[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 116 (Thursday, September 9, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H8005-H8012]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 281 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 281

       Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on 
     Thursday, September 9, 1999, or on Friday September 10, 1999, 
     for the Speaker to entertain a motion that the House suspend 
     the rules and adopt the concurrent resolution (II. Con. Res. 
     180) expressing the sense of Congress that the President 
     should not have granted clemency to terrorists.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Reynolds) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 281 provides for the consideration of 
House Resolution 180, a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of 
Congress that the President should not have granted clemency to 
convicted terrorists of the Armed Forces of the National Liberation, 
the FALN.
  Last night the Committee on Rules held an emergency meeting to 
provide for suspension days on Thursday, September 9, and Friday, 
September 10, in order that the Congress be allowed to quickly respond 
to recent presidential action.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very short legislative week. Members of 
Congress just returned from meeting with their constituents during 
their August work period and honoring our Nation's workforce on Labor 
Day. In addition, Congress cannot extend the legislative week in 
respect to Rosh Hashanah. Therefore, the resolution will be considered 
under the suspension of the rules in order to accommodate the measure 
in this very short legislative week. Furthermore, the suspension 
process is normally used to consider such bipartisan measures.
  The rule provides that it shall be in order at any time on Thursday, 
September 9, 1999, or Friday, September 10, 1999, for the Speaker to 
entertain a motion that the House suspend the rules and adopt a 
concurrent resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 180, expressing the 
sense of Congress that the President should not have granted clemency 
to these terrorists.
  Mr. Speaker, on April 14, 1986, the United States military forces 
bombed the headquarters and terrorist facilities of Libyan strongman 
Mu'ammar Qadhafi. The strikes were ordered in retaliation for a 
cowardly act of terrorism that left two dead, including Sergeant 
Kenneth Ford, and 230 wounded, including 50 American military 
personnel.
  In announcing the air strikes, President Ronald Reagan said, ``Those 
who remember history understand better than most that there is no 
security, no safety, in the appeasement of evil. It must be the core of 
Western policy that there be no sanctuary for terror.''
  Yet we are here today because sanctuary has been offered to convicted 
terrorists. And make no mistake about that. The 16 Members of the FALN, 
duly tried and convicted, have not been imprisoned because of their 
political beliefs. They have been jailed because their reign of terror 
left six dead and dozens more permanently maimed, including members of 
our law enforcement community.
  FALN has claimed responsibility for 130 bombings of civilian, 
political and military sites; and according to the Federal Bureau of 
Prisons, they are prepared to strike again.
  Why, then, would President Clinton offer them clemency? Why should 
they be released from prison?
  Not one of these terrorists contested the evidence against them. None 
showed remorse. In fact, in the years since their conviction for 
numerous felonies, including conspiracy, not a single one asked for 
clemency.
  Much has been written and said about President Clinton's reasons for 
making this offer of clemency. I will leave those discussions to the 
pundits and to the commentators. But I will say this: this action is 
more than misguided, it is more than wrong, it is a very real threat to 
the safety and security of the American people.
  Of course, their release is not without conditions. They needed to 
renounce violence. After almost a month, with the clock ticking, they 
finally agreed. Isn't something very, very wrong, when someone needs to 
be coerced and cajoled to renounce violence?
  Mr. Speaker, not a single act of terrorism has been attributed to the 
FALN since these individuals were jailed. Why then should the power of 
the presidency be used to give them the freedom to renew their reign of 
fear and terror?
  This House, this Congress and this Nation have been engaged in a 
great debate over how to best ensure the safety and security of our 
homes, our neighborhoods and our schools. During the course of that 
debate, President Clinton himself said that our responsibility is ``not 
only to give our thoughts and prayers to the victims and their 
families, but to intensify our resolve to make America a safer place.''
  Mr. Speaker, we can make America a safer place, and we can start by 
keeping criminals off our streets and terrorists behind bars.
  I urge the adoption of this rule and its underlying resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, my dear friend the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me the customary half hour.
  Mr. Speaker, normally suspension bills can be brought up only on 
Mondays and Tuesdays, but this rule will add two more days, Thursday 
and Friday, and it will add those days for one reason, for one 
resolution, a resolution that my Republican colleagues are in a great, 
great hurry to pass.
  They are in such a great hurry to pass this resolution, Mr. Speaker, 
that they are creating this special process just to bring this bill to 
the floor. So while we are rushing the resolution of the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Fossella) to the floor on a fast track, Mr. Speaker, I 
would like to propose adding some other bills to that same fast track, 
bills addressing issues that are much higher on the American people's 
agenda.
  I think we should rush a patients' bill of rights to the floor to 
make sure doctors and patients make medical decisions and not insurance 
companies and CPAs.
  I think we should rush a gun safety bill to the floor to get guns off 
our streets and get those guns out of our schools.
  I think we should rush to the floor a bill protecting Social Security 
and protecting Medicare, which is scheduled to fall apart starting the 
year 2015.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are crying out for HMO reform, gun 
safety legislation, and Medicare reform. I say let us add those bills 
to the agenda.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Fossella).
  (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a defining moment for the United States of 
America as far as I am concerned. The question before us today is going 
to be what

