[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 116 (Thursday, September 9, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H8012-H8020]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE 
                     GRANTED CLEMENCY TO TERRORISTS

  Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 180) expressing the sense of 
Congress that the President should not have granted clemency to 
terrorists, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 180

       Whereas the Armed Forces of National Liberation (the FALN) 
     is a militant terrorist organization that claims 
     responsibility for the bombings of approximately 130 
     civilian, political, and military sites throughout the United 
     States;
       Whereas its reign of terror resulted in 6 deaths and the 
     permanent maiming of dozens of others, including law 
     enforcement officials;
       Whereas 16 members of the FALN were tried for numerous 
     felonies against the United States, including seditious 
     conspiracy;
       Whereas at their trials, none of the 16 defendants 
     contested any of the evidence presented by the United States;
       Whereas at their trials, none expressed remorse for their 
     actions;
       Whereas all were subsequently convicted and sentenced to 
     prison for terms up to 90 years;
       Whereas not a single act of terrorism has been attributed 
     to the FALN since the imprisonment of the 16 terrorists;
       Whereas no petitions for clemency were made by these 
     terrorists, but other persons, in an irregular procedure, 
     sought such clemency for them;
       Whereas on August 11, 1999, President William Jefferson 
     Clinton offered clemency to these 16 terrorists, all of whom 
     have served less than 20 years in prison;
       Whereas the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal 
     Bureau of Prisons, and 2 United States Attorneys all 
     reportedly advised the President not to grant leniency to the 
     16 terrorists;

[[Page H8013]]

       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;
       Whereas the State Department in 1998 reiterated two 
     longstanding tenets of counterterrorism policy that the 
     United States will: ``(1) make no concessions to terrorists 
     and strike no deals; and ``(2) bring terrorists to justice 
     for their crimes'';
       Whereas the President's offer of clemency to the FALN 
     terrorists violates longstanding tenets of United States 
     counterterrorism policy;
       Whereas the President's decision sends an unmistakable 
     message to terrorists that the United States does not punish 
     terrorists in a severe manner, making terrorism more likely; 
     and
       Whereas the release of terrorists is an affront to the rule 
     of law, the victims and their families, and every American 
     who believes that violent acts must be punished to the 
     fullest extent of the law: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that making 
     concessions to terrorists is deplorable and that President 
     Clinton should not have offered or granted clemency to the 
     FALN terrorists.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pease) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease).


                             General Leave

  Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. 
Res. 180, the concurrent resolution under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), and I ask unanimous consent 
that he be permitted to control the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this House is about to vote on a resolution that I 
believe will simply allow Members in this House to send a clear and 
convincing signal to terrorists around this Nation, around this world 
contemplating acts of terrorism, that the United States has a zero 
tolerance policy towards terrorists.
  The background for this is the group known as the FALN, a terrorist 
organization that wreaked havoc across this country in the 1970s and 
1980s, and claimed responsibility for 130 bombings, killing innocent 
people, maiming innocent people across this country from New York to 
Chicago. Too many families were left without fathers. Too many families 
were left without husbands. Too many communities were left without, 
innocent people who died as a result of FALN activities.
  Mr. Speaker, those people are rightfully convicted and sentenced to 
prison, and now the White House wants to release some of these people 
back into society. This is the absolutely wrong signal we could be 
sending to the American people, absolutely wrong to terrorists 
contemplating acts of violence. And in the goodness of the Members 
here, can we at least vindicate the memory of the Berger family, of 
Officers Richard Pascarella who lost his eye, or Rocco Pastorella who 
lost a leg as a result of FALN activities?
  We should be sending a convincing signal that there is no place in 
American society for all of this. That is why the FBI, the Bureau of 
Prisons, the U.S. Attorneys Office in Connecticut and Illinois that 
prosecuted these criminals recommended against clemency, and it has 
also been stated by someone that the supporters of this clemency 
included John Cardinal O'Connor from New York. In the New York Post, 
the top aid to John Cardinal O'Connor said yesterday the Archbishop of 
New York never backed clemency for FALN terrorists despite White House 
claims that he did. So just to correct the Record, I know some who are 
under the misimpression that he did.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage every Member of this body to understand who 
we are talking about. We are talking about people who believe 
themselves to be freedom fighters; but at the root of it, they believe 
that we can replace the rule of law if they do not get their way and 
bomb buildings, bomb restaurants, bomb office buildings in order to 
achieve their goals, and as a result we have experienced what that 
means. Innocent people loose their lives.
  Think about Oklahoma City bombing, think about the World Trade Center 
bombing, think about 10 or 15 years if we were to let Terry Nichols 
free because he was nowhere near the bomb scene. I think the American 
people would be outraged, and well they should.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to what is clearly a 
politically motivated and totally senseless resolution.
  We are a Nation of laws, and if any matter is abundantly clear by our 
Constitution, it is that the President has the sole and unitary power 
to grant clemency. Is there any Member that does not understand that? 
Every President has the sole and unitary power to grant clemency.
  For the first time in American history, the House of Representatives, 
under our present leadership, has determined that we should have a vote 
to determine whether clemency should be granted or whether the 
President is doing the same or doing the right thing from their point 
of view. Now the reason that he has the power to grant clemency is that 
it is that the President is uniquely positioned to consider the law and 
the facts that apply in each request for clemency.
  Despite this long and uninterrupted history of congressional 
nonintervention through both Democratic and Republican Presidents, 
today the Republican Congress tells us that we have an emergency on our 
hands, an emergency. This matter has not even gone through the 
Committee on the Judiciary. It arrives here on the Floor after a lot of 
talk over the media over the weekend. We have an emergency on our hands 
that requires that we stop all of our legislative business so that we 
can express our opinion on a clemency that he has already granted.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority is forcing us to vote on this phony 
emergency at the same time that our Nation faces serious economic and 
social issues which should be requiring our immediate attention. 
Thirteen children killed each day in this country by handguns, and yet 
the majority does nothing about gun safety; millions of Americans face 
serious health care insurance problems, and yet we do nothing about the 
Patients' Bill of Rights; billions of dollars of special interest money 
corrupting our political system, and yet the majority continues to 
ignore campaign finance reform.
  The real reason that we are voting on this emergency resolution today 
is because the majority is looking to score some cheap political 
points. How sad. They were so eager to begin pointing the political 
finger that they skipped the normal hearings and markup as well as the 
floor process that this measure would require or that any measure would 
require that comes before the floor for disposition.
  Now of course, if anyone would bother to look at the actual record, 
they would see that the clemency was justified and appropriate.
  First off, the clemency is not absolute. It is conditional, and it is 
so conditional that it is really a parole. This is parole for life. The 
President attached several important serious conditions to the grant of 
clemency, any violations of which would immediately result in the 
revocation of the commutation. One condition was that the offenders had 
to renounce the use and advocacy of violence. Some inmates do not 
receive clemency because they declined to sign the pledge to renounce 
violence. Another condition restricted the grantees' freedom of travel 
and association. The grantees, even those related to one another, can 
no longer associate with each other.
  Finally, the inmates received excessive sentences and have served 
terms far longer than comparable offenders. The individuals in question 
have served some 20 years in prison for nonviolent offenses. Although 
they possessed weapons, no one was harmed. Ultimately no person, no 
single person, was harmed. So this is far longer than average for most 
violent offenses. The reason they received such harsh sentences

