The first treaty, the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, was drafted by the United States in the wake of the bombing attack of the United States military personnel in Saudi Arabia in 1996. This treaty creates international jurisdiction over the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in public places with the intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with the intent to cause the extensive destruction of the public place.

The treaty requires nations to extradite or submit for prosecution persons accused of committing or aiding in the commission of such offenses. Thirty-seven nations are currently party to the convention, which became effective internationally on May 23, 2001. Hopefully, of course, the United States will be the 38th country.

The second treaty is the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, which was drafted in 1998. This convention imposes binding legal obligations upon nations either to submit for prosecution or to extradite any person within their jurisdiction who unlawfully and willfully provides or collects funds with the intention that they be used to carry out terrorist activities. Nations also are required to take appropriate steps for the detention, freezing, seizure, or forfeiture of any funds used or allocated for the purposes of committing terrorist acts.

By approving this legislation, we will avoid any delay in implementing these treaties once they have been drafted by the required 22 nations.

Some might oppose this legislation because the bill provides for the possibility of the death penalty for those international terrorists who blow up public buildings and kill innocent people. Others might be opposed because these new terrorist laws will be added as predicate offenses to our laws on wiretaps, money laundering, and material support for terrorism.

However, we already have laws in place that provide for the death penalty for terrorists that murder innocent civilians, so the provisions of this bill are consistent with current law.

Furthermore, this bill simply amends current laws against terrorism to include crimes of terrorist bombings and financing terrorism.

Changing or delaying these conventions would handcuff our law enforcement officers in their efforts to bring terrorists to justice. These treaties, once they are ratified and implemented, will fill an important gap in international law by expanding the legal framework for international cooperation in the investigation, prosecution, and extradition of persons who engage in bombings and financially support terrorist organizations. At a time when other nations are being asked to support our coalition efforts, we should act promptly to join them in these treaties to fight international terrorism.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Scott, for his opening statement.

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I begin my statement, I would like to ask you to consider holding hearings on some of the recent actions by the Administration, including the idea that Government officials can listen in to attorney-client conversations and this more recent new kind of trial

in secret that has been in the press. I am not sure about the details of it, but I think we need to have hearings on that. They involve fundamental principles of law that have been well established over decades, and they appear to be summarily being set aside by Executive orders without any legislative consideration at all. And we ought to at least have hearings to see what is going on.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in convening this hearing on implementing legislation for the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. These treaties have been pending for some time, and I applaud the President's recent resolve in having them now ratified.

I am concerned that right on the heels of hurriedly enacting into law an anti-terrorism bill laden down with severe penalties and severe intrusions into traditional civil liberties, we are now asked to enact, again, in a hurry, yet another such bill.

The anti-terrorism bill we just enacted was represented by the Administration as a comprehensive anti-terrorism bill designed to address terrorism threats in this country. Included in the bill, however, were unprecedented extensions of wiretap, RICO asset forfeitures, and punishments which were enacted into law, many of which had nothing to do with terrorism. Some of the wiretap provisions, in fact, had nothing to do with any crimes.

This bill before us provides for further extensions of these drastic measures and even goes further by adding additional death penalty provisions with no indication that such measures are required for or have anything to do with the ratification of treaties which have been pending before the Senate since 1999.

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, from a cursory review of the treaty requirements, I am wondering what is required by the treaty that is not already a crime under our laws.

So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and for the light they will shed on these questions and concerns, and I join you in welcoming them to this hearing.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Scott.

Are there other Members who have opening statements? Anyone else? If not, we will proceed. Again, I welcome the witnesses, and let me introduce them in the order in which they will testify.

First is Mr. Michael Chertoff, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice; and Mr. Sam Witten, Deputy Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State.

Gentlemen, I have one comment for you that I hope you will take in the spirit in which it is offered, and it is this: One of two things is going to happen. Either I am going to have to retract all those things I said about Administration witnesses under the Clinton Administration who didn't get their testimony to us on time, or this Administration is going to have to change its habits.

We need a little bit better cooperation both in securing witnesses and in getting your testimony because if we don't get them in a timely fashion, basically you inconvenience a lot of people, including the Crime Subcommittee staff and others. And it is also not fair to the Members not to get information in a timely fashion. And I hope you all understand that.

Okay. No response is required, but I would like an affirmative reply at some point that we can change the habits of this current Administration.