[[Page H8006]]

type of signal do we send to terrorists contemplating acts of terrorism 
against this Nation?
  This was the President's spokesperson yesterday, Mr. Lockhart, 
saying, ``You know, I think our efforts to bring terrorists to justice 
are one of the highest priorities of the President's national security 
agenda.''
  Several weeks ago this White House offered clemency to 16 known 
terrorists, individuals who were part of a group known as the FALN that 
engaged in a reign of terror across this country, but primarily from 
New York to Chicago, a group that claims responsibility for 130 
bombings, a group that killed innocent people and maimed innocent 
people during the seventies and eighties, and, if they were not caught, 
who knows how many more innocent people would have died?
  Now, there are those who have advocated for the release of these 
terrorists for years. That does not make it right. Let us put a human 
face on what this group claims responsibility for.
  A man by the name of Frank Connor, who in 1975 was having lunch in 
downtown Manhattan in Fraunces Tavern. Just because he was having 
lunch, an FALN bomb went off and killed him. His sons, Joseph Connor 
and Thomas Connor, were 9 and 11 years old at the time. Joseph Connor 
was celebrating his ninth birthday that day. His father never made it 
home. His wife was made a widow.
  Or Diana Berger, whose husband was having lunch that very same day in 
Fraunces Tavern, who was 6 months pregnant with their first child. Her 
husband never made it home.
  Or fast forward several years later to December 31, 1982, New Year's 
Eve in downtown New York once again, when an FALN bomb exploded, 
leaving Officer Rocco Pascarella without a leg. And when two of his 
colleagues, Officers Richard Pastorella and Anthony Semft responded to 
that bomb threat, they were called to another scene, another FALN bomb. 
And when Richard Pastorella was 18 inches from that bomb, it detonated.
  Today, Officer Pastorella is blind in both eyes. He has no fingers on 
his right hand. He has 20 screws in his head to keep his face together. 
He has undergone 13 operations. His partner, Anthony Semft, is blind in 
one eye. He has had reconstructive surgery. He is partially deaf. And 
those are just some of the victims of this FALN organization.
  Now we are about to set these people free, who call themselves 
freedom fighters? Now we are about to set these people free.
  This group, they are not a bunch of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. They 
are a terrible, terrible group. These people had no regard for human 
life. They participated in this network that would rob and steal, that 
would videotape making bombs.
  What were they going to do with those bombs? They were going to be 
used against innocent people. And the President has offered clemency to 
these individuals. Two of them have renounced it because they believe 
what they did was justified, that they are political prisoners. Well, 
tell that to the Berger family, tell this to the Pastorellas, tell that 
to the Pascarellas, tell that to every innocent person across this 
Nation who feels the best and most important priority we can do as 
public officials is to protect them.
  In Oklahoma City several years ago, Terry Nichols was nowhere near 
the bomb scene, but he was sentenced to life. Can you imagine the 
outrage of the American people if in 10 or 15 years the then President 
offers clemency to Terry Nichols because he was nowhere near the bomb 
scene?
  We have called upon the President to rescind that offer of clemency. 
I am afraid it may be too late.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Gilman).
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our colleague, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Fossella) for introducing this resolution that he 
has brought before us today. I also thank the leadership for bringing 
this matter to the House floor with appropriate alacrity.
  It is important to remember that the FALN targeted police officers 
with their violence. One of my constituents that the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Fossella) referred to, a former New York City police officer, 
Rocco Pascarella, lost his leg in an FALN attack in New York City on 
December 31, 1982. He lost the sight in one of his eyes.
  By targeting police officers who were sworn to serve and protect our 
citizens, the FALN has targeted all of us. As I join with the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Fossella) with what I expect to be an overwhelming 
majority of our colleagues calling on the President to withdraw his 
offer of clemency, I am also gratified that the Committee on Government 
Reform, on which I serve, has subpoenaed documents from the 
administration related to this unprecedented clemency offer.
  We look forward to further proceedings in that direction. I urge my 
colleagues to fully support this resolution, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of the 
resolution, and I want to commend my good friend, the gentleman from 
Staten Island, New York (Mr. Fossella), for his work on this very 
important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, this is really about the respect for law in this 
country, and whether folks who have decided to use terrorist activities 
and criminal behavior against innocent individuals should pay a price 
as dictated by the law, or whether we are going to turn our backs on 
law enforcement and the rule of law in this country.
  What would happen if the President, whoever he may be in a few years, 
would grant clemency to the World Trade Center bombers, or the Oklahoma 
City terrorists? Or to my liberal friends, how about the folks who have 
bombed abortion clinics? Would they be a good subject for having 
clemency granted? I do not think so.
  Basically what we have here is an issue of common sense and the rule 
of law. One hundred and thirty FALN bomb attacks on civilian and 
military targets, six people dead, dozens wounded.
  I was based, Mr. Speaker, in New York City in the early seventies, 
right before these terrorist attacks took place, when I was stationed 
there with the FBI. I have had some discussions with some of my friends 
who had served in New York, and still some of them currently serve in 
New York, as well as with the FBI headquarters.
  I can tell the Members without exception that those gentlemen who are 
sworn to uphold the law and in fact arrested these criminals are 
adamantly opposed to this action by the President. I would ask that the 
House pass this by a substantial margin and send a strong message to 
the White House that the rule of law must be protected.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Fossella).
  (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, just for the purposes of debate, let me remind folks 
what we are talking about here. The power of clemency is an awesome 
power that is granted to the President under Article II, Section 2, 
Clause 1 of the Constitution, that says, ``The President shall have the 
power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United 
States, except in cases of impeachment.''
  The party in power gives the President unlimited authority to grant 
full and committee pardons, conditional pardons, clemency, such as 
commuting sentences, reversing conditions, or nullifying conditions of 
release.
  This President has exercised this awesome power only three times 
since he has been President. President Bush, to my understanding, did 
it three times. There have been more than 3,000 applications for 
clemency, and Lord knows how many other people sitting in prison would 
want this power of clemency granted to them, as well.
  Of the three who have been released or granted clemency in the last 7 
years, one was subsequently convicted and

