson and Courtney Pace,
and there were many others whom I
came to know personally and respect-
ed and liked a great deal. I developed a
strong feeling of affection for Senator
Eastland as well. He was unpreten-
tious, Mr. President. He did not take
himself seriously, but he took his job
seriously. He worked at it very hard
and diligently.
I do not know whether it is true or
not, but they tell the story about the
time Senator Eastland and Senator
Spessard Holland from Florida were
coming back to Washington, having
been down in Atlanta or somewhere in
the South. They were flying back to
Washington, sitting together on the
plane; and on the approach to Nation-
al Airport from the north over the Po-
tomac River-it was about dusk-Sena-
tor Holland looked outside and said,
"Jim, look out there at this city. Isn't
that a gorgeous sight?"
You could see the lights of the
Washington Monument and the Lin-
Approved For Release 2011/03/04: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600950030-3
 Approved For Release 2011/03/04: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600950030-3
February 19, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
That this Act may be cited as the "Terrorist
Prosecution Act of 1985".
SFc. 2. (a) Part I of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after chapter
113 the following:
-CHAPTER 113A-TERRORIST ACTS
AGAINST UNITED STATES NATION-
ALS ABROAD
"2331. Findings and purpose.
"2332. Terrorist acts against United States
nationals abroad.
"SEC. 2331. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
"The Congress hereby finds that-
"(a) between 1968 and 1985, there were
over eight thousand incidents of interna-
tional terrorism, over 50 per centum of
which were directed against American tar-
gets;
"(b) it is an accepted principle of interna-
tional law that a country may prosecute
crimes committed outside its boundaries
that are directed against its own security or
the operation of its governmental functions;
"(c) terrorist attacks on Americans abroad
threaten a fundamental function of our
Government: that of protecting its citizens;
"(d) such attacks also threaten the ability
of the United States to implement and
maintain an effective foreign policy;
"(c) terrorist attacks further interfere
with interstate and foreign commerce,
threatening business travel and tourism as
well as trade relations; and
"(f) the purpose of this chapter is to pro-
!de for the prosecution and punishment of
persons .who, in furtherance of terrorist ac-
tivities or because of the nationality of the
victims, commit violent attacks upon Ameri-
cans outside the United States or conspire
outside of the United States to murder
Americans within the United States.
";,EC. 2:332. TERRORIST ACTS AGAINST UNITED
STATES NATIONALS ABROAD.
"(a) Whoever outside the United States
commits any murder as defined in section
1111(a) of this title or manslaughter as de-
fined in section 1112(a) of this title, or at-
tempts or conspires to commit murder, of a
national of the United States shall upon
conviction in the case of murder be pun-
ished as provided in section 1111, for man-
sla+3ghter be punished as provided in section
1112, for attempted murder be imprisoned
for not more than twenty years, and for
conspiracy he punished as provided by sec-
tion II 17 of this title, notwithstanding that
the offen.ze occurred outside the United
1dates.
'(b) Whoever outside the United States,
with intent to cause serious bodily harm or
si;;nificantly loss of liberty, assaults, strikes,
wounds, imprisons, or makes any other vio-
ient attack upon the person or liberty of
any national of the United States or, if
likely to endanger his person or liberty,
makes violent attacks upon his business
premises, private accommodations, or means
of transport, of attempts to commit any of
the foregoing, shall be fined not more than
$'i,000 or imprisoned not more than three
or both. Whoever in the commission
of any such act uses a deadly or dangerous
weapon shall be fined not more than $10,000
or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
both.
"(c) Whoever. outside of the United
States, conspires to commit murder, as de-
fined in section 1111(a) of this title, within
the United States of any national of the
United States, shall be punished as provided
in section 1117 of this title notwithstanding
that the offense occurred outside the
United States.
"(d) As used in this section, the term 'na-
tional of the United States' has the meaning
given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(22)).
"(e) No indictment for this section can be
returned without the written approval of
the Attorney General or his designee.".
(b) The table of chapters for part I of title
18, United States Code, is amended by in-
serting after the item for chapter 113, the
following:
"113A. Terrorist acts against United
States nationals abroad ................. 2331".
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask for
the yeas and nays on final passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this
bill, S. 1429, the Terrorist Prosecution
Act, fills a significant gap in our legal
arsenal against terrorism by making
terrorist attacks against Americans
abroad a crime under U.S. law.
The bill was introducd on July 10,
1985, as a modification of a bill origi-
nally introduced on September 25,
1984, S. 3018. It was referred to the
Subcommittee on Security and Terror-
ism where hearings were held on July
30, 1985. An amendment in the nature
of a substitute was adopted and the
bill was polled out of the subcommit-
tee with a vote of 5-0 on November 19,
1985. The Judiciary Committee adopt-
ed S. 1429 by unanimous consent on
December 12, 1985. The bill has the
support of the administration, and is
cosponsored by Senators ANDREWS,
BOREN, COHEN, D'AMATO, DENTON,
DURENBERGER, GRASSI.EY, HECHT,
LEAHY, MCCONNELL, MURKOWSKI,
ROTH, LEvIN, and HAWKINS.
S. 1429 is vital to our battle against
terrorism, and I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Nearly 21/2 years ago, the Nation was
rocked by a bomb blast that destroyed
our marine barracks in Beirut, Leba-
non, and took the lives of over 240 ma-
rines. As our shock and grief gave
wave to anger, the cries to bring the
terrorists to justice grew louder. Many
called for military reprisals. Having
spent most of my adult life in law en-
forcement, I turned first to the law-
these terrorists were not soldiers, they
were murderers and should be pros-
ecuted in U.S. courts for their hei-
nous crime.
