date for all remaining provisions of the Act would be upon enactment. This is because Congress currently has constitutional authority to enact those provisions, including the commerce and foreign relations powers.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Administration is convinced that adoption of these proposals implementing of the Terrorist Bombing and Terrorist Financing Conventions is important to the ongoing war against international terrorism. They will provide the federal government with important and useful new tools to combat terrorist acts and those who finance them. In addition, enactment will send an significant message to the international community regarding the importance of taking necessary steps to become a party to the Terrorism Financing Convention. I urge the Congress to enact these legislative proposals as soon as possible. Thanks you, and I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chertoff.

Mr. Witten.

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL M. WITTEN, ACTING DEPUTY LEGAL ADVISER, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. WITTEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Scott. I would like to begin by echoing Mr. Chertoff's comments. We apologize that our statements arrived late, as I understand it, and we will do everything we can to provide documents and statements to you in a more timely way.

Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like to submit my complete statement for the record and summarize my comments. Mr. SMITH. Without objection, both of your complete opening statements will be made a part of the record.

Mr. WITTEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to appear before you today, following Assistant Attorney General Chertoff, to speak in support of the Administration's proposed implementation legislation for the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

The State Department worked closely with the Justice Department in the negotiation of these conventions at the United Nations between 1997 and 1999. Mr. Chertoff has provided an overview of the Administration's draft legislation. I will now provide some additional background on the history and purpose of these new international law enforcement conventions so as to put them in context for the committee.

As a preliminary matter, I note that two steps are to be taken before the United States becomes a party to these two conventions. Because these are treaties, they have been submitted to the United States Senate for advice and consent to ratification. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the conventions on October 23, 2001, and we hope will soon make a favorable recommendation of advice and consent to the full Senate.

In this connection, Mr. Chairman, we learned this morning that the Foreign Relations Committee has included these two conventions on its agenda at a meeting that is starting in 5 minutes, at 10:30, and is scheduled to report them out favorably. We won't know that that has happened until action is complete, but our information from Senate staff this morning is that the business committee meeting is going forward as scheduled.

The conventions will need to be approved by the full Senate after the Foreign Relations Committee completes its work before the

President can ratify them. In addition to the Senate process, U.S. domestic implementing legislation is being proposed to cover the offenses described in Article 2 of the convention. This legislation must be passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President before the United States will deposit its instruments of ratification. The legislation under consideration today by the Subcommittee on Crime is intended to address the second requirement. These two conventions follow the general models of prior terrorism conventions negotiated by the United States at the United Nations or its Specialized Agencies, including, for example, the 1970 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, the 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation, the 1979 Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, and the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation. Nations that become a party to these conventions commit themselves to criminalize the conduct identified in the convention and to cooperate with one another in the investigation and prosecution of the offenses. Each of these prior conventions has also required implementing legislation enacted by both Houses of Congress in addition to U.S. Senate advice and consent to ratification.

These two conventions have distinct histories. The UN General Assembly adopted the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, commonly called the "Terrorist Bombings Convention," on December 15, 1997. The United States initiated the negotiation of the convention in July 1996 in the aftermath of the June 1996 bombing attack on U.S. military personnel at the Khobar Towers facility in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, in which 17 U.S. Air Force personnel were killed. That attack followed other terrorist attacks in 1995 and 1996, including poison gas attacks in Tokyo's subways, bombing attacks by Hamas in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, and a bombing attack by the IRA in Manchester, England. The convention fills 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 such bombings and similar attacks.

The Terrorism Financing Convention has a different history. It was adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 9, 1999. France initiated the negotiation of this convention in the fall of 1998, with strong support and input from the United States, as part of the Group of Eight Industrialized Nations initiative to combat terrorist financing. The convention fills 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 financing terrorism.

Mr. Chairman, the State Department joins the Justice Department in asking that the committee act favorably on the Administration's proposed implementing legislation so that the United States will be able to become a party to these two law enforcement conventions in the very near future.

