Anti-Terrorism Legislation Wins Approval in House

Just in time to meet its deadline--if not its original goal--the House gave final approval Thursday to a compromise anti-terrorism bill, one day before the first anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing.

The bill, which passed on a 293-113 vote, makes it a federal crime subject to the death penalty to murder a federal employee on the job. It also allows the government to block foreign terrorist groups from raising money in the United States.

It does not, however, include authority for roving wiretaps to track suspected terrorists, and it requires only a study of whether explosives and some fertilizers should be tagged for easier tracing.

The most important elements in the bill may be those affecting the death penalty. It strips federal judges of most of their power to second-guess decisions by state courts, and it gives inmates only one chance to appeal their cases in federal court.

California Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren, who first proposed the restrictions on death-penalty appeals as a Long Beach congressman in 1982, praised lawmakers Thursday for approving a “historic and long overdue reform of the federal habeas corpus statute.”

But the American Civil Liberties Union urged President Clinton to veto the bill because it destroys a “bedrock feature of the American justice system.”

Since 1953, federal judges have had broad power to review with a fresh eye the cases of people who are in state prison or on death row.

“Responsibility for defining the very meaning of the Constitution would be given over to the states,” ACLU President Nadine Strossen said of the death-penalty provision. “This is an agenda that has everything to do with weakening civil rights and nothing to do with combating terrorism.”

Republican leaders were relieved with the bill’s passage, having avoided the embarrassment of seeing their promised anti-terrorism legislation disintegrate because of an intraparty dispute.

In March, conservative Republicans led by Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia stripped from the bill its stronger provisions for tracking suspected terrorists. Backed by lobbyists for the National Rifle Assn., they repeatedly cited the incidents near Waco, Texas, and at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, as examples of government lawlessness.

As Rep. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said: “There is a greater fear in this country, and that is fear of our own government.”

Thursday’s House debate also featured the role reversal that has marked the yearlong battle over the anti-terrorism bill.

Liberal Democrats lambasted the majority for putting forth a “gutless” bill that fails to get tough with domestic militia groups, while conservative Republicans stressed it was most important to “be mindful of civil liberties,” as Barr said.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) mocked the weak bill crafted by the GOP and charged it was the work of the “Hamas wing of the Republican Party,” a comment he later withdrew.

In the end, the bill modestly strengthens the government’s powers to deal with the terrorism threat. Atty Gen. Janet Reno said it includes “some very effective tools that we can use in our efforts to combat terrorism.” Clinton is expected to sign the bill next week.

Still, most of the provisions that won final approval were proposed before the Oklahoma City bombing.

Last April 6, FBI Director Louis J. Freeh testified in support of a new anti-terrorism bill intended to respond to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in New York. He urged a greater authority for the government to deport suspected terrorists and to block fund-raising by foreign terrorist groups. Those provisions were part of the final bill.

However, on April 27 of last year, eight days after the Oklahoma City bombing, Freeh returned to Capitol Hill and urged Congress to give the FBI new power to trace cellular phone calls and greater authority to gather hotel and bank records of people linked to terror groups. Most of those provisions were removed from the bill.

“Ask law enforcement what is their No. 1 priority for fighting terrorism, they say the multi-point wiretap. That is the glaring omission from this bill,” said Rep. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.).