[[Page H8007]]

sent back to prison. So this is not something that is done every day.
  Now, all at once, 16 terrorists are being offered this power of 
clemency. Most of the 16 terrorists were charged with seditious 
conspiracy and weapons possession connected to 28 bombings that 
occurred, as I say, in northern Illinois in the late 1970s. There are 
those who are going to come forward today and say they had nothing to 
do with the bombings. Again, let us reinforce what this is all about. 
These people were part of a network of individuals who terrorized. They 
were a terrorist organization. They proudly proclaimed themselves to be 
part of a terrorist organization.
  Ask any American with common sense. Ask any law enforcement agency. 
They will tell us that it takes more than one person to plant the bomb. 
It takes more than one person to detonate a bomb. It takes people who 
steal money to buy explosives and weapons. It takes others to do the 
planning and activities. To coin a phrase, it takes a village to pull 
off these operations.
  Do we want to set these people free? I think not. If we do, and it 
seems it is likely, the American people are losers. The victims of 
these tragedies are losers. The terrorists are the winners.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Serrano).
  (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I am not even going to try to make an 
argument against some of the things I have heard here today, because I 
realize that one of the most difficult things to do here today or this 
week or this year or any time is to sound like we are speaking on 
behalf of terrorism. We are not.
  As has been stated over and over again, this is an issue of national 
reconciliation. The fact is that as Puerto Rico faces 101 years of a 
relationship with the United States, a relationship which started with 
an invasion in 1898, and has reached the point where Puerto Rico is 
still not an independent Nation, nor is it a State of the Union, that 
we will always have these kinds of discussions.
  Some people will demonstrate to change that status question. Some 
people will lobby to change that status question. Some people in the 
past chose to be part of organizations that chose other methods.
  Let me briefly just state the fact that these particular people that 
we are talking about were not charged with nor were they convicted of 
any acts of violence. That is a fact. When the President offered the 
clemency, he and the White House and the government understood that.
  What I would like to do today for a couple of minutes is make a plea 
with the American people, a plea to try for a second, for one moment in 
our lives, to look beyond the issue as we see it, the issue of 
violence, the issue of anti-American sentiment, if that is the case.
  I do not mind if Members disagree with us, if they are angry about 
it. That is fine. But I would like American teachers, I would like 
American parents, to try to teach our children and to ask ourselves, 
how did we get to this point? Where is Puerto Rico?
  What is the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States? 
Are Puerto Ricans American citizens? Yes. Why are they American 
citizens on the island and not allowed to vote for the President? Why 
did they serve in all our wars and do not have a voting representative 
in Congress? What is the relationship?
  If we understand that relationship, if we understand that for 101 
years Puerto Rico has been a colony in an unequal relationship with the 
United States, then we will understand that discussions like this one 
and many others related to this one, nonviolent, very political, in a 
lobbying form, will continue to take place.
  So I would like to take a second to remind us that at the center of 
this problem is the relationship between the United States and Puerto 
Rico. At the center of the solution is the status question. If Puerto 
Rico either becomes the 51st State of the Union or an independent 
Nation, and only Congress has the right to do that, then this problem 
will not continue to exist in this fashion, or exist at all.
  It is also interesting to note that some of the people who today 
support this resolution were here in 1979 when President Jimmy Carter 
gave clemency. President Carter in 1979, with the support of people who 
support this resolution today, gave unconditional clemency to Puerto 
Ricans who were in prison for attacking the House of Representatives. 
They came to the gallery and attacked the House of Representatives, and 
did not deny it. That group also attempted the assassination of 
President Truman, and they did not deny it. Those individuals supported 
that clemency at that time without conditions.
  It is also interesting to note that those individuals went back to 
Puerto Rico and today publicly state, years later, publicly state that 
the only way to solve the status issue is by lobbying Congress and 
using the political process to make the change. They saw a different 
way of doing things, and so will everyone else, I believe.
  I would like us also to try to understand something; to take a 
second, and this is not a plea, I am not complaining about my 
condition, but to understand what the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez), the gentleman from Chicago (Mr. Gutierrez), and I go 
through on a daily basis.
  I was born in Puerto Rico and raised in New York. I am a member of 
the United States Congress. I love my country. I served in the 
military. I would give my life to protect this country. But I also have 
great love for the place where I was born. I see that place as my 
mother. I see this place as my father.
  For a long time I have seen my father mistreat my mother. We have to 
bring that to a conclusion. I know some people will think that is 
awfully dramatic, but please understand, for a long time I have seen my 
father mistreating my mother. My mother is Puerto Rico. For 101 years 
she has been saying, either take me in or let me go. Either take me in 
or let me go.
  I have chosen Congress to make that argument. Some have chosen other 
ways. But also keep something in mind that history sometimes sees 
organizations in a different way. Nelson Mandela was seen by his 
government for 27 years as a terrorist. We saw him as somewhat of a 
terrorist, and now the world sees him as a hero.
  The Irish in Ireland, as part of the peace process, have suggested 
that so-called terrorists or people who used violence on either side of 
the issue should be released from prison as part of the peace process. 
So what is wrong in suggesting that as part of our peace process with 
the longest colony in the history of the world, 400 years under Spain 
and 100 years under the United States, the longest serving colony in 
the world, that as part of a reconciliation to reach a new relationship 
with that country, that we allow 11 people who are in prison and who 
were never convicted of a violent act to come home and to integrate 
themselves back into the society?
  Members can disagree with me, and I know I cannot win this argument. 
But for God's sake, just try to understand what this issue is all 
about. Try to understand what I go through. Try to understand what 
other people go through. Maybe we can solve this problem.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo), the former Governor.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address this issue 
from a little different perspective, because in the first place, I 
believe, like the supporters of this resolution have stated, that the 
persons involved, the prisoners, are terrorists. They have tried to 
impose their political aspirations by force, by terror, and by violence 
on the people of Puerto Rico, an option that is rejected and has been 
rejected by over 95 percent of the people of Puerto Rico for the past 
40 or 50 years.
  The people of Puerto Rico have consistently voted against 
independence. These people seek to impose independence on the people of 
Puerto Rico.

