[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 119 (Tuesday, September 14, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10809-S10813]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPLORING THE ACTIONS OF PRESIDENT CLINTON REGARDING GRANTING CLEMENCY 
                     TO FALN TERRORISTS--Continued

  Mr. COVERDELL. Parliamentary inquiry.
  Is the matter of business before the Senate S.J. Res. 33?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Could the Chair please advise the Senator from Georgia 
as to the time remaining on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia controls 26 1/2 
minutes; the other side has 39\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes of our time to the 
distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair and my colleague from Georgia.
  On January 24, 1975, during a busy lunch hour, an explosion ripped 
through the historic Fraunces Tavern in New York City, killing four 
people and injuring 55 others. On August 3, 1977, during the morning 
rush hour, a powerful bomb was detonated in a busy New York office 
building, killing one man and injuring several others. Credit for both 
these bombings was proudly taken by a terrorist organization calling 
themselves the FALN, an acronym from a Spanish title meaning the Armed 
Forces for Puerto Rican National Liberation.
  In March of 1980, armed members of the FALN entered the Carter-
Mondale campaign headquarters, bound and gagged women and men inside, 
and held them at gunpoint as they ransacked the offices. The FALN took 
credit for bombings and incendiary attacks in New York City, Chicago, 
and Washington, D.C., attacks which took place in department stores, 
office buildings, restaurants, even a women's restroom. In all, the 
FALN has been linked to over 150 bombings, attempted bombings, 
incendiary attacks, kidnappings, and bomb threats, which have resulted 
in the death of at least six people and the injury of at least 70 
others.
  On August 11, 1999, President Clinton, who up to this point had 
commuted only three sentences since becoming President, offered 
clemency to 16 members of the FALN. This to me, was shocking. And quite 
frankly, I think I am joined by a vast majority of Americans in my 
failure to understand why the President, who has spoke out so boldly in 
opposition to domestic terrorism in recent years, has taken this 
action.
  In subsequent spinning, the White House has pointed out that the 16 
offered clemency were not convicted of the actual attacks that killed 
or maimed people. But many of these 16 were involved in building bombs, 
and in storing and transporting explosives, incendiary materials, and 
weapons. In one raid alone involving the terrorists President Clinton 
has released, law enforcement recovered 24 pounds of dynamite, 24 
blasting caps, weapons, and thousands of rounds of ammunition, as well 
as disguises and false identifications.
  The administration argues that none of these people were ``directly'' 
involved with activities that hurt people. But these people, to the 
contrary, were convicted of conspiring to commit acts of terrorism. 
According to former Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Devaney, several of 
the FALN terrorists were captured in a van full of weapons and others 
were videotaped making bombs that they planned to use at military 
institutions.
  It is only because of the good work of law enforcement that these 
terrorists were caught and convicted before these deadly devices were 
used to take additional innocent human lives. Osama bin Laden is on the 
FBI's Most Wanted List for conspiring to commit acts of terrorism. 
According to the administration's logic, he too should be let go, if 
captured, because he was not directly involved in acts of terrorism, 
although we all know he has been funding the terrorist acts.
  The administration also argues that these prisoners received longer 
sentences than they would have under the sentencing guidelines. Well, 
there are thousands of people in jail who were sentenced before the 
guidelines. Does each of them deserve to have their sentences reduced? 
The President will have to pick up the pace of clemency offers if he is 
to right all these so-called wrongs in the 15 months left in his term.
  This whole episode raises a number of questions about this 
administration's approach to law enforcement and the rule of law in 
general. Were the normal procedures followed in the processing of 
clemency opinions? What set these 16 prisoners apart from the more than 
4,000 who have petitioned this President for clemency, or the other 
tens of thousands serving time across the country? What prompted the 
President to make this offer of clemency? Who recommended it? On what 
basis was it granted?
  Whatever the administration's arguments, the bottom line is that 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 streets.
  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 personally pray that no one else will get 
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 the 
Justice Department do its job?
  There are substantial questions as to whether the normal process was 
followed in this case. Reportedly, the President made his clemency 
offer over the strong objections of prosecutors, the FBI, the Bureau of 
Prisons, and the victims of crime. In the Wall Street Journal today, 
Mr. Howard Safir, the New York City police commissioner, asserts that:

       In my 26 years as a Justice Department official, I have 
     never heard of a clemency report being delivered to the 
     President over the strenuous objections of these agencies. 
     The Department of Justice and the Attorney

[[Page S10810]]

     General apparently did not even 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 from New York, believes we should have these documents. 
But so far the Department has refused to turn over anything.
  The White House and the Justice Department 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. There may be a 
legitimate argument that executive privilege applies to some materials. 
There is no legitimate reason, however, not to allow the Justice 
Department witnesses to appear before Senator Coverdell's hearing this 
morning about the current status and activities of the FALN. Nor is 
there any legitimate reason to refuse to allow the Pardon Attorney to 
testify at my hearing tomorrow about how the clemency process works. 
Are the White House and the Justice Department studying or are they 
stonewalling?

  At the Judiciary Committee hearing tomorrow, we will hear from the 
law enforcement community and the victims who have been affected by 
this grant of clemency. I have invited representatives of the FBI and 
the Justice Department's Pardon Attorney's Office. I hope the White 
House and the Department of Justice will allow them to testify. The 
American people deserve to hear this testimony, and I think the White 
House and the Justice Department should not be stonewalling this type 
of investigation by the appropriate branch of Government called the 
Congress of the United States.
  I believe our entire Nation is being 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 by this administration? I will tell you 
what it is. It is plain and simple. It is wrong. That is what it is.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Coverdell resolution so that the 
Senate will be on record as opposing the President's decision to grant 
clemency.
  We cannot send mixed messages with regard to terrorism. One of the 
major problems this country is going to face in the future --as will 
every free country--will be acts of terrorism by people just like these 
FALN terrorists who put their own beliefs above doing justice and what 
right in society. If the United States continues to show that type of 
soft-headedness with regard to terrorist activities and terrorists 
themselves, then we are going to reap a whirlwind in this country, and 
we will see more acts of terrorism in this country than we ever thought 
possible.
  I can say with impunity that there are better than 1,500 known 
terrorists and terrorist organizations in the United States of America 
today. Frankly, there are a lot more than that. Thus far, the 
administration, prior to this act, has done a pretty good job of 
offsetting terrorist activities in this country, mainly because of the 
FBI and its good work. I am suggesting that we get on top of this. The 
President should be ashamed for doing what he has done.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to express may great 
concern and dismay at President Clinton's decision to offer clemency to 
sixteen convicted terrorists. These individuals were members of the 
FALN, the Armed Forced for National Liberation, which uses violence and 
terror to further its cause of making Puerto Rico an independent 
nation. As a result of their involvement in a series of terrorist bomb 
attacks on United States soil, these individuals have been convicted of 
very serious offenses.
  Terrorism is a deplorable act. In recent years we have seen tragic 
attacks on our embassies overseas, and hideous murders in Oklahoma City 
and the World Trade Center. This harvest of death and suffering is what 
terrorism is about. By releasing these terrorists President Clinton has 
made a terrible mistake. For years our message to terrorist has been 
simple: ``If you attack, maim, and kill Americans, the United States 
will hunt you down and punish you. We do not forget, and we will bring 
you to justice.'' Now the President is saying that we will forget, and 
that justice can give way to other considerations. That is the wrong 
thing to do.
  Mr. Gilbert Gallegos, the president of the Fraternal Order of Police, 
which represents the Americans on the front lines of the war on 
terrorism, has eloquently condemned President Clinton's actions. Mr. 
President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter from Mr. Gallegos 
to President Clinton be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      Grand Lodge,