I will be happy to answer any questions the committee may have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Witten follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SAMUEL M. WITTEN

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

I am pleased to appear before you today, following Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff, to speak in support of the Administration's proposed implementation legislation for the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

The State Department worked closely with the Justice Department in the negotiation of these Conventions at the United Nations between 1997 and 1999. Mr. Chertoff has provided an overview of the Administration's draft legislation. I will provide additional background on the history and purpose of these new international law enforcement conventions so as to put them in context for the Committee.

As a preliminary matter, I note that two steps are to be taken before the United States becomes a party to these two Conventions. Because these are treaties, they have been submitted to the United States Senate for advice and consent to ratification. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the Conventions on October 23, 2001, and we hope will soon make a favorable recommendation of advice and consent to the full U.S. Senate. The Conventions will need to be approved by the full Senate before the President can ratify them. In addition to the Senate process, U.S. domestic implementing legislation is being proposed to cover the offenses described in Article 2 with respect to the offenses described in the Conventions. This legislation must be passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President before the U.S. will deposit its instruments of ratification. The legislation under consideration today by the Subcommittee on Crime is intended to address the second requirement.

These two Conventions follow the general models of prior terrorism conventions negotiated by the United States at the United Nations or its Specialized Agencies to which the United States is already a party, such as the 1970 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, the 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation, the 1979 Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, and the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation. Nations that become a party to these Conventions commit themselves to criminalize the conduct identified in the Convention and to cooperate with one another in the investigation and prosecution of the offenses. Each of these prior Conventions has also required implementing legislation enacted by both Houses of Congress in addition to U.S. Senate advice and consent to ratification.

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORIST BOMBINGS

The UN General Assembly adopted the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, commonly called the "Terrorist Bombings Convention," on December 15, 1997. The United States signed the Convention on January 12, 1998, the first day it was open for signature. The Convention entered into force in May 2001.

The United States initiated the negotiation of the Terrorist Bombings Convention in July 1996 in the aftermath of the June 1996 bombing attack on U.S. military personnel at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, in which seventeen U.S. Air Force personnel were killed. That attack followed other terrorist attacks in 1995-96 including poison gas attacks in Tokyo's subways; bombing_attacks by HAMAS in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem; and a bombing attack by the IRA in Manchester, England. The Convention fills 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 such bombings and similar at

tacks.

More specifically, the Convention will create a regime for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction over the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place. An explosive or other lethal device is defined broadly in Article 1 as “(a) an explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage; or (b) a weapon or device that is designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage through the release, dissemination or impact of toxic chemicals, biological agents or toxins or similar substances or radiation or radioactive material." Thus, in addition to criminalizing the unlawful use of bombs and

similar explosive devices, the Convention addresses, for example, the intentional and unlawful release of chemical and biological devices.

Like earlier similar conventions, the new Convention requires Parties to criminalize under their domestic laws the offenses set forth in the Convention, if they have an international nexus; to extradite or submit for prosecution persons accused of committing or aiding in the commission of such offenses, if they have an international nexus; and to provide one another assistance in connection with investigations or criminal or extradition proceedings in relation to such offenses.

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE FINANCING OF TERRORISM

The UN General Assembly adopted a new counterterrorism convention entitled the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, commonly known as the "Terrorism Financing Convention," on December 9, 1999. The United States signed the Convention on January 10, 2000, the first day it was open for signature. The Convention will enter into force once twenty-two states deposit their instruments of ratification.

France initiated the negotiation of this convention in the Fall of 1998, with strong support and input from the United States, as part of the Group of Eight Industrialized Nations initiative to combat terrorist financing. The Convention fills 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 financing terrorism.

The Convention provides for States Parties to exercise criminal jurisdiction over the unlawful and willful provision or collection of funds with the intention that they be used or in the knowledge that they are to be used in order to carry out certain terrorist acts set forth in the Convention. This new Convention requires Parties to criminalize under their domestic laws the offenses set forth in the Convention, if they have an international nexus; to extradite or submit for prosecution persons accused of committing or aiding in the commission of such offenses, if they have an international nexus; and to provide one another assistance in connection with investigations or criminal or extradition proceedings in relation to such offenses.