However, a review of current U.S.
law revealed that we had no law on
the books under which we could try
these criminals, even if we caught
them. This same gap in our law pre-
vents U.S. prosecution of those who
brutally shot two U.S. AID [Agency
for International Development] offi-
cers during the hijacking of a Kuwaiti
airplane in December 1981, or those
who shot and killed the Americans at
an outdoor cafe in El Salvador.
A recent New York Times article on
January 19, 1986, reported State De-
partment legal advisers, Judge Abra-
ham Sofaer, as noting "that no Feder-
al law covers the murder of American
citizens abroad, a lack that frustrated
efforts to bring indictments against
those responsible for slaying four off-
duty American marines and two Amer-
S 1383
ican businessmen in El Salvador last
year."
To fill this gap, on September 25,
1984, I introduced S. 3018 to provide
for U.S. jurisdiction over terrorist at-
tacks against U.S. agents, officers, and
employees. The bill was modified and
reintroduced in the 99th Congress on
June 27, 1985, as S. 1373. After receiv-
ing input from authorities on interna-
tional law and meetings with adminis-
tration officials, the bill was further
modified to provide U.S. jurisdiction
over terrorist attacks on any American
abroad and reintroduced as S. ],429 on
July 10, 1985.
At the heart of this bill is the notion
that international terrorists are crimi-
nals and ought to be treated as such-
that they should be located promptly,
apprehended and brought to trial for
their heinous crimes.
In 1984, Congress enacted new laws
providing extraterritorial jurisdiction
for hostage taking and aircraft sabo-
tage, but murder of U.S. nationals out-
side our borders and not within the
special jurisdiction of the United
States, other than of specially desig-
nated Government officials and diplo-
mats, is still not a crime under U.S.
law.
Judge Sofaer told the Senate Com-
mittee on Security and Terrorism
during hearings on July 30, 1985, that
S. 1429 will fill a significant gap in cur-
rent U.S. law, and is "warranted by re-
ality and logic, and consistent with
international law." Ambassador
Oakley concurred, emphasizing that
the bill will be a useful tool in "the
foreign policy and diplomatic aspects
of our antiterrorism effort." Also testi-
fying in support of the bill were Dr.
Raymond Cline, senior associate at the
Center for Strategic and International
Studies, and Leo Byron, a hostage of
the TWA hijacking in June 1985, ac-
companied by his wife, Carolyn, and
daughter, Pamela, who were also on
the plane.
S. 1429 fills the gap in current law
without in any way contravening or
conflicting with either international or
constitutional law. While criminal ju-
risdiction s customarily limited to the
place where the crime occurred, it is
well-established constitutional doc-
trine that Congress has the power to
apply U.S. law extraterritorially if it
so chooses. (See e.g., United States v.
Bowman, 260 U.S. 94 (1922)).
International law also recognizes
broad criminal jurisdiction. If an al-
leged crime occurs in a foreign coun-
try, a nation still may exercise juris-
diction over the defendant, pursuant
to the "protective principle," if the
crime has a potentially adverse effect
upon its security or the operation of
its governmental functions. This basis
for jurisdiction over crimes committed
outside the United States has been ap-
plied by the Federal courts in contexts
ranging from drug smuggling to perju-
ry. Clearly, then, the exercise of U.S.
criminal jurisdiction also is justified to
Approved For Release 2011/03/04: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600950030-3
 Approved For Release 2011/03/04: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600950030-3
S 1384 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
prosecute a terrorist who assaults or
murders American nationals abroad.
In addition to threatening a funda-
mental function of our Government-
that of protecting its citizens-such at-
tacks undoubtedly have an adverse
effect upon the conduct of our Gov-
ernment's foreign affairs, and poten-
tially threaten the security interests
of the United States. Terrorist attacks
further interfere with interstate and
foreign commerce, threatening busi-
ness travel and tourism, as well as
trade relations.
S. 1429 includes a statement of find-
ings and purpose designed to make it
clear the act is intended to cover acts
of international terrorism, as opposed
to bar room brawls or other violence
which fails to trigger these national
interests. Similarly, the bill specifies
that no indictment may be returned
under the act without the written ap-
proval of the Attorney General or his
designee. The intention of this section
is to further ensure that application of
the law is limited to acts of national
interest consistent with the findings
and purpose set forth in the act. It is
my sense that these provisions are
adequate to satisfy this objective and,
thus, the bill does not attempt to
define terrorism. However, those seek-
ing guidance on this issue can refer to
the definition provided in the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act, title 50,
section 1801(c).
But making terrorist murder a U.S.
crime alone will not protect Americans
abroad. We must also demonstrate our
seriousness by applying the law with
fierce determination.
In many cases, the terrorist murder-
er will be extradited or seized with the
cooperation of the government in
whose jurisdiction he or she is found.
Yet, if the terrorist is hiding in a coun-
try like Lebanon, where the govern-
ment, such as it is, is powerless to aid
in his removal, or in Lybia, where the
government is unwilling, we must be
willing to apprehend these criminals
ourselves and bring them back for
trial. We have the ability to do that
right now, under existing law. Under
current constitutional doctrine, both
U.S. citizens and foreign nationals can
be seized and brought to trial in the
United States without violating due
process of law. See, for example, Fris-
bie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 522 (1952);
Her v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 (1886).
It may surprise some to hear that
such methods are an appropriate way
to bring criminals to trial. If someone
is charged or chargeable with an of-
fense and is at liberty in some foreign
country, it is an accepted principle of
law to take that alleged criminal into
custody if necessary and return him to
the jurisdiction which has authority
to try him. That prosecution and con-
viction is sustainable under the laws of
the United States and under interna-
tional law.