[[Page H8014]]

was because they received consecutive sentences for various offenses 
even though almost all defendants who were prosecuted for multiple 
crimes received concurrent sentences.
  So the resolution before us today is a tawdry one, a sham one, an 
embarrassing one, an insult to our Constitution and the Puerto Rican 
people who care so deeply about the clemency issue.
  Can we not move forward?
  Please vote no on this concurrent resolution before us.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and the purpose of this resolution in part was because the offer of 
clemency was given just several weeks ago and it was rejected by the 
prisoner because it appeared that they did not want to agree to the 
terms and the conditions, and we thought we could at least bring enough 
public pressure upon the White House to change the mind and rescind the 
offer.
  That is why for those who think it is a partisan thing they have 
Senator Moynihan, Bill Bradley, Hillary Clinton, all of whom oppose 
this clemency as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Goss).
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution 
because the seriousness of terrorism is a challenge to our national 
security, and I urge its strong support.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for yielding and I rise 
in support of this resolution. As most Americans were, I was deeply 
disturbed to learn that President Clinton would consider granting 
clemency to 16 members of the FALN terrorism group who were tried and 
convicted of participating in acts of terror. In an effort to make 
sense of an otherwise inexplicable decision by the President to offer 
freedom to these criminals, some have claimed that the President was 
somehow influenced by political considerations affecting the election 
aspirations of Mrs. Clinton. But even she has spoken out against the 
clemency offer. Combating terrorism is one of the highest priorities in 
protecting our Nation's security--and that means standing firm in our 
absolute intolerance of acts of terror. We must not send mixed signals 
to those who wish to wage war by wreaking havoc, triggering chaos and 
generating terror. Our message--from the President on down--is supposed 
to be clear and unmistakable: Promote or participate in terrorism and 
we will find you, punish you and make sure that no leniency is offered 
to you. With this act of irresponsibility, President Clinton has 
created a dangerous crack in our wall of resolve--he has broadcast to 
would-be miscreants and their political promoters that for every rule 
we can find an exception. We can expect from this a domino effect--as 
every activist group with an agenda will rachet up the political 
pressure in hopes of finding favor with this seemingly easily-
influenced President. What will be next? Is the President planning to 
grant clemency to Johnathan Pollard, the convicted spy accused of 
betraying some of this Nation's most important secrets and causing 
tangible damage to our Nation's security? Those who are lobbying for 
that outcome have no doubt been cheered by the President's action in 
the FALN case. There is nothing wrong with political agitation for a 
cause--this is a free country after all. But when the President of the 
United States signals that it may be open season for special interests 
to get their way--even against the best judgments of the senior 
presidential advisors with expertise on the subject--then there is 
trouble ahead. The Congress has to speak out with one voice that we 
reject this type of ad-hoc policy, informed by political or other 
considerations in violation of our national security interests.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), chairman of the 
Committee on Government Reform.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I will not take much time, but 
there has been some disturbing things that have come to my attention in 
the past couple of days that I think the Members ought to be aware of.
  One is that we sent subpoenas to the White House asking the President 
to give us the rationale for this pardoning exercise he has been 
involved in with these terrorists; and the second, we sent a subpoena 
to the Bureau of Prisons asking them for any information or transcripts 
of telephone calls that may have been made by these convicted 
terrorists to others that may have indicated that they were still 
involved or wanted to be involved or were advocating additional 
terrorist activities.
  I was informed that some people at the Justice Department have 
contacted us and said that the President and the Justice Department may 
claim executive privilege, and all I want to do is protest that because 
I think if they claim executive privilege, the American people will be 
kept in the dark about why these terrorists were pardoned. The 
President needs to make clear to the American people the reasons why 
these people were pardoned, number one; and, number two, we need to 
know if they were making telephone calls from the prisons advocating 
additional act of terrorism. If they were, they should not be on the 
streets under any circumstances.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. LaFalce).