                                    Fraternal Order of Police,

                                 Albuquerque, NM, August 18, 1999.
     Hon. William Jefferson Clinton,
     President of the United States,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: I am writing this letter on behalf of 
     the more than 283,000 members of the Fraternal Order of 
     Police to express our vehement opposition to your offer of 
     clemency to sixteen convicted felons involved with a wave of 
     terrorist bomb attacks on U.S. soil from 1974-83. I would 
     also like to express my own personal confusion and anger at 
     your decision.
       Your offer of clemency would immediately release eleven 
     convicted felons who conspired as members of the FALN to 
     plant and explode bombs at U.S. political and military 
     targets. The remaining five would have their criminal fines 
     waived and only two would serve any additional time. These 
     attacks killed six people, wounded dozens and maimed three 
     New York City police officers: Detective Anthony S. Senft 
     lost an eye and a finger, Detective Richard Pastorella was 
     blinded and Officer Rocco Pascarella lost his leg.
       Your claim that none of these people were involved in any 
     deaths is patently false. As members of the terrorist 
     organization that was planting these bombs, all of them are 
     accessories to the killings as a result of the bomb attacks. 
     Two of the persons to whom you have offered clemency were 
     convicted of a $7.5 million armored truck robbery, which 
     undoubtedly financed the FALN's 130 bomb attacks.
       These are not Puerto Rican patriots, these are convicted 
     felons who are guilty of waging a war of terror against 
     Americans on American soil to accomplish their political 
     objectives. Why are you rewarding their efforts?
       I can only assume you are again pandering for some 
     political purpose. This time, Mr. President, it must stop 
     before it begins.
       The ``human rights advocates'' who are so concerned about 
     the plight of these killers have never shed a tear for the 
     victims. These ``human rights advocates'' are the same people 
     and organizations who maintain that the United States 
     routinely abuses the rights of its citizens and who issue 
     reports stating that our state and local police officers are 
     nothing more than racist thugs who enjoy brutalizing 
     minorities. These ``human rights advocates'' are the same 
     people and organizations who clamor for the release for Mumia 
     Abu-Jamal, a convicted cop-killer, and raise money for his 
     defense.
       I do not Know, Mr. President, how they decide which rights 
     to advocate and which to ignore, but it seems that murderers 
     and terrorists are more entitled to them than victims. Do not 
     offer clemency to sixteen convicted felons to placate ``human 
     rights advocates.''
       I would also strongly urge you to reject any inclination or 
     polling data that indicates this will generate sympathy for 
     you or for a Democratic presidential candidate among 
     Hispanic-Americans. As an Hispanic-American myself, I can 
     assure you that releasing violent convicted felons before 
     they have served their full sentences and to waive tens of 
     thousands of dollars in criminal fines, is no way to appeal 
     to racial pride.
       I sincerely hope, Mr. President, that this ill-conceived 
     notion is consigned to the pile reserved for horrendously bad 
     ideas. Many of the best accomplishments of your presidency 
     stemmed from your commitment to law enforcement and to police 
     officers.
       This aberration would surely eclipse all we have done to 
     date to keep America safe. Police officers around the 
     country, including me, have stood side by side with you in 
     fighting violent crime and supporting your community policing 
     initiatives. Caving into these advocates is a slap in the 
     face.
       I look forward to hearing from you about this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                              Gilbert G. Gallegos,
                                               National President.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will vote in favor of S.J. Res. 33, a 
resolution which disapproves of the President's decision to grant 
conditional

[[Page S10811]]

