[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 118 (Monday, September 13, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10769-S10771]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPLORING THE GRANTING OF CLEMENCY--MOTION TO PROCEED--Resumed
Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I rise to express my strong opposition
to the President's decision to commute the prison terms of 16 members
of the FALN, a Puerto Rican terrorist group. I also strongly support
S.J. Res. 33, which expresses the Senate's opposition to this misguided
decision.
There is no question that the President has the Constitutional power
to do what he did. The President receives thousands of requests per
year for a pardon or clemency, and the Department of Justice has a
standard procedure under which the Pardon Attorney reviews these
requests each year. However, all indications are that the procedures
were not followed in these cases, and that these cases were anything
but routine.
News reports indicate that the Justice Department did not make a
recommendation for or against clemency in these cases like it normally
does. There is no excuse for the Department to stand neutral on very
significant requests such as these. Also, the terrorists apparently did
not personally take the proper steps to seek the relief, given that one
of the conditions for clemency was that the prisoners had to sign
statements requesting it.
Although the White House says the members were not convicted of
committing murder or physical injury, it is clear that these criminals
were actively involved in the militant group. Making bombs and
transporting firearms designed to carry out the reign of terror, or
committing armed robbery to finance the deeds, is not fundamentally
different from personally harming innocent victims. They were
conspirators in the FALN, a terrorist group, and they received stiff
prison terms for good reasons.
News reports indicate that the law enforcement organizations that
reviewed the issue, including the FBI and Federal Bureau of Prisons,
recommended against it. Also, law enforcement organizations have
expressed strong opposition.
The opposition is based on good reasons. America has long had a firm
policy of intolerance regarding terrorism. Granting clemency to members
of the FALN sends the wrong message about America's commitment to
fighting terrorism. In fact, it sends the wrong message about America's
commitment to fighting crime at home.
It is telling that the FALN terrorists did not immediately agree to
the simple conditions that the President placed on his generous offer.
It took them weeks to agree to renounce the use of violence and submit
to standard conditions of parole. Indeed, some never did. Moreover, it
does not appear that they have even expressed regret or remorse for
their crimes. This is clear from one of the members' appearance on a
Sunday news program, where he refused to express sorrow or regret for
his crimes.
An obvious question we must ask is whether the President will
continue to grant clemency in a way contrary to American interests. I
sincerely hope the President will not pardon or commute the sentence of
convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard. I sent the President a letter
last week asking him to clearly affirm that he will not do this.
I hope the Senate today will invoke cloture on the resolution and
express our profound opposition and concern regarding this matter.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Hispanic whose actions and fate I
would like the Senate to focus on for action is Richard Paez. Richard
Paez has never been convicted of a crime and is not associated with the
FALN. He is not a petitioner seeking presidency clemency. Rather, he is
a judicial nominee who has been awaiting consideration and confirmation
by the Senate since January 1996--for over 3\1/2\ years.
The vacancy for which Judge Paez was nominated became a judicial
emergency during the time his nomination has been pending without
action by the Senate. His nomination was first received by the Senate
almost 44 months ago. This nomination has now been held even longer
than the unconscionable 41 months this Senate forced Judge William
Fletcher to wait before confirming his nomination last October.
Judge Paez has twice been reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary
Committee to the Senate for final action. He is again on the Senate
calendar. He was delayed 25 months before finally being accorded a
confirmation hearing in February 1998. After being reported by the
Judiciary Committee in March 1998, his nomination was held on the
Senate Executive Calendar without action for over 7 months, for the
remainder of the last Congress.
Judge Paez was renominated by the President again this year and his
nomination was stalled without action before the Judiciary Committee
until late July, when we were able to have his nomination reported
again. The Senate refused to consider the nomination before the August
recess. I have repeatedly urged the Republican leadership to call this
nomination up for consideration and a vote. If they can make time on
the Senate floor for debate and consideration of a Senate resolution
commenting on the clemency grant, which is a power the Constitution
invested in the President without a congressional role, the Senate
should find time to consider the nomination of this fine Hispanic
judge.