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day in the history of the 
House of Representatives. This resolution will pass. This resolution 
will pass overwhelmingly, but it should not be before us today.
  When I initially heard the question posed a few weeks or so ago, 
should terrorists, should convicted terrorists be pardoned, I thought, 
what is the President doing? But, you know something? We are not 
talking about convicted terrorists. Not one individual has been 
convicted of terrorism. Not one individual was indicted for terrorism. 
So strike the word from our language.
  You are saying anybody who we find guilty of terrorism by association 
with a group. They were convicted of weapons possession; they were 
convicted of seditious conspiracy. What is seditious conspiracy? That 
is a desire to have independence for Puerto Rico from the United 
States.
  Might they have been involved in something worse? Might they have 
been involved in terrorism? It may be, but they were not indicted for 
it, and they were not convicted of it. So it is inappropriate for us to 
be talking about that today.
  Look at this resolution. The resolution reads, ``Whereas, President 
William Jefferson Clinton offered clemency to these 16 terrorists.''
  He did not. He offered it to 14, not 16. The resolution is factually 
incorrect.
  ``Whereas, the FBI reportedly based its decision.'' ``Reportedly.'' 
That means you do not know. You are reading a newspaper and saying, 
well, they report it, so it must be true.
  And what is it that they reportedly based their decision upon? The 
existence of audio recordings indicating that some of the 16 have vowed 
to resume their violent activities. What is ``some''? Is it one, or is 
it two, or is it 15, or is it 16 of the 16?
  I would urge at least an abstention on this. There is no way that we 
should rush to judgment on this.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority whip.
  Mr. DeLay. Mr. Speaker, I do think it is unfortunate that this debate 
has become what the definition of terrorism is.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to giving clemency to 
terrorists. This Nation cannot afford to give the world the impression 
that we are weak, but that is exactly what pardoning terrorists does. 
The act of pardoning criminals gives the impression that justice has 
already been done, but that is not the case.
  An old adage says that justice is truth in action. Well, the truth of 
the matter here is that justice is being perverted. The President does 
have the sole power to grant clemency, but this House has the 
responsibility of expressing itself on the actions of the President. 
Clemency should not simply be given at the irresponsible whim of one 
leader. It should rest on the perception of justice held by the people.
  Terrorism is an attack on the everyday sense of security of a people. 
Terrorists strike randomly and violently to break the will of 
governments and their citizens.
  Now, dealing harshly with terrorists sends the message that a nation 
is not willing to suffer attacks on its actual safety or its sense of 
security. If for no other reason, government exists to protect the 
people. Pardoning terrorists

[[Page H8015]]