This principle has been in effect for
almost 100 years, going back to 1886,
in the landmark case of Ker versus Il-
linois, where the State of Illinois
seized a defendant in Peru, a man
being charged with a crime in Illinois,
and brought him back to Illinois for
trial, where he was convicted. The case
went to the Supreme Court of the
United States and the Supreme Court
of the United States said it was appro-
priate to try that man in Illinois and
to convict him notwithstanding the
means which were used to bring him
back to trial in that jurisdiction.
That doctrine was upheld in an opin-
ion written by Justice Hugo Black,
well known for his concern about de-
fendants' rights, in the case of Frisbie
versus Collins, handed down by the
Supreme Court of the United States in
1952 and upheld in later decisions. No
country in the world, no country in
the history of the development of law,
has more rigorous concepts of the due
process of law than the United States
of America and the U.S. Supreme
Court.
Forcible seizure and arrest is a
strong step, but the threat of terror-
ism requires strong measures, and this
is clearly preferable to the alternatives
of sending in combat troops or bomb-
ing a few neighborhoods.
When I first began urging serious
consideration of forcible arrest of ter-
rorists nearly 2 years ago, it drew some
criticism. It was a unique idea, bor-
rowed from the days of pirates.
Yet, as critics looked more closely at
the solid support for convictions ob-
tained after forcibly seizing criminals,
and as the cries for bombing raids and
assassinations grew louder, the idea of
seizing a terrorist for trial in the
United States seemed reasonable.
When Judge Sofaer testified on S.
1429, for example, he stressed his
strong support for the bill but made
equally clear his concern about the
way I have urged it be applied-the
use of forcible arrest where necessary.
As we discussed it further that morn-
ing in the hearing, it became clear
that we were really not as far apart as
it first appeared. Before the hearing
concluded Judge Sofaer and I had
agreed that such measures should be
taken as a last resort, with extreme
caution as an extraordinary step,
being aware of the sensitive nature,
and only after a decision at the high-
est level.
On January 19, 1986, the New York
Times published an article entitled:
"U.S. Is Said To Weigh Abducting Ter-
rorists Abroad for Trials Here." In it,
Judge Sofaer is reported as saying he
would support "seizure" of fugitives in
other countries if the chances for suc-
cess were reasonable. "He acknowl-
edged that such a move would violate
international law," the article went on
to note, "but said there were legiti-
mate arguments in favor of 'bending'
the rules in extraordinary circum-
stances."
By the end of that week, on January
25, 1986, the Times ran an editorial
supporting "snatching terrorists
February 19, 1986
abroad," noting it "no longer sounds
far-fetched."
Mr. President, the bill we are consid-
ering today represents the culmination
of one aspect of my ongoing effort of
nearly 2 years to develop an effective
judicial approach to dealing with ter-
rorism. First introduced as S. 3018 in
September 1984, the bill has benefit-.
ted from the ideas and suggestions of
many others concerned about these
same problems and from the outstand-
ing leadership in the Senate of Sena-
tor JEREMIAH DENTON, chairman of the
Judiciary Subcommittee on Security
and Terrorism.
In addition to S. 1429, I have also re-
introduced a resolution, Senate Reso-
lution 190 on June 27, 1985, to provide
for international prosecution of terror-
ists, expressing the sense of the
Senate that the President should call
for international negotiations aimed at
determining an international defini-
tion of terrorism which could then be
established as a "universal crime," like
piracy, punishable by any nation that
captures the terrorists.
Another necessary step in effective
prosecution of terrorists as interna-
tional criminals is to deny the fallacy
of the "terrorist-diplomat." I have in-
troduced legislation, S. 1383 and
Senate Resolution 191, aimed at pre-
venting any recurrence of the gro-
tesque spectacle we witnessed after
the "Libyan shoot out" in London of
terrorists walking away from prosecu-
tion because of diplomatic immunity,
by making it clear that murder is not,
and can never be, protected diplomatic
activity.
The terrorist diplomat can exist only
as a product of state-sponsored terror-
ism, and it is to this threat that we
must next turn our focus. Earlier this
year, I introduced legislation to cut off
all U.S. trade with Libya because of its
support of international terrorism.
This proposal was adopted by the
Senate as an amendment to the For-
eign Assistance Act giving the Presi-
dent authority to summarily cut off
trade with Libya and other countries
because of its support of international
terrorism.
On July 10, 1985, the House passed a
similar amendment to the House For-
eign Assistance Act mandating a trade
boycott of Libya, after I contacted
Congressman BENJAMIN GILMAN Of
New York.
The provision was ultimately en-
acted and provided authority for the
President's recent trade embargo of
Libya, announced on January 7, 1986.
Finally, in response to the immedi-
ate concerns raised by the TWA hi-
jacking, I introduced a resolution,
Senate Resolution 196, calling on the
President to work for a worldwide boy-
cott of all international airports that
fail to meet adequate security stand-
ards. I firmly believe that the United
States must take an active role in en-
suring the safety of passengers, not
Approved For Release 2011/03/04: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600950030-3
 Approved For Release 2011/03/04: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600950030-3
February 19, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
just on flights leaving our airports, but
on all international flights.
These legislative initiatives, along
with S. 1429, reflect my conviction
that, ultimately, law abiding nations
will succeed against this threat to law
and order worldwide, not by adopting
the terrorists tactics that threaten in-
nocents, but by fiercely maintaining
that threatened order and bringing
.the full force of the law to bear
against these most heinous criminals.
Mr. President, I thank the distin-
guished majority leader for taking
time for this bill at this time. I shall
briefly summarize at this juncture
what this bill does.
At the present time, as a result of
legislation in 1984, it is against the
laws of the United States to hijack or
take hostage our American citizens.
There is a significant gap in U.S. law
at the present time as to attacks, as-
saults, or killings of other U.S. citizens
abroad.