clemency for certain individuals who were convicted of crimes related 
to the activities of the Armed Forces for National Liberation and a 
splinter group called the Macheteros.
  However, I am disappointed that this issue was turned into a 
partisan, political attack on the President. The original language was 
inflammatory and too broad, accusing the President of sweeping charges 
that were misleading and inappropriate. Some of the worst rhetoric has 
been removed in this version, but in my view it is still too political.
  In the future, I hope that Congress will prove to more responsible 
and bipartisan when discussing U.S. counterterrorism policy.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to join and associate 
myself with the remarks of Senator Hatch, chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee. We will be having hearings tomorrow on the pardon of FALN 
terrorist groups.
  I would like to share a few thoughts at this time. I feel very 
strongly about this matter. I spent not the 26 years that Howard Safir, 
who is now the Commissioner of Public Safety in New York, spent with 
the Department of Justice. But I spent 15 years at the Department of 
Justice.
  It really troubles me. It very much saddens me to see what is 
happening to that Department. Senator Hatch said the Attorney General 
is asleep at the switch while the White House runs the Department of 
Justice. Too often that has been true. I hate to say that. I love that 
Department of Justice. I respect it.
  On the facade of the Supreme Court, right across this street, are the 
words ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' I would like for people to think 
about a couple of things. Three-thousand people in prison in this 
country during the Clinton administration--more than 3,000--asked for 
clemency. This administration followed the procedures established by 
Executive order in 1893. They referred it to the Department of Justice 
for a background review and a recommendation. After that was done, only 
three--only three--had clemency granted to them.
  A clemency is a very unusual thing. It is to allow somebody to get 
out of jail before they serve their full sentence imposed by a court of 
law and affirmed by the appellate courts of this country. So this is 
unusual.
  Apparently, it was done against the objections of the people who were 
involved in the case who knew about it. The prosecuting attorney--the 
U.S. Attorney's Office--apparently recommended no. The FBI, which 
investigated the case, said no. The Federal Bureau of Prisons said no.
  We don't know yet. I hope that we will find out--and I hope this 
administration does not stonewall--what the Pardon Attorney's 
recommendation was. It went on up to the Deputy Attorney General of the 
United States. So we need to find out what happened. It cannot be, in 
my view, justice.
  Some said: Well, what if one of these 16 may not have been personally 
involved in the violent act?
  I want to tell you what a conspiracy means.
  These individuals knowingly and deliberately joined with a group, 
FALN, which had been involved--and well known in Puerto Rico throughout 
this country--in public bombings and assassinations and maiming of 
American people. They joined with that group. They were caught with C-4 
explosives and truckloads of guns in participation of that effort.
  I want to note what the law is on that. Under one case in the Fifth 
Circuit, the court held that ``A conspiracy is like a train. When a 
party knowingly steps aboard, he is part of the crew and accepts 
responsibility for the existing freight (that was already carried).''
  That is what we have here. There is no doubt that this group joined 
this criminal enterprise and participated in it and were apprehended by 
courageous FBI agents working undercover. There is no doubt that it was 
tried in a high profile case in Chicago, New York, and other places.
  You can be sure that the Marshals Service and the FBI were guarding 
the judge, the jury, and the families because this was a big-time 
prosecution of people who were determined to destroy this country and 
defeat the U.S. Government.
  That is what it was about. This was a high profile, very intense 
effort. It was done by prosecutors and FBI agents who willingly put 
their lives at risk to bring them to bear. And once they were 
convicted, we have not had any more bombings. It was a successful, 
courageous effort that saved lives in this country.
  It is not acceptable for this President to go around the Department 
of Justice professionals, violating President Grover Cleveland's 
Executive order which he could have changed if he wished to but never 
did. It is the established procedure--and for reasons that I can only 
conclude have to be political because they certainly cannot be based on 
law and fact.
  I would just say this: Justice is a fragile thing. But I would like 
to ask the American people and the Members of this body to think about 
this: What about the other 3,000 people who did not get their pardons?
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. LEAHY. I did not agree with the President's recent clemency 
decision, but I recognize that it is his decision to make. When I was 
State's Attorney for Chittenden County, I did not always agree when the 
Governor of Vermont exercised his clemency power, but I understood that 
it was his to exercise as he saw fit. There were many more numerous 
exercises of this constitutional power by the Republican and Democratic 
Presidents with whom I have served over the last 25 years--President 
Carter used this power over 560 times, President Reagan over 400 times 
and President Bush over 75 times-- and they have not always been 
matters with which I necessarily agreed.
  Yesterday I cautioned against the extreme rhetoric of the version of 
the Lott-Coverdell resolution that was initially introduced. Through 
the course of the last week some of the misstatements of fact that were 
contained in that version of the resolution have been corrected and its 
most extreme and dangerous political rhetoric has been eliminated.
  The resolution that the Senate will adopt today deletes much of the 
overreaching language of the President's congressional critics. I noted 
yesterday that to contend that the clemency grants showed a weakness of 
resolve against international terrorism was both wrong and might itself 
contribute to creating a dangerous atmosphere.
  We ought to be careful when anyone, let alone the Senate and Congress 
of the United States, starts 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 and 
was not right. I am glad that language has been eliminated from the 
text of the resolution.
  Likewise, some of the factual inaccuracies in the initial draft were 
eliminated, including the assertion that the procedure used in these 
petitions was ``irregular'', and the inaccurate assertion that the 
Bureau of Prisons had audio recordings indicating that some of the 16 
persons offered conditional clemency by the President had ``vowed to 
resume their violent activities upon release.'' There was no basis for 
that assertion, which was inaccurate and unfounded but nonetheless 
included in the original resolution. It has now been deleted.
  Similarly, the substitute resolution eliminates the contention that 
the President's decision was ``making terrorism more likely and 
endangering'' Americans.
  Most importantly for the resolution-- and this is after all only a 
congressional resolution that cannot change the clemency decisions by 
the President-- the original resolution proposed declaring that the 
President had ``made deplorable concessions to terrorists, undermined 
national security and emboldened domestic and international 
terrorists.'' All of that language has been deleted from the 
resolution. It was extreme and risky political rhetoric and should 
never have been included.
  The American people can judge whether the time and energy being 
devoted by the Congress to this declaration is the best use of the 
these resources. Yesterday I challenged the