                              {time}  1100

  One of the avowed purposes of the Armed Forces of National Liberation 
is precisely to obtain independence for Puerto Rico by means of 
violence and other acts. The group Armed Forces of National Liberation 
were involved in over 100 terrorist acts throughout the

[[Page H8008]]

United States, particularly in the Chicago area and the New York area 
and some of them in Puerto Rico, which resulted in the deaths of 
innocent parties.
  In New York in the Fraunces Tavern, four people died and 55 people 
were injured. In Puerto Rico, a policeman was ambushed and killed. 
Another group attacked a Navy bus with people who were not armed, and 
the attackers were armed with submachine guns. They killed two persons 
and seriously injured nine others.
  These are terrorists. People specifically involved have not been 
convicted for any act of murder or act of violence against another 
person, because those were not crimes at the times they were convicted. 
They were tried by 1983.
  The Antiterrorist Act was not passed until 1990. There were no acts 
of murder or violence upon a person that resulted in maiming or 
incapacitating, disabilitating a person were not Federal crimes until 
1990. So these persons could not have been indicted by the Federal 
Government for those reasons.
  However, they were part of the organization. They have never denied 
having been part of the organization that, not only had over 100 
bombing incidents, some of which bombs were deactivated, others 
exploded, and the assaults upon banks and stealing money in 
Connecticut, the Wells Fargo armed robbery. They confiscated about $7 
million. They went over to Cuba. That money has never been recovered, 
and that money has most probably been used for other terrorist 
activities.
  From the beginning, the President was presented with three options. 
One, on conditional release, as requested by people supporting the 
prisoners, or a denial of the conditional release, or a conditional 
release as he has decided.
  I think that what the President has decided is not only the correct 
thing, it is a human thing. It is a human thing. It is a right thing to 
have been done. Because the conditions are that, in order for the 
clemency to take effect, each one of them have to sign a statement that 
they are asking for clemency, that they are renouncing violence as a 
means of obtaining their political purposes, and they will be subject 
to parole conditions; in other words, they will not be able to meet 
with each other, to talk with each other, to conspire again. They will 
be subject to other parole conditions. That is sufficient for 
protection for this society.
  Why are people incarcerated? Why are people in prison? They are in 
prison for several reasons. First of all, one of them is to punish them 
for the crime they have committed. The other purpose is to protect 
society from the criminal elements. The third purpose is to 
rehabilitate them, give them an opportunity to be rehabilitated.
  By giving them clemency under special conditions where they have 
renounced violence and allow them to reintegrate themselves in society 
under controlled conditions, then we can see if they really mean to 
have renounced violence for their purposes and we can see that they can 
be reintegrated back into society.
  That is why I think the President's position is a responsible one, it 
is one that we should support. I do not think we should be criticizing 
the President when, through the process, nobody opposed it. I was one 
of the few persons that raised my voice against a conditional release. 
I raised my voice to the President. I raised my voice to the Attorney 
General. I raised my voice in public. I argued it in public.
  Very few other people did that. All of the other people were 
supporting an unconditional release without any regard to the peace and 
security of their fellow Puerto Ricans.
  I must repeat, these are people who are Puerto Ricans. Some of them 
were not born in Puerto Rico. Some of them are Puerto Rican becase 
their parents were Puerto Ricans. They lived, most of them, in Chicago 
or the New York area.
  From there, we are trying to impose their will on the people of 
Puerto Rico who have overwhelming by over 95 percent of the votes 
rejected independence. So we feel that the action, although it has been 
severely criticized, is the correct action, and the action should be 
supported.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
resolution. Mr. Speaker, we have old, unfinished business before this 
body. We are here to debate a resolution that has not gone through the 
committee process and ran through the Committee on Rules in the night.
  This resolution is factually incorrect, is a mirror of how this 
Congress and the United States Government has dealt with the political 
status of Puerto Rico. But that will be debated, and that discussion 
will take place during general debate.
  Why is it that the majority does not want a true discussion on this 
issue? Because the majority does not want to understand this issue. 
This is not about terrorism, and we will discuss the true intent of 
this resolution during general debate.
  It has to do a lot with what is going on in New York politics. We are 
having a Senatorial race in New York. That is the true answer of this 
question of this resolution that we are debating today.
  But the truth is that these individuals, these distinct political 
prisoners, have been prisoners not once, but twice.
  I rise in strong opposition of this, and we will present to my 
colleagues a historical perspective of the whole issue of the political 
question of Puerto Rico. We have had time, over 100 years of keeping a 
colony. That is a violation. That is a violation of the civil rights of 
the people of Puerto Rico.
  It is ironic, it is shameful for this body that does not recognize 
the right of the Puerto Rican people to self-determination. My 
colleagues will bring back to me the fact that last year we were 
debating the legislation of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), a 
legislation that again tried to impose a political decision upon the 
people of Puerto Rico.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I will tell my colleagues, I rise in 
strong support of this concurrent resolution. Congress absolutely must 
speak out definitively on this subject.
  It is incomprehensible to me that the administration would actually 
offer to release these convicted felons associated with the FALN 
members, and nobody denies these are terrorists. They have now, I am 
told, accepted the clemency proposal and have, in return, promised to 
denounce violence. Does anyone believe that?
  Since when do we take the word of terrorists who have been asserting 
yet again that they will become terrorists and they will carry through? 
In any case, the terrorists did not renounce until 3 weeks after the 
offer and only after, and it has been discussed here earlier, that this 
has become a partisan political issue. I do not think it is, but the 
administration has made it a partisan political issue. As far as the 
terrorists are concerned, they only renounced terrorism after it became 
a political issue in the Senate campaign in New York.
  I am really shocked by this whole thing. I do not know why in the 
world anyone would think that the Congress should not speak out on this 
subject. Terrorists who commit murder or sponsor other murderers should 
expect to spend the rest of their lives behind bars.
  This clemency offer sends the entirely wrong message around the 
world, around the world, not only here. It totally distorts the law. It 
invites and incites terrorists, not only in the U.S., but in other 
parts of the world. Fundamentally, it violates the rule of law and 
order in a democratic society.
  I ask my colleagues to please support strongly this resolution.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. 
I think that the resolution is just not founded on facts. I believe I 
have good knowledge of why the President of the United States offered 
clemency.
  The President of the United States had not offered clemency because a 
group of politicians got together one day and decided to go down there 
and ask him for clemency for these 15 Puerto Rican political prisoners. 
He did so because he believes in peace and a reconciliation, and he 
believes that the rule of law is based upon justice and to