This bill fills that gap.
For exstnple, Mr. President, there is
no law on the books at the present
time which would enable the United
States to take action for the U.S. citi-
zens who were murdered at the Vienna
and Rome airports in the recent inci-
dents, or take action against the ter-
rorists who murdered the 240 marines
in Lebanon on October 25, 1983, or to
bring to justice the murderers of U.S.
citizens at the outdoor cafe in El Sal-
vador, or take action against the ter-
rorists who murdered two AID officers
at the airport in Tehran. This bill
would fill that gap.
Mr. President, it has long been ac-
cepted that the United States, or any
nation, may exert extraterritorial ju-
risdiction for attacks and murder on
their citizens abroad. It is high time
that there was a comprehensive crimi-
nal code to protect American citizens
around the world from such acts of
terrorism.
Mr. President, there has been a
great deal of tough talk about terror-
ism, but very little tough action. The
enactment of this measure will enable
the United States to supplement the
tough talk with some tough action.
There is at the present time, largely
unknown but a fact, that the three
terrorists who hijacked the TWA
plane are now under indictment, with
such charges having been issued by
the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia. This bill will put on the
books a measure which will protect
American citizens abroad under all cir-
cumstances from acts of terrorism.
What happens next, Mr. President,
in terms of bringing terrorists to jus-
tice, is a complex matter but it is
worth noting that for 100 years now
the Supreme Court of the United
States has upheld convictions where
criminals are brought back to the
United States for trial regardless of
the methods by which they are
brought back.
In a celebrated case called Ker
against Illinois, the State of Illinois
had brought charges against a man by
the name of Ker who fled to Peru. Illi-
nois officials went to Peru, arrested
Ker, brought him back to the United
States, and he was convicted. That
prosecution was upheld by the Su-
preme Court of the United States in a
decision which has been followed
many times, with one opinion written
by Justice Hugo Black, a noted civil
libertarian.
In terms of bringing a terrorist to
justice, that has to be very carefully
considered. When these ideas were
first offered in legislation by this Sen-
ator some years ago, there was some
substantial criticism in trying to use
the Ker doctrine to try to bring terror-
ists to justice in the United States. As
we have seen a proliferation of terror-
ism, as we have seen other procedures
not effective, as we have seen an effort
at economic sanctions-which is a
good first step but unfortunately not
joined in by our colleagues-retaliato-
ry attacks have been considered and
rejected, we have been searching for
ways to deal with terrorism. The
criminal laws have doctrines with con-
siderable force, and those doctrines
can be effectively used in bringing ter-
rorists to justice and bringing them to
the United States for trial, for pros-
ecution, and conviction.
I ask unanimous consent that the
text of a New York Times editorial for
January 26, 1986, be incorporated in
the RECORD. It is entitled "Snatching
Terrorists Abroad," which is a succinct
statement and a policy justification
for this kind of enforcement and
action.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
[From the New York Times, Jan. 25, 19861
SNATCHING TERRORISTS ABROAD
If other nations can't catch terrorists or
refuse to surrender them, why shouldn't
Americans snatch suspects wherever they
can and bring them to justice in the United
States? That question no longer sounds far-
fetched.
The violence against Americans abroad
and the failure of other nations to take it
seriously have aroused Washington's inter-
est in every conceivable countermeasure.
Prudence and justice argue for striking di-
rectly at guilty terrorists. Why not take
them where we can?
The main obstacles are other nations'
rights and sensibilities. Governments that
put a much lower priority on arresting ter-
rorists may well regard kidnapping by
American agents as a crime. They also cher-
ish their sovereignty and insist on making
their own choices about whom to arrest and
to extradite. Some may also fear retribution
by terrorists or remember that the United
States itself has sometimes refused to deliv-
er fugitives under extradition treaties that
exclude crimes labeled "political."
Still, while other nations are unlikely to
give advance approval, some might quietly
applaud or even assist in specific arrests of
properly charged fugitives. American judges
traditionally have not inquired about how a
suspect is brought before them, only wheth-
er he's been duly charged. America's known
regard for defendants' rights, and President
Reagan's rejection of reckless retaliation
S 1385
against innocents abroad, are strong argu-
ments for trying to bring some fugitives to
account here.
Probably the strongest argument for uni-
lateral action is the failure of international
efforts to punish either terrorists or their
sponsors. Our European allies, having re-
fused to join in economic sanctions or air-
line groundings, would find it harder to
object to discreet American efforts at self-
protection.
Responsible Americans are not talking
about a shootout on a busy Paris street.
They do, however, want to warn nations
that harbor the likes of Mohammed Abbas
that they risk the humiliation of having
him snatched away. That alone might keep
him and others in distracted flight.
Mohammed Abbas is under Federal Indict-
ment, charged with plotting the Achille
Lauro hijacking, with its cold-blooded
murder of a disabled American. He was
caught when American planes intercepted
the hijackers' escape plane but was then
rashly released, first by Italy, then Yugo-
slavia, despite a strong American showing
that he was extraditable. He is a prime can-
didate for capture if American agents can
manage it.
Such snatchings are no substitute for sus-
tained antiterrorist campaigns, including in-
filtration of suspect groups. They are no
substitute for joint action when it can be ne-
gotiated. But they can bring some murder-
ers to justice and relieve the pent-up Ameri-
can frustration that might otherwise pro-
voke truly rash action.