abandons the real necessity to deter others from these tactics. After 
all, what kind of message is sent by pardoning those who use violence 
against Americans to make political points?
  Though no one should be surprised by this action by this President, 
in fact, this clemency for terrorists should go down as a metaphor for 
Clinton policy, which has been an ongoing comedy of capitulations.
  Let us just look at his litany of failure in foreign policy:
  North Korea continues to flaunt international law by speeding ahead 
with their nuclear program, with no consequences whatsoever.
  Afghanistan and Sudan were bombed at the blink of an eye without any 
success at curtailing the terrorist bin Laden.
  Iraq is periodically bombed, without getting any closer to the 
supposed objective of removing Saddam Hussein from power.
  Russia, with its massive nuclear capability, is coming apart at the 
seams and selling weapons technology to scrape by, and we do nothing.
  China is walking all over us, pure and simple.
  Mr. Speaker, coddling terrorists shows the world that America is 
weak, but this simply reinforces the impression already constructed on 
6 years of a foreign policy embarrassment.
  So, Mr. Speaker, clemency for those who attack America's sense of 
security is a mistake, and I urge an ``aye'' vote on this resolution.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, we are debating today a concurrent 
resolution that states that it is the sense of Congress that ``the 
President should not have granted clemency to terrorists.'' The 
resolution uses the word ``terrorist'' 10 or 15 sometimes.
  I have heard the word terrorist used incalculable times during this 
debate, and I am sure I will continue to hear it throughout the rest of 
this morning. So I would like to talk about that word and its 
connection to these people who have been offered clemency, in a way 
that is a little more accurate, a little more honest, and perhaps a 
little less driven by politics.
  They were convicted of crimes. Specifically they were convicted of 
weapons possession, car theft and robbery. These are not acts of 
terrorism. These individuals are not terrorists.
  They are also convicted of seditious conspiracy, a political charge, 
a charge entirely unrelated to violence, a charge virtually never used 
in America in the second half of the 20th Century.
  For these crimes, ``crimes,'' that is an absolutely essential point, 
crimes in which not one person was seriously injured, crimes which did 
not cause one person to be killed, not one, they were sentenced to 90 
years in prison. Ninety years.
  In the late 1980s when they were sentenced, the length of their 
sentences for these nonviolent crimes was consistently longer than most 
criminals received for unspeakable acts of violence, more than for 
assault, for rape or for murder.
  Now, we have heard supporters of this resolution talk about very 
serious acts of violence that were associated with the FALN, of which 
these people were associated with. These were terrible acts, they were 
wrong, and I am not here to defend them. As a Puerto Rican and an 
American, I express my deepest condolences to the victims and their 
families. Violence such as those acts should not be tolerated. But 
these were not the acts where these individuals were convicted. This is 
the plain and simple truth of the situation. That does not excuse what 
they did, and they have served very long sentences for what they were 
convicted of.
  But for what they were convicted of, and that is the only fair 
standard in any democracy, they have served long enough. And that is 
why 10, 10 Nobel Peace prize winners support their release. That is why 
Coretta Scott King and former President Jimmy Carter and Archbishop 
Desmond Tutu support their release. That is why an unprecedented 
international coalition of human rights organizations, of religious, 
labor and business leaders support their release. That is why the 
United Council of Churches of Christ, why the United Methodist Church, 
why the Baptist Peace Fellowship, why the Episcopal Church of Puerto 
Rico, why the Presbyterians of Puerto Rico, why the Catholic Archbishop 
of San Juan, support their release.
  These are reasonable people I just mentioned, concerned organizations 
that speak for hundreds of thousands of Americans. They have examined 
the facts, they have studied the evidence, and they have concluded that 
these people have served a long enough time for their crimes and they 
are no longer a danger to our society.
  A strong supporter of independence for Puerto Rico, it is with a 
heavy heart that I think about violence that was associated with this 
movement long ago, and it is with a heavy heart that I think about the 
people that were hurt at the time, and it is with a heavy heart that I 
think about all of the anger and pain that is associated with it. And I 
hope with a sense of hopeful necessity and fairness and forgiveness 
that we can all come together and look for peace and reconciliation 
among the people of Puerto Rico and among the people of this great 
Nation, as we have done in Ireland and as we have done in the Middle 
East.
  Let us be a leader here at home for peace and reconciliation.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, for those who have a problem with the word ``terrorism'' 
or ``terrorist,'' terrorism is defined as the use of violence and 
threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
  I would suggest anybody who has a problem with that language to read 
all of the public documents to demonstrate exactly what these people 
are.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Saxton).
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, is this debate really about what the 
definition of terrorism is?
  Mr. Speaker, terrorism has become a headline issue all too often. 
When President Clinton bombed strategic targets in Afghanistan and 
Sudan last year, he attempted to send a strong message to terrorists 
that terrorists must pay for their crimes. But on August 11 of this 
year, President Clinton sent a very different message to terrorists 
here at home by offering clemency to 16 terrorists.
  Much has been said of the political motives of the clemency offer, 
but this is not the issue. This is an issue of terrorism and victims' 
rights. What about the countless victims who have been maimed and 
killed by the FALN bombs and guns?
  Yesterday I met with Diana Berger, a constituent from Cherry Hill, 
New Jersey, who lost her husband in 1975 to these FALN terrorists. What 
about their rights?
  Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to vote in support of this very 
important resolution.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. LaFalce.)
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, every person who has thus far spoken on 
behalf of this resolution has not only used the word ``terrorist,'' but 
has called these individuals terrorists and has conveyed the impression 
that these individuals were convicted of terrorism.
  That is 100 percent wrong. They were never convicted, they were never 
accused, they were never indicted. It is weapons possession, or 
robbery, or car theft, but it is not terrorism. You may not use that 
word with respect to individuals if they have not been convicted or 
accused of it.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the people were not convicted of terrorism, because 
there was no federal statute dealing with terrorism when they were 
convicted.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey (Mrs. Roukema.)
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I totally associate myself with the statements made by 
our colleague from Staten Island (Mr. Fossella), but I must say, this 
is incomprehensible that we are nitpicking over whether or not these 
members,

[[Page H8016]]

 these people, were not only convicted felons, but openly associated 
with the FALN. They have publically committed themselves to terrorism. 
There is no question about that.
  However, I want to spend the rest of my time and associate my remarks 
on this resolution in the name of Joseph and Thomas Connor, who lost 
their father in an FALN bombing, or, I am sorry, terrorist attack, in 
New York some years ago.
  As they noted in their outspoken opposition to clemency in a Wall 
Street Journal editorial page article from the Connor brothers, ``Not a 
day passes without our feeling the void left in our lives.''
  In the name of the Connor brothers and the others who have suffered 
at the hands of terrorists, we must pass this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the concurrent resolution expressing 
the sense of the House that the President should not have granted 
clemency to terrorists. Congress must speak out definitively.
  Given the nature and scope of the crimes committed by the FALN, I 
find it incomprehensible that the Administration would make any offer 
to release any convicted felons associated with this group. The FALN 
has a history of violence against innocent civilians and there are 
indications that members of the group may be contemplating a return to 
terrorism. To release convicted members of this group in this context 
would be highly irresponsible.
  The FALN members who have accepted clemency have promised to renounce 
violence in return. Since when do we take the word of terrorists? 
Terrorists who took 3 weeks after the offer and only after it became a 
political issue in the Clinton Senate campaign. I, for one, do not take 
convicted terrorists at their word. The President should not be risking 
lives on a promise that can be broken so easily. This is a mistake of 
overwhelming magnitude.
  In my Congressional District, this matter is of more than academic 
interest. On January 24, 1975, the FALN bombed the Fraunces Tavern in 
New York City, killing four innocent individuals and injuring 53 
others. One of those killed was Frank Connor, a Wall Street banker from 
Fair Lawn, New Jersey.
  Mr. Connor was an American success story. The only son of an elevator 
operator and cleaning lady, he was born and raised in a working class 
neighborhood, went to a public college and worked his way up from the 
ground floor to a successful career in business. Mr. Connor was a 
husband and father. In fact, he was looking forward to a joint birthday 
party that evening for the ninth and eleventh birthdays of his sons, 
Joseph and Thomas. He obviously never made it home for that party and 
those young boys never saw their father alive again.
  Today, Joseph and Thomas Connor are Wall Street bankers like their 
father and have been among the leading opponents of this misguided 
offer of clemency. I quote from an op-ed article Joseph and Thomas 
wrote for the Wall Street Journal: ``Not a day passes without our 
feeling the void left in our lives.''
  In the named of the Connor brothers and others who have suffered at 
the hands of terrorists we must pass this resolution.
  None of the 16 FALN members who have been offered clemency are 
alleged to have been involved in Mr. Connor's brutal murder. 
Nonetheless, they were core members of a group that used terror as an 
instrument of action. The FALN has not engaged in bombings since these 
terrorists were incarcerated.
  Terrorists who commit murder or sponsor murder should expect to spend 
the rest of their lives behind bars. This clemency offer totally 
distorts the law; invites terrorists to U.S. action; and violates the 
fundamentals of a law and order democratic society.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
resolution. You are talking here about violence and terrorism. What 
about terrorism when you keep Puerto Rico as a colony for over 100 
years? For over 100 years all branches of the Federal Government have 
claimed plenarial or absolute power over Puerto Rico and its people.