[[Page S10812]]

Senate to make time for votes on the many qualified nominees whom the 
Republican majority has stalled for the last several years. If the 
Senate has time to debate and vote on this resolution, it should have 
time to vote on the nomination of Judge Richard Paez to the Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals, which has been pending for over 3\1/2\ years. 
If the Senate has time to debate and vote on this resolution, it should 
have time to vote on the nominations of Justice Ronnie White to be a 
federal judge in Missouri, Marsha Berzon to be a judge on the Ninth 
Circuit, Bill Lann Lee to head the Civil Rights Division and to act on 
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 for campaign finance reform or a real patients' bill 
of rights or raising the minimum wage or reforming Medicare or 
completing the juvenile crime bill conference. The American people will 
judge whether the Senate should be doing its job and attending to its 
constitutional duties of confirmations and legislation or whether its 
time should continue to be devoted to partisan politics and attacks on 
the Executive Branch.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I oppose the President's decision to 
grant clemency for the FALN terrorists.
  I oppose clemency for two reasons. First of all, this clemency 
decision violates the tenets of our counter terrorism policy. Terrorism 
is one of the greatest threats facing our nation. We say that we will 
fight terrorism with every tool that we have. We say that we will make 
no concessions to terrorists. We say that we'll track the terrorists 
down--no matter where they are, no matter how long it takes. We say 
that we'll hold them accountable--and punish them to the fullest extent 
of the law. By granting clemency to terrorists, we are saying that 
these tenets don't always apply. What kind of message does it send to 
offer clemency to those who are guilty of the most heinous and cowardly 
crimes?
  Terrorism is a real threat to America--and to individual Americans. 
Too many families are suffering the inconsolable loss of their loved 
ones--because some murdering thug wants to make a political point. Too 
many times, I have called grieving families to express my sorrow. After 
Pan Am 103 was destroyed over Scotland, I called the families of seven 
young people from Maryland who were brutally and callously murdered. We 
recently marked the tenth anniversary of this terrible crime--and we 
are still seeking justice. I also think about a young Navy diver from 
Maryland--Robert Stethem--who was murdered in a terrorist attack in 
1985. The victims of terrorism deserve justice that is not watered 
down.
  The second reason I oppose clemency is that I am not convinced that 
the terrorist have expressed sufficient remorse. Each of these 
individuals had many years to express remorse and renounce violence. I 
haven't heard that the FALN terrorists have changed their lives to 
reflect a change of heart. I haven't heard about any apologies or 
expressions of regret. Their renunciation of terrorism was tepid. It 
came only in exchange for their freedom. I don't consider this true 
remorse. I don't consider this worthy of clemency.
  So I will support this resolution to disapprove of clemency for 
terrorists. I am sorry that the President chose to shorten the 
sentences of terrorists who feel justified in using violence to achieve 
their political goals.
  Ms. COLLINS. I rise today to condemn the President's use of the 
Constitutional power to grant clemency to FALN terrorists. The members 
of the Armed Forces of National Liberation, known by their Spanish 
acronym FALN, were responsible for 130 bombings in the late 1970's and 
early 1980's. As a result of these FALN actions, six people died, 
scores of citizens were maimed and injured, and the public at large was 
petrified by an indiscriminate threat.
  The FALN's stated purpose in conducting this reign of terror was to 
further the cause of Puerto Rican independence. But it virtually goes 
without saying that there is no justification for this vicious 
lawlessness that terrorized, killed and maimed human beings. After a 