Judge Paez has the strong support of both California Senators and a
``well-qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association. He has
served as a municipal judge for 13 years and as a federal judge for
four years.
In my view Judge Paez should be commended for the years he worked to
provide legal services and access to our justice system for those
without the financial resources otherwise to retain counsel. His work
with the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, the Western Center on Law
and Poverty and California Rural Legal Assistance for nine years should
be a source of praise and pride.
Judge Paez has had the strong support of California judges familiar
with his work, such as Justice H. Walter Crosky, and support from an
impressive array of law enforcement officials, including Gil Garcetti,
the Los Angeles District Attorney; the late Sherman Block, then Los
Angeles County Sheriff; the Los Angeles County Police Chiefs'
Association; and the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs.
[[Page S10770]]
The Hispanic National Bar Association, the Mexican American Legal
Defense and Educational Fund, the League of United Latin American
Citizens, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed
Officials, and many, many others have been seeking a vote on this
nomination for what now amounts to years.
I want to commend the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his
steadfast support of this nominee and Senator Boxer and Senator
Feinstein of California for their efforts on his behalf.
Last year the words of the Chief Justice of the United States were
ringing in our ears with respect to the delays in Senate consideration
of judicial nomination. He had written: ``Some current nominees have
been waiting a considerable time for a Senate Judiciary Committee vote
or a final floor vote. . . . The Senate is surely under no obligation
to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for
inquiry it should vote him up or vote him down.'' Those words resonate
with respect to the nomination of Judge Paez.
I trust the American people recognize who is playing politics with
the issue of clemency. I disagreed with the President's decision, but
it was his to make. He says that he granted clemency with conditions
after study and based on a sense of proportion and justice. The calls
for clemency in these cases came from Bishop Tutu, Coretta Scott King,
other Nobel peace prize winners, a number of churches and religious
groups. It has drawn praise in some circles and criticism in others.
I do not agree with the President, but I caution that the
overreaching by Republican critics in the Congress on this is
worrisome, as well. To contend that this shows a weakness of resolve
against international terrorism is both wrong and may itself be
creating a dangerous atmosphere.
We ought to be careful when anyone, let alone the Senate and Congress
of the United States, start bandying about declarations that accuse the
United States Government of making ``deplorable concessions to
terrorists,'' ``undermining national security'' or ``emboldening
domestic and international terrorists.''
Playing politics with this matter and accusing the President of
``undermining our national security'' or ``emboldening terrorists''
carries significant risks. Could a potential terrorist somewhere in the
world believe this political rhetoric and be ``emboldened'' by it? This
is risky business. I do not believe the short-term political gain to
the other party is worth having the Senate endorse a resolution that
might itself have precisely that effect.
The Senate cannot find time to vote on the nomination of Judge
Richard Paez or that of Bill Lann Lee to head the Civil Rights Division
of that of Justice Ronnie White to be a federal judge in Missouri or
any of the scores of other nominees pending before it. The Senate has
not completed work on 11 of the 13 appropriations bills that must be
passed before October 1. The Republican Congress cannot find time to
consider campaign finance reform or pass a real patients' bill of
rights or consider raising the minimum wage or reforming Medicare or
complete the juvenile crime bill conference, but there is plenty of
time for floor debate and on the President's decision to exercise his
clemency power. The Senate has had three hearings on judicial
nominations all year and the Republican Congress will have that many
hearings on the clemency decision this week.
In closing, I ask: If the Senate has the time to debate and vote on
this resolution, why does it not have time to vote on the nomination of
Judge Richard Paez to the Ninth Circuit?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to address Senate Joint
Resolution 33, regarding the President's granting of conditional
clemency to certain Puerto Rican prisoners.
Before addressing the merits of this resolution, I must note that I
am troubled by the procedure which has been employed for its
consideration. Almost two weeks ago, Senator Coverdell announced that
he would hold a hearing on President Clinton's decision in the
Terrorism Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, this
coming Wednesday, September 15. Last Wednesday, the Judiciary Committee
also gave notice of a hearing on this subject for September 15.