                              {time}  1230

  How hypocritical it is of us, how embarrassing, that the greatest 
democracy in the world turns a blind eye to our own condition.
  We seek to export democracy to all parts of the world, from Ireland 
to Kosovo. We celebrate where it takes hold, in South Africa and so 
much of Eastern Europe. But what about our own backyard? We do not have 
the integrity to look ourselves in the mirror and ask the difficult 
question. We do not have the courage to get our own house in order.
  Today it is not about whether clemency should be granted, and many of 
us know it. This is a political issue and many of us know it. The only 
reason for this resolution is to embarrass the President and the First 
Lady. All Members need to do is to look at our history.
  Allow me to provide some historical perspective which will hit closer 
to home. In 1979, Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle 
approved of President Carter's decision to commute the sentence of four 
Puerto Rican nationalists. Can anyone in this Chamber explain to me 
what is the difference between the release of four nationalists in 1979 
and the release today of these 11 prisoners, political prisoners?
  Do Members know what the difference is? It is that in 1979 we were 
not facing a senatorial race in New York. That is the difference. Not 
only that, but Members from both sides of the aisle congratulated 
President Carter for that humanitarian gesture.
  The Republican leader at the time, Representative John Rhodes of 
Arizona, said the following on this very floor on September 7, 1979. I 
quote: ``Mr. Speaker, the action of the President in releasing the 
prisoners meets my approval. I do think that enough time has elapsed.'' 
Those were the words of the Republican leader. In addition, other 
Republican Members of Congress, Members who are still in this body, 
expressed similar statements.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the comments made by one of the 
cosponsors of this resolution, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman).

       Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman 
     from Puerto Rico for his statement and for his support of 
     this initiative. I join in commending the President for 
     undertaking this humanitarian gesture.
       In like manner, I hope that President Fidel Castro will 
     honor the promises he made to our congressional delegation 
     which visited with him in January of this year, at which time 
     he stated that when the United States undertakes a 
     humanitarian gesture releasing Puerto Rican prisoners, that 
     he would entertain a reciprocal humanitarian gesture and 
     release the American prisoners presently being held in the 
     Cuban jails, some of whom have been imprisoned for as long as 
     15 years.
       I thank the gentleman for yielding.

  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from beautiful upstate New York (Mr. Sweeney).
  (Mr. SWEENEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one brief point. As a 
New Yorker who, like many Americans, is outraged at the actions taken 
here, and really quite confounded by my colleagues on the other side 
for their statements, what people are outraged about, what my 
constituents care about, is what appears to be the total disregard for 
the depth of the issues involved here, the rashness with which the 
President acted for what appears to be purely political purposes.
  Members talk about people raising this issue for a political 
practice. It was the President who practiced it. We are outraged by it. 
It threatens the security of all of us.
  Mr. Speaker, I, like so many Americans, am outraged that the 
President has risked undermining the security of the people, in order 
to score political points with New York's Latin community. There is no 
way to excuse the release of eleven convicted terrorists. None, 
whatsoever.
  This nation has the most effective system of criminal justice system 
in the world, because, as a people, we insist on holding criminals 
accountable for their actions. The American people understand this, 
they have seen through the ruse that the President has tried to pull on 
them.
  As a former campaign director on many high profile, high stakes 
elections, and as a candidate myself, I understand the passion involved 
in wanting to win. But, I also know there are some lines that you just 
don't cross. The latest action by the President to offer clemency to 
these terrorists clearly crosses this line.