[[Page H8009]]

look and to examine the facts in an impartial manner.
  I believe the President of the United States acted correctly when he 
listened to the petition and responded to that petition.
  Now, people would like to think, and of course the discourse has been 
much about who did what for whom and why. Well, let me come here to try 
to explain why I believe the President acted and acted correctly. The 
President looked at this issue and said, there are 10 Nobel Peace Prize 
winners who have petitioned me, the President of the United States, for 
this release.
  Among those 10 Nobel Peace Prize winners was Desmond Tutu; Coretta 
Scott King, the widow of Reverend Martin Luther King. Among those 10 
Nobel Peace Prize winners was a former President of the United States, 
Jimmy Carter. That is a lot of different people coming together and 
saying to the President of the United States,

       In the spirit of peace and reconciliation, and as you view 
     Puerto Rico's relationship with the United States, we ask you 
     to initiate a new dialogue, a dialogue based upon peace. And 
     you cannot have peace without justice.

  They said to the President of the United States, let them go and 
allow them to return home.
  Now, the question of violence, which is an issue which continues to 
get debate here, let us make it clear, and I would like to just read 
from the New York Daily News, an article written by Juan Gonzalez, and 
it says,

       In a statement the prisoners issued in early 1997 when they 
     acknowledged with a sense of self-criticism that the FALN's 
     war of independence had produced innocent victims on all 
     sides and pledged, if released, to participate in the 
     democratic process.