The Terrorism Financing Convention is aimed specifically at cutting off the resources that fuel international terrorism. Once in force, the Convention will obligate States to criminalize conduct related to the raising of money and other assets to support terrorist activities.

As stated in Article 2, a person commits an offense "if that person, by any means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and willfully, provides or collects funds with the intention that they should be used or in the knowledge that they are to be used" to carry out terrorist acts. The first category of terrorist acts consists of any act that constitutes an offense within the scope of one of the nine counter-terrorism conventions previously adopted and listed in the Annex. The second category includes any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person (e.g., off-duty military personnel) not taking an active part in hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the act has a terrorist purpose. An act has a terrorist purpose when, by its nature or context, it is intended to intimidate a population or to compel a government or international organization to do or abstain from doing any act. The offense includes "attempts," "accomplices,” and anyone who "organizes or directs," or "contributes" to the commission of an offense.

The State Department joins the Justice Department in asking that the Committee act favorably on the Administration's proposed implementing legislation so that the United States will be able to become a party to these two law enforcement Conventions in the very near future.

I will be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Witten.

Mr. Chertoff, let me address my first question to you, and it is this and you touched on this subject in your testimony, but would you explain a little further what the difference is between crimes that are covered under current law and the new crimes that are covered under these two conventions?

Mr. CHERTOFF. I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman. There may be some overlap in some instances, and that is partly because, as the current law has evolved over time, I don't know that there has been a comprehensive, single statute or effort to create a single statute that covers the waterfront, so to speak, with respect to ter

rorism. But I can say, for example, with respect to the Bombing Convention, although we are relying to a large extent on existing State and Federal laws in terms of the implementing legislation, this legislation does cover some gaps in the law.

For example, under current law, as I understand it, if there were a bombing of a foreign government facility within the U.S., let's say a foreign embassy, and if we were not able to prove that the intent of the bombing was to cause the loss of life of a protected person, that would not now be currently covered under the existing law. But this new statute would cover that, and that would be necessary to be consistent with the treaty.

Likewise, and maybe more significant, with respect to conduct occurring outside the United States, we have a broader jurisdiction under this statute with respect to perpetrators who we find in this country who may be responsible for bombings overseas that don't affect American citizens or don't affect American property. So in the bombing area, those are gaps that we are covering and expansions we are covering.

Likewise, in the area of financing, the current_anti-terrorist financing law is keyed to a list of specific statutes that are predicate offenses under 2339A, and, of course, 2339B requires the designation of a foreign terrorist organization.

Here the structure of the new implementing legislation, which is designed to match the convention, is to frame the offense in terms of financing acts of terrorism in general that cause death or serious bodily injury with the intent to affect government policy or the policy of an international organization. So it will cover violations that would not fit within existing predicates. I can give you an example. If there is an individual in the U.S. who provides funding for the hijacking of a plane in France where there is no American citizen on the plane and no other U.S. connection, that would not be a violation of the underlying U.S. hijacking statute, and, therefore, we couldn't bring 2339A into play. But under the new legislation, we could cover that because it would fit the new definition of the offense.

So both of these implementing statutes, although there may be some overlap, cover important areas that are not covered under current U.S. law.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chertoff. Those were good points.

Mr. Witten, if we were to change or amend the legislation at hand, how would that affect either the ratification process or our ability to comply with the treaties?

Mr. WITTEN. Mr. Chairman, I think that would depend on how the legislation is changed. The legislation is intended to implement obligations that the United States would undertake under the treaty, and I think at the end of the legislative process, we and the Justice Department would review the legislation to ensure that it is adequate to enable the United States to discharge the obligations that it is undertaking under the treaty. U.S. practice is that prior to depositing our instrument of ratification for a treaty of this character, we will do a survey of available U.S. laws to be sure that the available laws are adequate to discharge the obligations.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Witten. I don't have any other questions, and I will recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Scott, for his.