However, notwithstanding these planned hearings, the Republican
leadership filed this resolution condemning the clemency and scheduled
a vote related to it for today.
Holding a vote before the hearings is akin to having the verdict
first, and then the trial.
Nevertheless, since we must vote, I will address the merits of the
President's decision, based upon the information which is available to
me before the hearings.
At the outset, let me say that serious, thoughtful people urged the
President to offer this clemency. These people include former President
Carter; eleven Nobel Peace Prize winners, including Archbishop Desmond
Tutu and Coretta Scott King; and dozens of religious leaders and
organizations. President Clinton's decision was not a frivolous one,
nor did it appear from out of thin air.
However, that having been said, I believe strongly that the decision
the President made was the wrong one.
In the post-Cold War era, terrorism presents perhaps the greatest
threat to our national security. As Ranking Member of the Terrorism
Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, I have done what I can to
assist law enforcement in combating terrorism.
These prisoners were terrorists, and granting them leniency is
exactly the wrong thing to do. We have tried in recent years to send a
clear, unequivocal message to terrorists: if you plan or commit acts of
terrorism against the United States, we will find you, hunt you down,
and punish you severely. Until this point, President Clinton's
administration carried this message forward forcefully, including, for
example, apprehending and punishing the Oklahoma City bombers and
taking retaliatory strikes against Osama bin laden. However, the
President's decision last month undermines this message.
Some have described these prisoners as political prisoners. They were
not. They were terrorists. Let me describe for a minute some of what
they did.
These prisoners were members of the FALN, the Armed Forces for
National Liberation, which seeks to make Puerto Rico and independent
nation, through violent means. While some of them will not admit it,
this was alleged and proven in the trials against them.
According to the FBI, and I quote, ``In the past, Puerto Rican
terrorist groups struggling for Puerto Rico's independence from the
United States have been responsible for the majority of terrorist
incidents perpetrated by domestic terrorist groups within the United
States.'' The FBI's Terrorist Research and Analytical Center reported
in 1996 that the ``FALN has been linked to over 130 bombings which have
resulted in over $3.5 million in damages, 5 deaths, and 84 injuries.''
The prisoners who received clemency were active participants in this
campaign of terror. For instance, Alejandrina Torres, Edwin Cortes and
Alberto Rodriguez were convicted of conspiring to, and I read now from
the indictment against them, ``oppose by force the authority of the
government of the United States by means of force, terror and violence,
including the construction and planting of explosive and incendiary
devices at banks, stores, office buildings and government buildings . .
. It was a further part of the said conspiracy that the conspirators
would claim credit in the name of the FALN for certain . . . bombings
through either telephone calls or typed communiques.'' This is classic
terrorist activity.
As part of this plot, Torres and Cortes stockpiled dynamite, weapons,
blasting caps and bulletproof vests. Together with Rodriguez, they
planned to bomb U.S. military facilities in the Chicago, cased the
facilities, and reviewed a communique to be published in conjunction
with the planned bombings. They built bombs containing 21 pounds of
dynamite. They also planned to use explosives to free FALN leader Oscar
Lopez (who also was offered clemency by the President) from prison, to
rob a Chicago Transit Authority facility to fund FALN operations, and
to harbor another FALN leader who had escaped from prison.
Four others who were offered clemency were convicted in connection
with
[[Page S10771]]
the armed robbery of seven million dollars from a Wells Fargo depot, to
fund a similar Puerto Rican revolutionary independence group, Los
Macheteros. This is an organization that ambushed a Navy bus and killed
two U.S. servicemen and launched a rocket attack at the federal
courthouse in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico.
Madam President, building bombs and committing armed robberies on
U.S. soil are not political acts. They are crimes, plain and simple,
and these people were appropriately locked up for their offenses. It
should make no difference that the prisoners had political motivations
which some may share. Virtually all terrorists are politically
motivated, and many justify their acts in the cause of ``national
liberation.'' But terrorism is a cowardly and evil means to achieve
such ends, which can never be justified, and which must be punished
harshly.