  That is about peace and reconciliation.
  I would like the American people to understand one other thing, that 
we also have to have the convictions of our own morals. We have gone 
out to Ireland, and we have set a course and help set a course for 
peace there. We have gone to the Middle East, and we have gone to set a 
course for peace in the Middle East.
  We have gone throughout the world to bring about peace. In that peace 
process, we must close the past and close those chapters and begin a 
new chapter. So based upon a process of reconciliation, of bringing 
people together, we had hoped that the President would take action.
  I want to make absolutely clear to everybody here that the 11 that 
have accepted the President's conditions, none of them, none of them 
were ever charged and/or convicted of any charge which caused the death 
or human hurt upon any individual. None of them. None of them. That is 
clearly the record. That clearly is the record.
  Now, my heart goes out, as I know all of our hearts go out, to all 
innocent victims of violence. We want to end the vicious cycle of 
violence, and the President of the United States has taken a courageous 
step. I would hope that, and I am not going to ask for this to be 
entered into the Record, but we could read a Requiem en Cerro 
Maravilla, a Requiem en Cerro Maravilla, which will indicate to all 
that violence has two faces in this nature, that there has been 
violence from both sides.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Velazquez) and I and 10 Noble Peace Prize winners, 
including the Arch Bishop of San Juan and the Cardinal of New York, is 
asking everybody to come together in peace and reconciliation. Forgive 
us our trespasses as we forgive those who have tresspassed against us 
and bring peace to all.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I want to respond to the gentlewoman from New York who said this is 
about New York politics. Well, I am not from New York; I am from 
Arkansas. And generally people from Arkansas do not dabble in New York 
politics. I believe that this happens to be about issues of law 
enforcement, about issues of safety, and about issues of justice. And 
as a former federal prosecutor, I look at it from that context.
  I am concerned about the President and his anticipated action in this 
regard. Clearly, the President has the constitutional authority to 
grant clemency, but I believe it is the responsibility of this Congress 
to express itself on this issue. In this case there are 16 individuals 
who have been given a conditional grant of clemency. These individuals 
are principals and leaders of the Armed Forces of National Liberation, 
or the FALN. They have launched a terror campaign; 130 bombings, 
killing six people.
  Clearly, as has been pointed out, these individuals were not 
prosecuted specifically for those acts, but they went through the 
criminal justice system; and they received a certain number of years, 
of which they have not completed their service yet. So in this case the 
individuals went through the criminal justice system; and the system 
worked through the jury, through the judge, and now through the prison 
system.
  I think there are a number of problems granting clemency in this 
case. First of all, clemency is rarely granted; three out of 3,000 
requests. It is a rarely used remedy. In this case clemency is argued 
as an act of compassion and mercy, and that is an appropriate use of 
clemency when it does not undermine legitimate law enforcement 
functions, when it does not undermine our fight against terrorism, when 
it does not undermine those people who have trusted the system to 
achieve justice. And I believe clemency in this case would undermine 
those lofty objectives.
  And then, thirdly, I believe that a problem with this clemency is 
that there is not sufficient expression of remorse, contrition, and 
sorrow. Now, certainly people may say, well, they have indicated they 
will not engage in violence in the future. Well, I think that everyone 
would agree that they would make that promise, but there is no 
guarantee that that promise will be effective tomorrow, the next day, 
or 10 years from now. So I would ask support for this resolution.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule; I support the 
resolution. Twelve terrorists from Puerto Rico involved in 130 bombings 
in America, six Americans were killed, dozens more wounded, families 
fractured, and we are sort of setting a whole new policy on terrorism 
in America with this clemency act. It is very simple to understand: if 
an individual is a terrorist and they bomb and kill in America, if they 
promise never to do it again, to cross their hearts or swear on their 
mothers they are never going to do it again, apologize for their 
terrorist bombings and killings, that they will be pardoned. Beam me 
up.
  I do not care what country they are from, what nationality they are. 
If they are a terrorist and they kill Americans, by God, they will get 
the wrath of Uncle Sam and not a damned pardon. And that is what we 
should be saying today in the Congress of the United States.
  Now, I am not going to cast any aspersions on the whys of this action 
and question the President's judgment. All I will say is I disagree 
with that judgment. I think it is wrong. I think it is dangerous. An 
America that pardons terrorists who bomb and kill and murder our people 
is an America that invites more terrorists and invites more terrorism. 
Period.
  I support the rule, I support the resolution and, by God, I hope we 
never get another clemency decision like this again.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
  (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and of 
this resolution. This bill's message is fundamentally simple: political 
violence is unacceptable in a democracy. There must be no compromise 
with terrorists.
  My colleagues, the eyes of the world are on us today. An assortment 
of jackals and thugs are watching. Osama bin Laden, watching from his 
home in the mountains of Afghanistan; Terry Nichols and Ted Kaczynski 
from their cells

[[Page H8010]]