Thank you for listening to that comment, and, Mr. Chertoff, we will begin with you.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CHERTOFF, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Mr. CHERTOFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Speaking from my corner of the world, we will change our habits and try to make sure we get material to you in a timely fashion. And I apologize if we were late in this instance.

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Scott, Members of the committee, I am pleased to be here today to speak in favor of this legislation which would implement two important anti-terrorism conventions: the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. In the view of the Department of Justice, both of these instruments are critical to our continuing efforts to prevent, deter, and combat terrorist acts.

We have provided a statement, and I would ask, Mr. Chairman, with your consent, to have it be made part of the record.

Very briefly, just last month, I testified in the Senate to endorse the Senate's advice and consent to the ratification of these conventions. Both of these instruments are designed to strengthen the international alliance against terrorism, and they aim at a seamless network of zero tolerance for terrorist acts and their financing. And there are really two provisions or two conventions we are talking about here.

The first is the Terrorist Bombings Convention which addressees the most utilized form of terrorism, which is the bombing of public places and State and Government facilities, et cetera, with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury. This proposed implementing legislation would enact a new section 2332(f) of title 18 to make terrorist acts that are covered by the convention a crime.

The heart of the provision would make it a Federal offense to unlawfully deliver or detonate an explosive or other lethal device in a place of public use, Government facility, public transportation system, et cetera, with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, and significantly, the phrase "explosive or other lethal device" covers biological, chemical, or radiological weapons, as well as conventional explosives.

Notable as well under the law is the broad extraterritorial jurisdiction over offenses committed outside the United States, to include situations where, for example, a victim or perpetrator is a national of the U.S. abroad or the perpetrator is found in the United States. And I should observe that there are exemptions from jurisdiction for activities of armed forces during armed conflict that are governed by the law of war, and for activities undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of official duties.

Let me turn briefly now to the Financing Convention. That, of course, addresses the lifeblood of terrorism, which is funding of terrorism, and it embodies the recognition that those who pay for ter

rorism are as guilty and as culpable as those who actually pull the trigger or press the detonator on the bombs.

Again, the implementing legislation would enact a new criminal provision, 18 U.S.C. 2339C, making it a crime to unlawfully and willfully provide or collect funds with the intention or knowledge that the funds will be used to commit an offense under a specified treaty or to carry out any act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, when the purpose of the act is to intimidate a population or compel a government or international organization to do or abstain from doing an act. And, again, we have broad jurisdiction over offenses that take place in the U.S. where there is some kind of international connection or over an offense that takes place outside the U.S. if there is some connection with the United States.

Let me conclude by saying, Mr. Chairman, that the Administration is convinced that adoption of these proposals is important to the ongoing war against international terrorism. Not only do they provide the Federal Government with important and useful tools but, more important, I think here they send a very significant message to the international community that we are going to try to move in lockstep and in a uniform fashion in taking those measures that are necessary to combat both terrorism and terrorist financing.

Accordingly, we urge Congress to adopt these legislative proposals as soon as possible, and I am happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chertoff follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CHERTOFF

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here today to speak in favor of legislation that would implement two important anti-terrorism conventions, the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. In the view of the Department of Justice, both instruments are critical to the efforts of the United States to prevent, deter and combat terrorist acts.

Just last month, I testified in the Senate to endorse its advice and consent to the ratification of these conventions. Both instruments serve to strengthen the international norm against terrorism and reinforce the international community's intolerance for, and condemnation of, terrorist acts and their financing. Each Convention explicitly recognizes that there is no justification, no rationale that will excuse the commission of terrorist acts or the financing and support of those acts.

The Terrorist Bombings Convention addresses the most utilized form of terrorism, the bombing of public places, state or government facilities, public transportation systems or infrastructure facilities, with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury. The proposed Terrorist Bombings Convention Implementation Act of 2001 would enact a new section 18 U.S.C. § 2332f that would make terrorist acts covered by the Convention a crime.

The heart of this provision, proposed subsection 2232f(a), would make it a federal offense to unlawfully deliver or detonate an explosive or other lethal device in a place of public use, a government facility, a public transportation system, or an infrastructure facility with intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or with the intent to cause extensive destruction where such destruction results in or is likely to result in major economic loss. Notably, the phrase "explosive or other lethal device" covers biological, chemical, or radiological weapons, as well as conventional explosives. Attempts and conspiracies are also criminalized.