Mr. SPECTER. The enactment of
this bill will give us a good weapon in
our arsenal which will enable us to
consider a variety of alternatives to
bring terrorists to justice. It will be a
great day in our battle against terror-
ism worldwide to bring terrorists to
the Federal court here in Washington,
DC, for prosecution, conviction, and
punishment. I thank the Chair.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would
like to take a minute to say that I was
interested to note that when we were
told this was going to come up and I
was suggested as the ranking member
to manage this, I asked the staff to
check if it was brought up as a non-
controversial bill. The only reason it is
noncontroversial is because of the ef-
forts of the Senator from Pennsylva-
nia. The Senator from Pennsylvania
addressed this issue in the Judiciary
Committee, as he indicated, several
years ago, and there then was a good
deal of controversy aboyt whether or
not the direction he was seeking to go
was proper and whether the whole
window of law he was seeking to close
should be closed.
So I rise to compliment the Senator
from Pennsylvania for his diligence
and for his persistence in this matter.
Mr. President, I rise in support of S.
1429, the Terrorist Prosecution Act.
The purpose of this bill is to provide
for the prosecution and punishment of
persons who, in furtherance of terror-
ist activities or because of the nation-
ality of the victims, commit violent at-
tacks upon Americans outside the
United States or conspire outside of
the United States to murder Ameri-
cans within the United States.
Approved For Release 2011/03/04: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600950030-3
 Approved For Release 2011/03/04: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600950030-3
S 1386 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
The legal underpinnings of this bill
are sound. It is an accepted principle
of international law that a country
may prosecute crimes committed out-
side its boundaries that are directed
against its own security or the oper-
ation of its governmental functions.
Terrorist attacks against Americans
threaten such a fundamental function
of our Government-that of protect-
ing its citizens.
Mr. President, terrorism is antitheti-
cal to the rule of law; yet, to the
extent feasible, it is the rule of law
upon which we must rely to fight ter-
rorism. What is needed in the fight
against terrorism is not a suspension
of the very values that we as a Nation
seek to embody, but an affirmation of
those values by bringing the rule of
law to bear on terrorist activity. It is
appropriate and necessary, therefore,
that we employ every legal mechanism
within our power to punish those who
commit terrorist acts against Ameri-
cans, yet doing so in a way that re-
spects the rule of law that we as a
nation revere.
Mr. President, in conclusion I would
like to commend Senators SPECTER,
DENTON, and LEAHY for their commit-
ment to seeing this legislation
through. This is a very difficult area
,to legislate, and I think they have
come up with a very good product that
I believe will have'tangible results in
combatting terrorist attacks against
Americans.
Mr. SPECTER. I have one further
comment, Mr. President. I thank the
distinguished Senator from Delaware
for his very general and kind remarks.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the hi-
jacking of the Achille Lauro and the
recent atrocities at the Rome and
Vienna airports, have given new ur-
gency to the debate over the proper
U.S. response to international terror-
ism.
The United States needs a compre-
hensive counterterrorism strategy.
Part of that strategy must be to im-
prove our intelligence so the discrimi-
nate use of force against terrorists
who have committed or are about to
commit violent acts becomes feasible
and legitimate.
Our strategy must also include laws
which provide for the criminal pros-
ecution in the United States of terror-
ists over whom we can obtain jurisdic-
tion through extradition and other
means.
Remarkably, under current law, the
murder of U.S. citizens outside our
borders, other than of certain govern-
ment officials and diplomats, is not a
crime.
The Terrorist Prosecution Act will
close this serious GAP in our arsenal
against terrorists, by providing for
long jail sentences for individuals who
conspire to commit or commit terrorist
assaults, murders, or kidnapings
against Americans abroad.
As ranking member of the Subcom-
mittee of Security and Terrorism, I am
proud to have worked with Chairman
DENTON and Senator SPECTER on a
draft of this bill which I have cospon-
sored and which has the strong sup-
port of the State and Justice Depart-
ments and all members of the Judici-
ary Committee.
Terrorism will continue to plague us
in the future. There are no simple so-
lutions, but we should have every
weapon at our disposal. I urge my col-
leagues to give this bill their whole-
hearted support.
Mr. DENTON. Mr. President, I rise
in support of S. 1429, the Terrorist
Prosecution Act, a bill to amend title
18, United States Code, to authorize
prosecution of terrorists and others
who attack U.S. nationals abroad.
In reviewing the subject of interna-
tional terrorism, the Judiciary Sub-
committee on Security and Terrorism,
which I chair, has collected sufficient
evidence, through hearings, to con-
clude that there is more to terrorism
than just a series of unrelated violent
events perpetrated by several unrelat-
ed groups.
There is for example a clear pattern
of Soviet supported and equipped in-
surgencies seeking to destabilize, by
revolution, whole regions such as
Southern Africa, to politicize estab-
lished religion, such as in Nicaragua
and the Middle East, and to export vi-
olence against the democratic govern-
ments of neighboring states.
The trends are clear. Cooperation
among terrorist groups is increasing.
In some instances drug money fi-
nances the violence. The lethality of
the action is becoming greater as more
powerful and more sophisticated
weapons are employed. There is in-
creasing disregard for the innocent.
More diplomats and world leaders are
targets. More innocent civilians are
made into pawns. United States' inter-
ests are the No. 1 target.
The pattern that emerges from
studying the testimony obtained in
more than 60 hearings before the Sub-
committee on Security and Terrorism,
and more recently in joint hearings
with the Judiciary Committee and
Foreign Relations Committee, is that
terrorism is the most widely practiced
form of modern warfare. It is both a
major force and a major trend in for-
eign affairs.
How successful have we been in deal-
ing with terrorist warfare against our
commerce, soldiers, diplomats, facili-
ties, leaders, and private citizens? Not
very. We in Congress sometimes adopt
self-defeating, even contradictory,
measures that often put us at odds
with our friends and allies. Most
people are outraged at the violence of
terrorism as depicted by the daily
news, but that rage is short-lived.