in federal prisons, all of these people are watching. They are waiting 
to see if America has the strength of its convictions. They are waiting 
to see if the President will succeed in raising the white flag in the 
war against terrorism. My colleagues it is up to us to disappoint this 
coalition of evil. It is up to us to uphold our commitment to the rule 
of law and justice.
  This is not a partisan issue, and this is not an issue about race. 
Good people from all ethnic groups in this country denounce violence 
and support strongly law and order in this country. This is about our 
commitment to democratic principles in the face of terror. Senator 
Moynihan spoke up eloquently when he joined our cause and made it clear 
that this offer of clemency is wrong. The First Lady has acknowledged 
that political gain cannot justify such a serious abandonment of law 
enforcement principles.
  My colleagues, let us not forget that another set of eyes are 
watching us as well. These are the victims of terror, the jurisdiction 
who are with us, the survivors who lost their loved ones, and the 
victims who are watching us from above. Let us not tell them that we 
are abandoning them now because of political expediency. Our decision 
today should be open and shut. Please join me in reaffirming the 
American leadership in the war against terror. Please join me in 
reaffirming our commitment to justice. Let us slam the door that the 
President has opened for terrorists. Please join me in standing up to 
terrorism and supporting this rule and this resolution.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to inform my dear 
friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), and myself of the 
remaining time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 8\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Reynolds) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost).
  (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise as one of the 435 Members of the House 
of Representatives who oppose terrorism. I will vote for this motion 
even as I make clear that none of us condones acts of violence 
committed against the people of the United States.
  But, Mr. Speaker, none of us should condone the transparent political 
charade being put on by the Republican leadership here today. The 
Republican leadership refuses to allow this House to pass a bipartisan 
HMO reform bill. Doctors and patients support it, Democrats, and as 
many as 20 rank-and-file Republicans have supported it. But the 
insurance companies and big HMOs do not want it, so the Republicans 
cannot find time to let us pass a real patients' bill of rights. 
Neither can the Republican leadership find the time to allow the House 
to raise the minimum wage for working families. They cannot even find 
the time to send to the President the centerpiece of the Republican 
agenda, the huge tax plan that would risk Medicare and prevent us from 
paying down the debt.
  But the Republican leadership is turning procedural handstands to 
make time for this vote today. Why? For the same reasons this 
Republican Congress does almost everything it does. First, because 
Republicans think this vote will provide them with the raw material for 
30-second attack ads next year. And, secondly, because the Republicans 
are solely concerned with providing red meat for the right wing that 
remains obsessed with the President.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people know that the House of 
Representatives opposes this terrorism, but the American people are 
also beginning to see that this Republican Congress will do everything 
it can to protect its special interest supporters and prevent Democrats 
from addressing America's real priorities.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I hold no brief for terrorism. I hold no 
brief for the actions of the FALN. I do not think arguments about the 
status of Puerto Rico, whether it is a colony or not, are relevant to 
this discussion. Whether Puerto Rico is a colony or not does not 
justify people to engage in armed revolt. All of that is irrelevant.
  What is relevant, and what I want to talk about for a moment, is the 
rule of law. The rule of law says an individual should be sentenced by 
the court for the crimes they are convicted of. The rule of law says 
that people convicted of the same crimes, more or less, should be 
sentenced to more or less the same sentences. The rule of law says that 
before the Congress passes resolutions commenting on a particular 
criminal case it should know the facts and should hold hearings first 
and then have the resolution, not the other way around.
  This resolution, frankly, is an outrage. It borders on a bill of 
attainder. Technically it is not, but it borders on it. This bill makes 
many questionable statements of fact: ``Whereas the Federal Bureau of 
Prisons reportedly based its decision in part on the existence of audio 
recordings indicating that some of the 16 have vowed to resume their 
violent activities upon release from prison.'' Well, are those audio 
recordings in existence or not? Certainly makes a difference. 
Reportedly? We do not know. Let us have a hearing and find out first 
before we do this.
  ``Whereas the release of terrorists is an affront to the rule of 
law.'' These people were not condemned as terrorists. They were 
condemned for the crimes of seditious conspiracy and weapons 
possession. I am told that the normal sentence for those crimes is 
about 10 years. They were sentenced to 90 years.
  The contention is made that they were sentenced to lengths of time 
far in excess of what people normally convicted of these crimes are 
sentenced to. Remember, they were not convicted of bombing anybody, 
planning to bomb anybody, murdering anybody. If they did it, they got 
away with it because that could not be proved. Maybe somebody else did 
it. They have to be judged and sentenced and treated on the basis of 
what they were convicted of. That is the rule of law.
  If the President believed that the interest of justice called for 
clemency because they had been sentenced far in excess of the normal 
sentence for their crimes for which they were convicted, that is his 
privilege as President to make that decision. It is all our privileges 
to agree or disagree and to criticize him severely as individuals. 
Congress, to my knowledge, has never passed a resolution condemning the 
exercise of the pardon or commutation power of a president. Congress 
did not pass a resolution condemning President Ford for pardoning 
President Nixon for any crimes he may have committed. Congress did not 
pass a resolution condemning President Bush for pardoning Secretary of 
Defense Weinberger 12 days before he was to go on trial for multiple 
felony indictments.
  It is wrong for Congress to intrude itself in an individual case. 
Congress was right not to get into that. Many people were very critical 
of those presidents, and maybe they were right to be critical. And 
maybe people are right to be very critical of President Clinton for 
this. But it is wrong for Congress to pass a resolution on an 
individual criminal case, and on the exercise by the President of his 
clemency or pardoning power. And it is certainly wrong to do so before 
we have the facts and before we have the hearings.
  This resolution, for instance, says, ``Whereas the State Department 
in 1998 reiterated two long-term tenants,'' I assume that should be 
tenets, not landlord-tenants, ``of counterterrorism policy that the 
United States will make no concessions to terrorists and strike no 
deals; and bring terrorists to justice for their crimes,'' as well. 
What that means is that we do not make concessions in negotiations with 
terrorists before we catch them and try them and punish them. It does 
not mean that we do not commute a sentence 20 years later.
  These people have served 16, 18 years in jail. If people are normally 
sentenced to 10 or 15 years for the crimes these people were convicted 
of, that is what they should serve. It is not being soft on anybody. On 
terrorists? These people were not convicted of terrorism. We should 
adhere to the elementary rule of law that individuals should be 
convicted and should serve the time that the sentencing commission 
guidelines and the law says is appropriate

[[Page H8011]]

for the crime an individual is convicted of.
  The President says these people were sentenced way beyond what people 
convicted of their crimes normally are. If he is right, if that is 
correct, then he was justified in his clemency. If he is not correct, 
then he was not. We do not have the facts, and we should adhere to the 
rule of law and not pass a resolution intruding into the criminal 
justice process, as Congress has never done before in the history of 
this country.