Jurisdiction over these offenses is spelled out in proposed subsection 2332f(b). Under that subsection, there is broad extraterritorial jurisdiction over offenses committed outside the United States, to include situations where a victim or perpetrator is a national of the United States or the perpetrator is found in the United States. Jurisdiction over offenses that take place in the United States extends to situations,

such as where the offense is committed against a foreign government or the offense is committed in order to compel the United States to do or abstain from doing any act. Also, pursuant to proposed section 2332f(d) and the Convention, there are exemptions from jurisdiction for activities of armed forces during an armed conflict that are governed by the law of war, and for activities undertaken by military forces of a State in the exercise of their official duties.

Commensurate with the heinous nature of a terrorist bombing, the statutory penalty for the proposed offense is any term of years or life imprisonment, and if death results, the death penalty is an option.

The Terrorist Bombings Convention entered into force internationally on May 23, 2001. Pending Senate advice and consent, the United States is a signatory but not yet a party. Hence, section four of the implementing legislation provides that the operative provisions of the legislation will go into effect on the date that the Terrorist Bombings Convention enters into force for the United States. It should be noted that other state and federal laws criminalize terrorist bombings (see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 844(i); 18 U.S.C. § 2332a), and this legislation will supplement, and in no way supplant or restrict, those other statutes.

I turn now to implementation of the Terrorist Financing Convention. That Convention addresses a common element of every terrorist act-financing and other support. It embodies the important recognition that the financiers of terrorist acts are as reprehensible as those who commit the terrorist acts themselves, and that such financing must be deterred and punished.

The Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism Convention Implementation Act of 2001 would enact a new criminal provision, proposed 18 U.S.C. § 2339C, making it a crime to unlawfully and willfully provide or collect funds with the intention or knowledge that such funds are to be used to 1) commit an offense under a specified antiterrorism treaty, or 2) carry out any act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a government or international organization to do or abstain from doing any act. Attempts and conspiracies would also be criminalized.

The jurisdictional bases for the proposed offense are set forth in proposed 18 U.S.C. §2339C(c). Essentially, there is jurisdiction over an offense that takes place in the United States if: 1) there is some type of international nexus (e.g., the perpetrator was a national of another state or the perpetrator is found outside the United States); or 2) there is a nexus with interstate or foreign commerce. There is jurisdiction over an offense that takes place outside of the United States if there is a nexus with the United States (e.g., the perpetrator is an United States national or is found in the United States). Finally, there is also jurisdiction over an offense when the offense is committed on board a U.S. ship or aircraft, or where the underlying terrorist act is being committed in an attempt to compel the United States to do or abstain from doing any act.

The proposed legislation creates another offense, proposed 18 U.S.C. §2339C(b), which would enhance the ability of U.S. law enforcement authorities to combat the financing of terrorists and their organizations. Specifically, proposed section 2339C(b) would criminalize knowingly concealing or disguising the nature, location, source, ownership or control of: 1) any funds provided or collected in violation of proposed subsection 2339C(a); 2) any proceeds of such funds; and 3) any material support or resources provided to a designated foreign terrorist organization in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B. Concealing or disguising such terrorist assets impedes law enforcement, and it is important to deter and punish such activity.

Commensurate with the seriousness of these offenses, the penalty for violating proposed section 2339C(a) is up to 20 years imprisonment, and the penalty for violating proposed section 2339C(b) is up to 10 years imprisonment.

In addition to the new criminal offenses, the implementing legislation would also create a new civil penalty. Proposed subsection 2339C(f) creates a civil penalty of at least $10,000 payable to the United States against an American corporation or other legal entity, if any person responsible for its management or control has, in that capacity, committed an offense set forth in proposed subsection 2339C(a). This subsection implements Article 5 of the Terrorist Financing Convention.

The Terrorist Financing Convention is not yet in force internationally, but will enter into force after twenty-two states have ratified it. The Convention was transmitted to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification on October 12, 2000. Thus, section four of the implementing legislation provides that two jurisdictional provisions, based on the presence alone of the offender within the United States and on no other nexus with the United States, will not go into effect until the Terrorist Financing Convention enters into force for the United States. However, the effective