[[Page H8017]]

  Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud the leaders of New York's Latin 
community, especially our colleague from New York, Mr. Serrano, for 
putting politics aside and sticking to their beliefs. They could have 
sat in quiet support of their political ally, the First Lady, but they 
didn't and I commend them for their honesty.
  The political campaign process is intended to strengthen our system 
of government. But, what the Clinton-Gore campaign machine has done, 
undermines our judicial system. When the President, the chief enforcer 
of our laws, weakens this structure by releasing convicted criminals 
for cheap, political purposes, there is a serious problem. It 
denigrates American Democracy.
  Support the Fosella Resolution!
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Serrano), a former member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the President did the right thing. As I said 
before during the rule debate, he did it, or he wanted to do it, 
actually, right before we had that horrible situation with the 
impeachment situation. He wanted to do it then as part of the 
observance, if you will, of the 100th anniversary of the invasion of 
Puerto Rico by the United States. He wanted to do it as a first step 
towards a national reconciliation, a national reconciliation which we 
support in other parts of the world but we do not support here.
  We may not like to hear it, but the fact is that Puerto Rico is a 
colony of the United States. The fact is that since 1898, the American 
government has held Puerto Rico as a possession. As long as Puerto Rico 
remains a colony of the United States, we will have demonstrations, we 
will have lobbying, we will have plebiscites, we will have discussions.
  I can almost assure that we will not have these kinds of discussions 
anymore because the people who came to Congress once and used violence 
here who were pardoned in 1979, with the support of Members who are 
still in this Chamber today, those people have renounced all forms of 
violence and now admit that the way to bring about the change in the 
political status in Puerto Rico is through the democratic process.
  There is no democratic process in Puerto Rico. The 4 million American 
citizens who live in Puerto Rico do not have the right as an 
independent Nation to set their tone in the world and find their place, 
and they cannot vote for the Commander in Chief who has sent them to 
every war in the past. The people in Puerto Rico cannot send a Member 
here who has a vote, as I do from New York, to be able to argue these 
points.
  We have to understand that what the President did he did at the 
request of Cardinal O'Conner from New York, notwithstanding what our 
local newspaper says. We have, and I tell the gentleman from New York 
this in case he brings it up, we have the letter from the Cardinal that 
says that he wants these people out of prison. He did it after people 
throughout the world said, for national reconciliation, do this. He did 
it after Members of Congress went to see him. I spent the last 6 years, 
a lot of hours, working on this issue.
  I am not celebrating anything. How can we celebrate when people get 
out after 20 years in prison? Not one of them, as has been said on this 
floor, not one were accused or convicted of any violent acts.
  So while Members condemn this action, in which I support the 
President, while Members use the word ``terrorism,'' which scares the 
American people, and should, why not look also at the larger picture? 
Is it not about time that we resolve the issue of the status of an 
island that we invaded in 1898, that we took from Spain; incidentally, 
an island Spain invaded in 1493?
  In closing, very shortly, as I said before, take some time to think 
about what we go through, we who are Americans and love this country 
and were born in Puerto Rico; we who serve in Congress and want to 
solve this problem soon. Think about that. Members might want to take 
some new action.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, again, the name of the Cardinal O'Conner has been 
invoked. Of course, we wish him well. He is convalescing. But his 
statement from Mr. Joe Swilling is that he has not taken a position on 
this. ``I don't expect that he will.'' For those who have a problem, I 
guess it comes down to do you believe the Cardinal or do you believe 
the President. It is ultimately up to the Members here to decide.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, 45 years ago this year a bullet was fired 
into this Chamber. It does not matter who fired the bullet, who bought 
the bullet, who drove the getaway car. They were all involved in 
terrorism.
  The debate today is about terrorism. I have heard a word used, 
``Phony emergency.'' They are about to be released. That is why it is 
an emergency. I hear it has been called a political resolution. Then we 
are joined by such politicians as Hillary Clinton, Senator Moynahan, 
and Bill Bradley.
  Then we also hear we should be working on social issues in this 
Chamber. The same people who are using a political club of gun control 
are willing to release people that use bombs and guns and weapons in 
destroying families' lives.
  Mr. Speaker, we can stop the release of these people, but if we do 
not, I urge those who have willingly said they should be released then 
to invite those terrorists to their districts and allow them to live in 
their districts. But I do not want them in mine.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The Chair will remind all 
Members to refrain from characterizing the positions of individual 
Senators on the pending legislation.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the tortured 
reasoning that has been brought forward in this Chamber, trying to 
muddy the waters.
  Let us make it very simple, Mr. Speaker. This has nothing to do with 
politics or parsing words. This has everything to do with what is just 
and what is right.
  My colleague, the gentleman from New York, spoke of what went on in 
this Chamber 20 years ago. Let us take that as an object lesson. 
Clemency and leniency was granted. It did not deter the FALN, that 
continued a decade-long campaign of terror resulting in bombing, 
resulting in deaths. I was not in this Chamber, I protested at that 
time as a private citizen.
  But we have this simple question. It is one, Mr. Speaker, we should 
put to the President of the United States: Are we willing to take as 
the policy of the government of the United States forgiveness for acts 
of terror on the flimsy promise that people utter the statement, they 
will never do it again? We cannot trust the word from the top. We 
should not trust the words of terrorists.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, the President is the chief law enforcement 
officer of the United States. In that capacity he has the power to 
pardon convicted criminals. I know this from firsthand experience 
because I worked in the White House counsel's office which, for the 
President, performs the function of screening pardon applications.
  Usually this pardon power is used to wipe the slate clean for 
convicted criminals after they have served their time and paid their 
debt to society. President Clinton, for example, has used the pardon 
power in this way 108 times, but he has only let people out of jail 
three times before, this despite the fact that thousands of people 
nationwide ask the President to be freed from the sentences that they 
have been asked to serve after conviction for serious crimes.
  How did the President pluck these terrorist cases from the thousands 
that have asked him to be released from prison? It is because of 
Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign in New York. Now she says she opposes 
the release of