It has been reported that the clemency petition was opposed by the
FBI and the Bureau of Prisons. The Fraternal Order of Police has
vehemently condemned this offer, calling it a ``horrendously bad
idea.''
Clemency proponents have asserted that these prisoners harmed no one.
A former Assistant U.S. Attorney who prosecuted some of these FALN
members counters this assertion, noting: ``A few dedicated federal
agents are the only people who stood in their way. The conspirators
made every effort to murder and to maim. It is no small irony that they
should be freed under the guise of humanitarianism.''
History has shown us that making concessions to terrorists spurs
increased terrorism. The President made the wrong decision. I hope and
pray that his decision will not have this effect, but I fear it will.
Despite the flawed procedure, I will vote to proceed to Senate Joint
Resolution 33, and I will subsequently vote for its passage. Terrorism
does not deserve leniency.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, the President's ill-considered
offer of clemency has now been accepted by 12 of the 16 FALN members,
many of whom are now back on the street.
These are people who have been convicted of very serious offenses
involving sedition, firearms, explosives, and threats of violence. The
FALN has claimed responsibility for past bombings that have killed and
maimed American citizens. I pray that no one else gets hurt.
This is yet another example of this Administration sending the wrong
message to criminals--be they foreign spies, gun offenders, or--in this
case--terrorists.
In this case, it appears President Clinton put the interests of these
convicted criminals ahead of the interests of victims, the law
enforcement community, and the public.
I think we need to know: Did Attorney General Janet Reno do her job?
Media reports suggest that--notwithstanding the strong opposition of
prosecutors, the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, and the victims of crime,
the Department of Justice and the Attorney General apparently did not
take a formal position on the matter even though the Department's own
rules require doing so.
Here we have another example of what people suspect: The Attorney
General is asleep at the switch while the White House runs the Justice
Department.
As Chairman of the Senate Committee with oversight of the Department
of Justice, I have requested copies of all relevant documents,
including the Department's memo to the White House. Even our colleague
Senator Schumer believes we should have these documents. But, so far,
the Department has refused to turn over anything.
The Department and the Attorney General are hiding behind their
tired, old ploy of studying whether to assert executive privilege. If
the President has confidence that his decision was a just one, then he
ought to be willing to hold it up to public scrutiny.
I will hold a hearing on the matter next Wednesday, September 15, at
which time we will hear from the law enforcement community and those
negatively affected by this grant of clemency.
I believe, Madam President, that our entire nation is victimized by
terrorism. A bomb at the World Trade Center, the Oklahoma City Federal
Building, or a U.S. embassy abroad has an effect on all of us.
This clemency deal is an insult to every American citizen. This
clemency deal is not humanitarian; it is not just.
Exactly what is this? A weak moment? Political favoritism? Another
foreign policy miscalculation?
I'll tell you what it is--it is wrong.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 5 p.m.
having arrived, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to S.J. Res. 33, a joint resolution deploring the
actions of President Clinton regarding granting clemency to
FALN terrorists:
Trent Lott, Conrad R. Burns, Ted Stevens, Peter
Fitzgerald, Jim Bunning, Larry E. Craig, Michael D.
Crapo, Chuck Hagel, Fred Thompson, Bill Frist, Michael
B. Enzi, Judd Gregg, Craig Thomas, Jesse Helms, Pat
Roberts, and Paul Coverdell.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 33, a joint resolution deploring the
actions of President Clinton regarding the granting of clemency to FALN
terrorists, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions),
the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett),
the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from North Carolina
(Mr. Helms) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 93, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 270 Leg.]
YEAS--93
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--7
Bennett
Enzi
Graham
Hatch
Helms
Sessions
Smith (OR)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). On this vote, the yeas are 93, the
nays are 0. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having
voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
____________________