Clinton Decries Congress’ Stand on Terrorism

Declaring that the nation cannot afford to lose the war against terrorism, President Clinton criticized Congress on Saturday for denying federal authorities three “crucial weapons” they need to prevent another bombing like the one that destroyed the Oklahoma City federal building.

Using his weekly radio address to turn up the heat on GOP leaders, Clinton took strong issue with congressional opposition to what he described as indispensable measures contained in the broad counterterrorism proposal he sent to Congress in the wake of the worst terrorist attack ever to take place on U.S. soil.

One of them, a proposal to expand federal authority to use emergency wiretaps in terrorism cases, was defeated, 52 to 28, in the Senate on Friday. The other proposals--one authorizing military involvement in terrorist cases involving biological or chemical weapons and the other requiring the use of traceable materials in chemicals that can be used to make explosives--have run into significant congressional opposition.

“I disagree with the position of some senators from both parties that three crucial weapons in the fight against terrorism should be stripped from the bill,” Clinton said. “The restrictive view taken by some people in Congress would handicap our ability to track terrorists down.”

The anti-terrorism legislation before both the House and the Senate incorporates most of the proposals that Clinton made after the April 19 Oklahoma City bombing. It would, for instance, expand federal jurisdiction over terrorist crimes, facilitate quick deportation proceedings for suspected foreign terrorists, increase penalties for terrorist offenses and authorize the hiring of more FBI and other law enforcement officials to handle terrorism investigations.

But Senate leaders have balked at including Clinton’s proposal to expand the use of the military in cases involving weapons of mass destruction. And opposition is mounting on both sides of the Capitol to a provision requiring the use of traceable “taggants” in fertilizer and other potentially explosive chemicals.

GOP lawmakers led the fight to defeat Clinton’s wiretap initiative, saying it could be used to infringe on the rights of legitimate dissenters. While several Democrats joined Republicans in opposing the provision, the debate at times appeared to put each side in the unusual situation of advocating positions traditionally associated with lawmakers of the other party.

Under the Clinton proposal, introduced on the floor by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), the Justice Department would be authorized to wiretap a suspected terrorist’s phone without first obtaining a court order, provided court approval was received no later than 48 hours after the surveillance commenced. If the court denied approval, any evidence obtained through the tap would be inadmissible in court.

Such “emergency” wiretaps already are allowed in investigations involving organized crime. Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, argued that authorities ought to have the same tools to track terrorists as they have “to keep tabs on the Gambino [crime] family.”

But recalling the abuses that occurred in the ‘60s and ‘70s when the FBI monitored civil rights organizations and protest groups opposed to the Vietnam War, Republicans argued that a major expansion of federal surveillance would be fraught with pitfalls.

Responding Saturday to Clinton’s criticism, Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) noted that a number of Democrats voted against the wiretap proposal. The bill before the Senate, he added, is a “tough” measure that still includes “many of [Clinton’s] own proposals.”

While the GOP opposition reflects the concerns of civil libertarians, it also seems to be aimed at placating ultraconservative groups and other interests affected by the legislation.

The proposal to include taggants in fertilizers, for instance, has been resisted by chemical companies concerned about the costs and by farmers who sometimes use the material to blow up tree stumps and other obstructions in their fields.

Clinton said that “as long as the basic building blocks of bombs are sold without taggants,” terrorists will have the means to evade capture. “Every day that goes by without a law like that is another day a terrorist can walk into a store and buy material that is virtually untraceable,” he said.

He defended his proposal to allow the Justice Department to call on the expertise of military investigators when dealing with cases involving biological or chemical weapons. Federal law prohibits the military from becoming involved in civilian investigations, although an exception exists if the threat involves the use of nuclear weapons.

Noting that the military has the most experience in dealing with such weapons, Clinton said the same exception should be extended to cases in which chemical and biological agents figure.

“There’s simply no reason why we should use anything less than the very best we have to fight and stop the extraordinary threat now posed by chemical and biological terrorism,” he said.

The anti-terrorism bill before the House would make those exceptions; the Senate bill would not.

GOP leaders originally hoped to pass an anti-terrorism bill before Congress adjourned on Friday for a one-week Memorial Day recess. But the protracted and bitter debate over the budget pushed it back on the calendar.

Dole said he hopes to finish the Senate bill right after the recess. In the House, Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) plans hearings on the legislation in June and said he hopes it can be passed on the floor before July 4.