We have come to a point that re-
quires that we establish both a foreign
and domestic policy for dealing with
the obvious threat.
U.S. policy on terrorism is fragment-
ed and only partially developed. I be-
lieve that it is essential that we deter-
mine the degree of the threat to our
February 19, 1Y86
interests, set our goals and objectives,
and then develop a policy and commit-
ments. From there, we must explain
our policy so that we can build a con-
sensus that will enable us to persevere
and to succeed over the long haul.
Terrorism must be dealt with on
many fronts and a military response
alone will not suffice. First, we must
have laws that are sufficient to meet
the threat. We must have a mecha-
nism capable of enforcing these laws.
We must pursue diplomatic initiatives
and our allies must stand firm with us
on this issue. We must in the end be
prepared to employ a full range of
sanctions: legal, diplomatic, economic,
and military.
S. 1429, introduced by my distin-
guished colleague from Pennsylvania,
Senator SPECTER, will allow for pros-
ecution in the United States of individ-
uals who commit terrorist murders
against U.S. nationals abroad. I believe
that S. 1429, with the amendments
suggested by the Department of Jus-
tice and offered at the Subcommittee
by Senator LEAHY and myself for Sen-
ator SPECTER, represents a step for-
ward in our ongoing fight against ter-
rorism.
I urge my colleagues to support S.
1429.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in
support of Senate bill S. 1429, intro-
duced by my colleague Senator SPEC-
TER. The bill seeks to authorize pros-
ecution of terrorists who attack U.S.
Nationals abroad. It does this by ex-
panding the jurisdiction of U.S. courts
overseas. The crimes in question in-
clude murder, manslaughter, conspira-
cy to murder, and assault. In addition,
it also makes it a crime to conspire
outside the United States to commit
murder within the United States and
to commit the murder of any U.S. na-
tional.
Although I regret that the bill does
not define terrorism per se, and al-
though I believe in the need for a stat-
utory definition of international ter-
rorism, this bill develops the national-
ity theory of jurisdiction. In other
words, and attack upon any U.S. citi-
zen abroad, or a conspiracy to engage
in such attack, if it includes the crimes
I have just listed, grants jurisdiction
to U.S. courts to try the offenders in
question, once the United States has
apprehended them. Among other
things, this will prevent a situation
similar to that of the murder of Leon
Klinghoffer aboard the Achille Lauro,
when the United States was truly
unable to claim a proper jurisdiction
in that instance.
What this act really does is to devel-
op the nationality theory of jurisdic-
tion, a theory already claimed by
Israel and France, among others. An
attack upon and American citizen
abroad, and fits one of the above
crimes, makes the attack a criminal
act under our Federal Criminal Code.
This is a most desirable approach in
Approved For Release 2011/03/04: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600950030-3
 Approved For Release 2011/03/04: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600950030-3
February 19, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
these days of a shrunken world made
small by modern science and technolo-
gy.
Mr. President, the United States, if
it is to be at all successful in combat-
ing the terrorist threat, must put its
words into deeds. This is the only way
to serve notice on terrorist offenders
that the United States will no longer
allow them to escape the consequences
of their bloody acts. How we obtain or
apprehend the terrorist offenders is
another question. I note that many of
my colleagues, and the administration
also, will not rule out abduction. Nor
do I, Mr. President, if that is the only
way to get these vile murderers to
American shores.
One thing is clear. We cannot afford
the further shedding of innocent
blood or to allow political fanatics to
make civilization itself their hostage.
S. 1429 is a good bill because it en-
hances the reach of the American
criminal justice system in its attempts
to bring these barbaric criminals to
justice. Mr. President, I urge support
of S. 1429. It is a first step toward re-
storing legal sanity in a world reeling
from terror-violence. It serves notice
on terrorists and violent-wrongdoers
abroad that American justice will not
be denied.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I be-
lieve we are ready to vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the commit-
tee amendment in the nature of a sub-
stitute.
The committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill is before the Senate and open to
further amendment. If there be no
further amendment to be proposed,
the question is on the engrossment
and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
for a third reading and was read the
third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill having been read the third time,
the question is, Shall it pass? On this
question, the yeas and nays have been
ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called
the roll.
Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the
Senator from Minnesota [Mr. DUREN-
BERGER] and the Senator from Arizona
[Mr. GOLDWATER] are necessarily
absent.
I also announce that the Senator
from Maryland [Mr. MATHIAS] is
absent on official business.
I further announce that, if present
and voting, the Senator from Minneso-
ta [Mr. DURENBERGER] would vote
"yea."
Mr. CRANSTON. I announce that
the Senator from Ohio [Mr. GLENN],
the Senator from Maine [Mr. MITCH-
ELL], and the Senator from Mississippi
[Mr. STENNIS] are necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator
from Hawaii [Mr. INOUYE] is absent
because of illness in the family.
I also announce that the Senator
from Nebraska [Mr. ExoN] is absent
because of illness.
I further announce that, if present
and voting, the Senator from Maine
[Mr. MITCHELL] would vote "yea."
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are
there any other Senators in the Cham-
ber desiring to vote?
The result was announced-yeas 92,
nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 17 Leg.]