[[Page H8018]]

these prisoners from jail. Now that she has changed her mind, Hillary 
Clinton is right. Vote with Hillary Clinton. Vote yes on this 
resolution.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  The gentlewoman from New York said a little bit ago, asked the 
question, what is the difference between the grant of clemency today 
and what happened in 1979?
  Let me tell the Members the difference. In 1979 we had not 
experienced two of our embassies being blown up by terrorists. In 1979 
we had not experienced the World Trade Center being bombed. In 1979 we 
had not experienced the Murragh Federal building being bombed. That is 
the difference.
  Today there is no greater threat to the United States of America. 
There is no army, no foreign army that is a greater threat to the 
United States than terrorism. That is the threat today, foreign 
terrorists and domestic terrorists.
  That is why this decision, whether it was made for political reasons 
or personal conscience, I do not care. It does not matter to me what it 
was. We have talked about what may have motivated the President. It is 
not significant. It is not relevant.
  The fact is that he is making this decision at the worst possible 
time. It is our responsibility in this House to voice a concern about 
the fact that terrorism does threaten the United States, today more 
than ever before.
  I have heard words like the resolution is a sham and it is 
embarrassing. The only thing that is a sham and is embarrassing here is 
opposition to this resolution, because we are in fact in the most 
severe situation we have ever faced with regard to terrorism. So 
therefore to suggest that these people are not terrorists because that 
is not what they were convicted for, to suggest that we should not be 
using the word ``terrorism'' here to describe these people, is 
something like suggesting that we should not use the word ``murderer or 
thief'' to describe Al Capone simply because he was convicted of tax 
evasion, when we all knew that he was responsible for and guilty of 
many other crimes. So ``terrorism'' is the right word, and we should 
support this resolution.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a former member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Let us make it clear, violence cannot be tolerated in this country. 
We must prosecute vigorously anyone who commits violence, including 
terrorism. We must punish them vigorously as well.

                              {time}  1245

  But in this case, we are talking about crimes where the people 
convicted were not convicted of terrorism. They are not terrorists. 
They were, in fact, not even convicted of crimes of violence. They have 
served more time in jail than anyone in this country probably sitting 
in jail today has served for crimes of similar character, nonviolent 
crimes.
  So what is the issue here? It is guilt by association. Those who vote 
for this resolution at the end really should be convicted of guilt by 
association, because what they are doing is they are saying, because 
they are using the label terrorism for people who are not convicted 
terrorists, they are trying to make all of us here believe that, if we 
vote no, we are soft on terrorism.
  Timothy McVeigh was convicted. Terry Nichols was convicted. Should we 
now say that every one of the individuals that they associated with 
even if they should happen to have racist views should now serve time 
equal to the time of Timothy McVeigh and Nichols? Of course not. We do 
not convict people here by guilt from association. But that is what 
this does.
  Today 13 children will die, most of those as a result of someone who 
has a firearm. Today there are 42 million Americans who do not have 
insurance and have to run through the risks of life and work without 
any type of protection in case they get injured or hurt.
  This resolution is politically motivated. It will make for a very 
tough vote for Members. But at the end of the day, let us keep in sight 
what is really before us. These folks are being granted clemency, not 
because they are terrorists, but because they have served more time 
than other individuals in this country will have for the same type of 
crime.
  This vote today has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do 
with sending out a message playing on people's fears about violence and 
terrorism and hopefully being able to use this next year in a political 
campaign commercial to say someone was soft on crime. Shame on us for 
doing that. Shame on us for doing guilt by association.
  It is time for us to do something like giving people insurance, 
giving people protection from gun violence. Let us get to work and get 
through with this.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
resolution offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).
  Though we are a Nation that believes strongly in an individual's 
right to freedom of expression, we must condemn in the most forceful 
manner those individuals who work to extend their political expression 
into violent behavior.
  It is well-known now that some have found it proper to offer clemency 
to such individuals, despite the best recommendations of the FBI, the 
Bureau of Prisons, and several U.S. Attorneys.
  This uncommon and ill-advised gesture of leniency has baffled many of 
us. It has appalled many of my colleagues in the New York delegation, 
and it has apparently confused some of those who aspire to be included 
in the New York delegation.
  The offer of clemency represents a failure to acknowledge the primacy 
of public safety over politics, and I urge Members of this House to 
support this resolution condemning it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time to the 
gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) to conclude our debate 
on this.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the people 
of Puerto Rico in this debate, because it would appear that the people 
of Puerto Rico would support violence, and they do not. On the 
contrary, Puerto Ricans love democracy and reject violence as a way of 
imposing their political ideas.
  I have stated publicly that these persons, these prisoners are 
terrorists. They belong to an organization, the Armed Forces of 
National Liberation, that was involved in terrorist acts, and they 
committed acts of terrorism. They conspired to commit, and they 
supported them, they applauded them, and they financed them.
  But a long time has elapsed since they have been in prison. A lot of 
pressure was put upon the President to release these people 
unconditionally. I was the lonely voice in Congress that raised the 
opposition to the unconditional release at that time.
  I indicated to the President they should not be released 
unconditionally; and the conditions that they have imposed upon these 
people are reasonable conditions that will be imposed on any other 
criminal.
  Their conditions: First of all, they have to ask for clemency. 
Second, they have to renounce violence for achievement of their 
political means, political aspirations. Third, they will be subject to 
all the conditions of parolees, so that they will be under supervision 
by the parole system. I oppose this resolution because the President 
has acted reasonably with conscience and also in a humane order.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about the time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) 
has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, let us remind everybody why we are here. We are here 
again to send a signal to anybody contemplating terrorism on American 
soil that we will not tolerate it because we