                              {time}  1130

  We should not set such a precedent. Let us individually criticize the 
President if we think it justified. But Congress should not overstep 
its bounds. And if it were going to, it should have the hearings and 
get all the facts first, not act on the basis of political 
gamesmanship.
  Let me say one other thing. The motivation for this: Twenty minutes 
of debate on each side, no amendments, no hearings, no committee 
action. Why is this being rushed? For political reasons, to embarrass 
the President and the First Lady, who is considering running for the 
Senate in New York.
  It demeans the Congress to act on this political basis. I do not 
think this had anything to do with the campaign, and I do not even want 
to talk about that. But the fact is that is why action is being rushed. 
That is why we are doing this resolution before we do hearings and find 
out what really happened, find out what the facts really are, come in 
and say what does the statute say, what are the sentencing guidelines, 
what are other people convicted for these similar crimes sentenced to, 
what are the normal lengths of time served, what are the circumstances, 
why did the President recommend this? And then we can make an 
intelligent judgment, not in haste.
  We did not hear about this resolution until yesterday. No committee 
action. No committee consideration. No hearings. No facts. Just jumped 
to conclusions.
  We heard a lot on this floor last year and in the Committee on the 
Judiciary about the rule of law. This makes a mockery of it.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Fossella).
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Let me again try to shift the focus back to what this is all about. 
It is sending a clear and convincing signal to terrorists around the 
world or right here on American soil that there is no place for 
terrorism in an American democracy to protect the innocent and the law 
abiding because too many people have died already.
  There are those who have brought up that this is an issue of Puerto 
Rican political status. Well, for those who do not know, the people of 
Puerto Rico have had an opportunity to express themselves through 
plebiscites.
  In the most recent plebiscite, the people of Puerto Rico have had 
three options: to maintain the commonwealth status, to seek statehood, 
or to seek independence for a free and independent Puerto Rico.
  Less than three percent of the people of Puerto Rico chose 
independence. And that is exactly what the FALN espouses and continues 
to espouse and those who support release of the FALN prisoners seek to 
espouse.
  So in a democracy, what we do is we vote; and if we do not get our 
way, we move on and we live under the rules of law. We do not go out 
and bomb innocent people.
  To draw an analogy, Staten Island voted to secede several years ago 
from New York City. The people of Staten Island, 65 percent 
overwhelmingly, to secede New York City. Well, through some 
maneuverings, we were unable to do that. Does that mean we go out and 
bomb Fraunces Tavern in downtown Manhattan or bomb the Federal building 
or bomb Police Plaza? No. We move on.
  The U.S. Attorneys Office, the woman who prosecuted these individuals 
in Illinois, was quoted recently in a letter to the editor in the Wall 
Street Journal. She wrote strongly opposing the clemency petition. She 
recently said that in the first prosecution, some of these petitioners 
were caught in the back of a van stocked with weapons to be used to 
commit armed robberies to fund the FALN operations.
  In a second prosecution, three of the terrorists were caught on 
videotape in safe-houses making bombs that they were planning to plant 
in military installations.
  This is not violent behavior? This is not terrorism?
  In this House there are bullet holes, evidence of FALN activities. 
Those people convicted were released. The FALN prisoners were released 
and granted clemency. After they were released, the FALN continued on a 
barrage of terrorism, 139 bombs.
  What type of signal do we send releasing those prisoners and then be 
forced to watch innocent people die by the same group or part of the 
same group of FALN? Have we not gotten the message? Have we not 
learned?
  Let us talk about some of the people we are talking about here. In 
1981, Ricardo Jiminez, who was released, had the following exchange 
with the judge in his sentencing proceeding: ``If it could be a death 
penalty, I'd impose the death penalty without any hesitation,'' the 
judge told Jiminez, who replied, ``You can give me the death penalty. 
You can kill me.''
  Carmen Valentine, who accepted the President's offer of clemency, 
threatened the same judge: ``You are lucky that we cannot take you 
right now.'' She then proceeded to call the judge a terrorist and said 
that only the chains around her waist and wrists prevented her from 
doing what she would like to do, to kill him. That is in the UPI, 1981.
  Alicia Rodriguez, Luis Rosa and Carlos Torres say they have nothing 
to be sorry for and have no intentions of an armed revolution. That was 
in 1995, 4 years ago.
  Luis Rosa, in response to why the FALN bombed a suburban shopping 
mall, retail stores, banks, and the headquarters of a large U.S. 
corporation, where anybody's children could be, where anybody's parents 
could be, where anybody's grandparents could be, this was his exchange: 
``They all had interests in Puerto Rico. We were attacking them in 
their pocketbooks. Capitalists understand it more when they feel it in 
their pocketbooks. We were retaliating for their dealings on the island 
and, hopefully, getting them to leave the island.''
  Remember the words, ``we were attacking.'' This was a group. This was 
a disgrace.
  Support this rule. Support this resolution. Let us not tolerate 
terrorists here on our soil.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I opposed the rule considered today as 
House Resolution 281. The clemency for 16 members of the FALN is a 
serious matter and deserves serious debate. If Congress acts in such 
matters by passing a resolution, that resolution should be as carefully 
drawn as possible--and it certainly should reflect the views and input 
of Members of this House.
  However, under House Resolution 281, we are to consider the sense of 
Congress resolution offered by Mr. Fossella under a truncated procedure 
designed for non-controversial matters. Under House Resolution 281 we 
are to consider Mr. Fossella's proposal without the possibility of 
offering amendments. Clearly this is an important and controversial 
matter and the House should consider it under procedures that allow 
Members of the House to propose amendments.
  Second, it appears that House Resolution 281 allowed the House to 
bypass the committee process. A committee hearing and markup should 
have been held prior to the consideration of Mr. Fossella's resolution, 
so that the measure presented to the House would have reflected the 
deliberative process. Such a markup or hearing could have been held 
yesterday. That might have required suspending the committee rules; of 
course, we are being asked to suspend the rules of the House today.
  In sum, House Resolution 281 provided for an inadequate procedure to 
deal with this important issue. We should expect better of the House 
leadership, and the country certainly expects better of us.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this fair 
rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page H8012]]

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 253, 
nays 172, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 397]

                               YEAS--253

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--172

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Berry
     McIntosh
     Pryce (OH)
     Rangel
     Rogan
     Sununu
     Towns
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1158

  Messrs. EVANS, EDWARDS and COSTELLO changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Mr. PHELPS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________