YEAS-92
Abdnor
Gore
Metzenbaum
Andrews
Gorton
Moynihan
Armstrong
Gramm
Murkowskl
Baucus
Grassley
Nickles
Bentsen
Harkin
Nunn
Biden
Hart
Packwood
Bingaman
Hatch
Pell
Boren
Hatfield
Pressler
Boschwitz
Hawkins
Proxmire
Bradley
Hecht
Pryor
Bumpers
Heflin
Quayle
Burdick
Heinz
Riegle
Byrd
Helms
Rockefeller
Chafee
Hollings
Roth
Chiles
Humphrey
Rudman
Cochran
Johnston
Sarbanes
Cohen
Kassebaum
Sasser
Cranston
Kasten
Simon
D'Amato
Kennedy
Simpson
Danforth
Kerry
Specter
DeConcini
Lautenberg
Stafford
Denton
Laxalt
Stevens
Dixon
Leahy
Symms
Dodd
Levin
Thurmond
Dole
Long
Trible
Domenici
Lugar
Wallop
Eagleton
Matsunaga
Warner
East
Mattingly
Weicker
Evans
McClure
Wilson
Ford
McConnell
Zorinsky
Garn
Melcher
NAYS-0
NOT VOTING-8
Durenberger
Goldwater
Mitchell
Exon
Inouye
Stennis
Glenn
Mathias
So the bill (S. 1429), as amended,
was passed, as follows:
S. 1429
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That this
Act may be cited as the "Terrorist Prosecu-
tion Act of 1985".
SEC. 2. (a) Part I of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after chapter
113 the following:
"CHAPTER 113A-TERRORIST ACTS
AGAINST UNITED STATES NATION-
ALS ABROAD
"2331. Findings and purpose.
"2332. Terrorist acts against United States
nationals abroad.
"SEC. 2331. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
"The Congress hereby finds that-
"(a) " between 1968 and 1985, there were
over eight thousand incidents of interna-
tional terrorism, over 50 per centum of
which were directed against American tar-
gets;
"(b) it is an accepted principle of interna-
tional law that a country may prosecute
crimes committed outside its boundaries
that are directed against its own security or
the operation of its governmental functions;
"(c) terrorist attacks on Americans abroad
threaten a fundamental function of our
Government: that of protecting its citizens;
"(d) such attacks also threaten the ability
of the United States to implement and
maintain an effective foreign policy;
"(e) terrorist attacks further interfere
with interstate and foreign commerce,
S 1387
threatening business travel and tourism as
well as trade relations; and
"(f) the purpose of this chapter is to pro-
vide for the prosecution and punishment of
persons who, in furtherance of terrorist ac-
tivities or because of the nationality of the
victims, commit violent attacks upon Ameri-
cans outside the United States or conspire
outside of the United States to murder
Americans within the United States.
"SEC. 2332. TERRORIST ACTS AGAINST UNITED
STATES NATIONALS ABROAD.
"(a) Whoever outside the United States
commits any murder as defined in section
1111(a) of this title or manslaughter as de-
fined in section 1112(a) of this title, or at-
tempts or conspires to commit murder, of a
national of the United States shall upon
conviction in the case of murder be pun-
ished as provided in section 1111, for man-
slaughter be punished as provided in section
1112, for attempted murder be imprisoned
for not more than twenty years, and for
conspiracy be punished as provided by sec-
tion 1117 of this title, notwithstanding that
the offense occurred outside the United
States.
"(b) Whoever outside the United States,
with intent to cause serious bodily harm or
significant loss of liberty, assaults, strikes,
wounds, imprisons, or makes any other vio-
lent attack upon the person or liberty of
any national of the United States or, if
likely to endanger his person or liberty,
makes violent attacks upon his business
premises, private accommodations, or means
of transport, or attempts to commit any of
the foregoing, shall be fined not more than
$5,000 or imprisoned not more than three
years, or both. Whoever in the commission
of any such act uses a deadly or dangerous
weapon shall be fined not more than $10,000
or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
both.
"(c) Whoever, outside of the United
States, conspires to commit murder, as de-
fined in section 1111(a) of this title, within
the United States of any national of the
United States, shall be punished as provided
in section 1117 of this title notwithstanding
that the offense occurred outside the
United States.
"(d) As used in this section, the term 'na-
tional of the United States' has the meaning
given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(22)).
"(e) No indictment for. this section can be
returned without the written approval of
the Attorney General or his designee.".
(b) The table of chapters for part I of title
18, United States Code, is amended by in-
serting after the item for chapter 113, the
following:
"113A. Terrorist acts against United
States nationals abroad ................. 2331".
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to
reconsider the vote by which the bill
was passed.
Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I
am pleased the Senate voted by such a
wide margin to support this legisla-
tion. I commend the dedicated effort
of my colleague, Senator SPECTER, in
shepherding this bill through the Ju-
diciary Committee and to the floor.
I think it was surprising to many of
us that there was this open window in
our law. It is difficult to imagine why
the murderers of U.S. citizens travel-
Approved For Release 2011/03/04: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600950030-3
 Approved For Release 2011/03/04: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600950030-3
S 1388 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Ing abroad should be accorded status
different from hijackers and hostage
takers.
Murder of any U.S. citizen should be
a crime. The question of apprehension
and prosecution should not depend on
where the crime occurs or whether the
American enjoys the status of a Gov-
ernment official. Murder is just as
wrong and just as much anguish for
the victim's family whether it occurs
here or abroad.
The bill is carefully crafted to
ensure only acts of terrorism are cov-
ered, not back alley fights. It also re-
quires the approval of the Attorney
General or his designee to return an
indictment under the act. Clearly, it
addresses crimes with national impli-
cations, crimes which threaten inter-
national travel and tourism as well as
trade relations.
While criminal jurisdiction is usually
limited to the site of the crime, it is
clearly within constitutional doctrine
to extend it extraterritorially. We
have extended jurisdiction in a wide
variety of cases including drug smug-
gling.
Given the grievous nature of the
crime of murder, I would suggest Con-
gress is both legally obligated and
morally bound to extend the sphere of
our criminal code to protect U.S. citi-
zens abroad. Leon Klinghoffer's
family should have the confidence of
U.S. law that his brutal murderers can
nd will be brought to justice.