[[Page H8019]]

regard the value of innocent human life. When our society begins to 
devalue innocent human life, we begin to head in the wrong direction.
  We just heard the distinguished gentleman from Puerto Rico who admits 
that these people are terrorists. I hope that puts to rest those who 
still believe that these people are not terrorists.
  The FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Attorneys office who found 
these people making bombs oppose clemency. Anybody with an ounce of 
common sense will tell us that it takes a network of individuals to 
perpetrate these crimes against humanity, that kill innocent people, 
that maim innocent people.
  Let us put a face on it. Diana Berger is at home right now. She was 6 
months pregnant when her husband was killed. Joseph and Thomas Conner 
grew up without a father.
  These are the people we want to release, Carmen Valentine who 
accepted the President's offer of clemency, threatened the judge who 
sentenced her, ``You are lucky that we cannot take you right now.'' She 
then proceeded to call the judge a terrorist and then said only the 
chains around her waist and wrists prevented her from doing what she 
would like to do, to kill him.
  Is that the people we want back in society? People who have 
demonstrated no remorse, have offered no apologies, no contrition for 
the fact that innocent people have gone?
  They consider these people who lost fathers, who lost family members 
casualties of war. God forbid it is anybody here. God forbid it is 
anybody at home right now.
  Anthony Semft who was blinded when he responded to a bomb, we were 
asking Anthony, ``Why are you so upset?'' He said, ``I did not think I 
had a voice. Nobody was speaking for me when the President offered 
clemency to these people.'' We are his voice. Now we can send and use 
that voice for the good of the people, the good of the innocent law-
abiding people of this country, or we can take a stand and say, do you 
know what? We can set these terrorists free.
  It is up to the Members of this House. Do we speak for Diana Berger? 
Do we speak for Officer Richard Pastorella who will never see again? Do 
we speak for Anthony Semft who believes that he does not have a voice? 
Or do we say that, do you know what, if you renounce violence, and by 
the way, some of the people who have offered clemency have not 
renounced violence or agreed to the terms and conditions, do we want 
somebody set free who will not even do those things?
  Let us remember the power of clemency that we are talking about here 
exercised three times in 7 years which more than 3,000 people have 
requested and God knows how many others who want to be set free. If my 
colleagues are willing, if they are willing to say that anybody in 
prison who renounces violence should be set free, then come down here 
and say it. But if we want to speak for the law-abiding citizens, we 
should keep these people behind bars where they belong.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would ask his colleagues to 
consider carefully the following editorial from the September 8, 1999, 
edition of the Daily Nebraskan, entitled ``Policy Problems--Clemency 
Move Looks Like Hypocrisy.''

       Once again, President Clinton did not think his actions 
     through.
       In mid-August, Clinton offered clemency to 16 members of a 
     Puerto Rican nationalist group called FALN, which is a 
     Spanish acronym for Armed Forces of National Liberation.
       Law enforcement officials blame FALN for a least 130 
     bombings in the United States and Puerto Rico between 1974 
     and 1983.
       As part of the clemency offer, Clinton gave the 11 men and 
     give women until Friday to renounce political violence and 
     pledge to disassociate with FALN.
       The separatists have already served between 14 and 19 years 
     for crimes such as bomb-making and conspiring to commit armed 
     robbery.
       When criticized, the White House was quick to point out 
     that the clemency offer was extended to only those ``not 
     associated with the more violent acts that led to injuries.
       With this offer, Clinton has made an abrupt about-face from 
     the terrorism policy the espoused following the embassy 
     bombings in Kenya and Tanzania last year.
       Following those incidents, the United States bombed 
     terrorist training headquarters and launched a manhunt for 
     alleged mastermind Osama bin Laden while Clinton vowed that 
     we would not bow to terrorists.
       Now we are going to pardon the terrorists simply because 
     they hail from a U.S. territory?
       That is wrong.
       Even President Clinton's wife now thinks so.
       Speculation abounds that the president offered clemency to 
     this group to help his wife's chances in next year's New York 
     Senate race.
       Initially, Hillary Clinton supported clemency, but with a 
     move out of her husband's play book she reversed her position 
     last weekend.
       Regardless of the motives, this is simply a bad idea.
       The United States should not condone terrorism in any form.
       Clemency only reinforces terrorists' actions, and any 
     pledge to renounce violence on their part would hardly be 
     worth the paper it was printed on.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Pease) that the House suspend the rules and agree to the 
concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 180, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. CONYERS. 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 311, 
nays 41, answered ``present'' 72, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No 398]

                               YEAS--311

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin

[[Page H8020]]


     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--41

     Abercrombie
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Brady (PA)
     Carson
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Davis (IL)
     Dingell
     Engel
     Fattah
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     Kucinich
     Lee
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mink
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Owens
     Payne
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Thompson (MS)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Wynn

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--72

     Ackerman
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Clayton
     Coyne
     Crowley
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Deutsch
     Dixon
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Markey
     Martinez
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meehan
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Peterson (MN)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Vento
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Berry
     Hinojosa
     Jefferson
     Pelosi
     Pryce (OH)
     Rangel
     Rogan
     Sununu
     Towns
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1314

  Mr. SIMPSON and Mr. CUMMINGS changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  Messrs. DIXON, ORTIZ and WEINER changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``present.''
  Mr. FORD changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``present.''
  So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were 
suspended and the concurrent resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, on the last vote, H. Con. Res. 180, I was 
detained in traffic while returning to the Capitol. Had I been present, 
I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________