ROUTINE MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that there be a
period for the transaction of routine
morning business, not to extend
beyond 5:30 p.m., with Senators per-
mitted to speak therein for not more
than 5 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
HATCH). Without objection, it is so or-
dered.
TASK FORCE ON ELDER ABUSE
ACT OF 1985
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Govern-
mental Affairs Committee be dis-
charged from further consideration of
S. 1919, the Task Force on the Elder
Abuse Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill will be stated by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1919) to establish a task force to
examine the issues associated with abuse of
the elderly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection to the request of the
majority leader?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. President, I rise
today to reaffirm my commitment to
eliminate the abuse of our Nation's
senior citizens. Last December, I intro-
duced S. 1919, legislation that would
create a task force to define and ana-
lyze the causes of elderly abuse; exam-
ine and assess methods of educating
and encouraging cooperative efforts
among the general public, health offi-
cials and appropriate agencies; and
suggest remedial actions that can be
undertaken in both the public and pri-
vate sectors to eliminate this heinous
crime.
Although Congress has addressed
and sought to remedy the problems of
child and spouse abuse, very little has
been done to ease the plight of those
among our senior citizens subject to
such treatment. This legislation, Mr.
President, is a first step in what I
firmly believe is the right direction.
Abuse of the elderly is a wide ranging,
multifaceted problem encompassing
physical, emotional, and economic mis-
treatment. It is a problem that this ad-
ministration and this Congress can no
longer ignore. Implicit in S. 1919 is a
willingness to indeed recognize that
many of our older friends and neigh-
bors are victims of abuse. They are vic-
tims, Mr. President, of what can only
be viewed as another American trage-
dy. For far too many people, the reali-
ty of growing old has become a living
nightmare. I speak of a reality In
which dignity is destroyed, hope is
trampled, dreams are denied, and the
human spirit is laid to waste.
The elderly are a vital and produc-
tive part of our society. They are a
living and vital link to our past and a
stepping stone to our future. They
enrich us with their experience and
sustain us with their knowledge. As a
civilized society we have a responsibil-
ity to protect them and to do other-
wise would be unconscionable.
The great English poet John Donne
wrote that "No man is an island entire
of itself, every man is a piece of the
continent, a part of the main." We are
all a part of the main, Mr. President,
and as a part of mankind we must join
forces to put an end to the abuse and
victimization of our senior citizens.
Mr. President, I am pleased to see this
legislation move forward, and I thank
my colleagues for their support. With-
out their help and cooperation, the
road traveled thus far would surely
have been much more difficult.
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I
rise today to voice my support for S.
1919, the proposed "Task Force on El-
derly Abuse Act of 1985", introduced
by my colleague from North Dakota,
Senator ANDREWS, in an effort to ad-
dress the tragic and growing national
problem of elderly abuse. I am hon-
ored to count myself among the origi-
nal cosponsors of this legislation.
Passage of this legislation will mark
the commitment of the U.S. Senate to
seeking a greater understanding of the
extent, causes, and-most important-
ly-the prevention of the abuse of el-
derly Americans.
It is estimated that at least 1.1 mil-
lion-1 in every 25-elderly Americans
are the victims of abuse each year.
The actual incidence of elder abuse,
however, may be many times greater
February 19, 1986
as 4 out of 5 cases are believed to go
unreported.
Mr. President, the legislation before
us today offers hope that we can find
ways to turn around these alarming
statistics. Under this bill, a 17-member
task force under the direction of the
Secretary of Health and Human Serv-
ices will examine the problem of elder-
ly abuse and submit within 9 months
to the Congress and the President a
written report of its findings and rec-
ommendations. The findings of the El-
derly Abuse Task Force can thus serve
as an important resource in this area.
Mr. President, the proposed "Task
Force on Elderly Abuse Act" repre-
sents a crucial step in our efforts to
address effectively the national trage-
dy of elderly abuse. I urge my col-
leagues to support this vital legisla-
tion.
Mr. HEINZ. Mr. President. I applaud
this Chamber's prompt consideration .
and speedy passage of legislation to
create a national task force on elder
abuse.
Our Nation's senior citizens, like
America's children, represent a valua-
ble national resource. Their "golden
years" culminate a lifetime invested in
this country's peace and prosperity-
as worker, teacher, soldier, parent.
They are a window on our past and a
pathway to our future.
Yet too often this window clouds,
the pavement cracks when these most
venerable-and most vulnerable-indi-
viduals fall victim to abuse.
In the five-county area of my own
hometown of Pittsburgh, 162 reports
of elder abuse were made in a 12-
month period ending this past June.
Although physical maltreatment ac-
counts for about 75 percent of report-
ed cases, many abusers of the elderly
employ more subtle, yet equally devas-
tating, means.
Take the case of a 74-year-old stroke
victim, left strapped to a wheel chair
each day, to sit in her own urine and
feces. Or the 85-year-old woman whose
daughter takes her Social Security
checks and spends them for shopping
sprees and drugs. Or the "devoted"
son who refuses to allow his elderly
mother to eat.
If a nation is judged in part by how
it treats its aged citizens, then we must
don a hair shirt of shame. Shame that
1 million elderly Americans may be
victims of abuse each year, with that
number increasing by 100,000 in just 4
years. Shame that we spend less than
$3 on protective services for each elder
abuse victim-while we spend seven
times that amount for child abuse vic-
tims. Shame that in a nation where
the 75-plus is the fastest growing seg-
ment of the population, and statisti-
cally the most at risk of abuse, we
know so very little about the extent of
the problem, even less about the
causes, and nothing at all about solu-
tions.
Mr. President, what we do know is
that family caregivers, not personnel
Approved For Release 2011/03/04: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600950030-3