Herculean effort on the part of law enforcement and prosecutors, the 
FALN members were brought to justice and convicted of a variety of 
serious charges including seditious conspiracy.
  Those who suffered at the hands of the FALN, those whose only crime 
was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, had names and lives 
before they had the misfortune to encounter an FALN-placed bomb. But 
their lives were ended or irrevocably altered by senseless actions. The 
law enforcement officers and prosecutors who brought the FALN to 
justice placed themselves at personal risk in their effort to protect 
the public from the terror of the FALN bombings.
  On August 11th, the President unexpectedly offered clemency to 16 
FALN members. Their release was conditioned on each prisoner renouncing 
violence, obeying a ban on the use of weapons, and refusing 
fraternization with independence leaders. Unbelievably, it was 
indicated that these vague promises would release these individuals 
from their sentences--a privilege that he has granted only three times 
previously. And even more unbelievably, these promises were not 
forthcoming.
  The President made this clemency offer despite the fact that he was 
advised against it by the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, and two United 
States Attorneys.
  The President made this offer despite the fact that the jailed FALN 
members had illustrated no remorse for their actions. This became 
painfully clear on this past weekend's ``Meet the Press'' where Ricardo 
Jimenez, one of the freed conspirators, appeared. Mr. Jimenez 
identified himself as a freedom fighter and justified his criminal 
actions as a remedy for Puerto Rican ``colonization.''
  Mr. Jimenez is not unique among the FALN conspirators in his utter 
lack of remorse for the terrorist bombings. Unbelievably, in fact, 
Bureau of Prison audiotapes have captured several of the former FALN 
members recently released from prison saying they would return to 
violence upon release.
  By releasing prisoners convicted of serious crimes, for which they 
showed no remorse, based on only the promise that they will not commit 
such crimes again, the President has undermined the standard for 
eligibility for the extraordinary remedy of clemency.
  There is no recourse from the President's action, which was based on 
his unquestioned Constitutional authority. The Senate can only express 
our sentiment that his actions were appalling and dangerous. Therefore, 
in the strongest possible terms, I support the resolution offered today 
condemning the President's action.
 Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to make clear that, while I 
was not able to vote on S.J. Res. 33, I am very much in favor of this 
resolution and I am pleased that it passed today. Had I been present, I 
would have voted in favor of it. It is important for the Senate to 
voice its concerns about the President's actions when they infringe on 
our Nation's best interests. Given the long and disturbing history of 
the FALN terrorists who were recently released, I believe that this 
President's actions with regard to those terrorists did, in fact, 
undermine our Nation's policies against terrorism.
  On January 24, 1975, a New York city tavern was ripped apart by a 
bomb that killed 4 people and injured more than 50 others. A radical 
Puerto Rican nationalist group known as the Armed Forces for National 
Liberation (FALN) claimed responsibility for the act and was later 
implicated in more than 100 bombings across the United States. Several 
detectives were maimed as a result of these bombings and suffer to this 
day from the terrorism perpetrated by FALN.
  Sixteen FALN terrorists were eventually convicted in the 1980's for 
violent offenses related to the bombings, including armed robbery, 
weapons violations, and seditious conspiracy, a rarely invoked but 
powerful criminal charge reserved for people whose intent is to 
undermine the Government of the United States.
  Their history makes it clear that FALN was a dangerous terrorist 
faction whose members deserved the punishment they received. It is for 
these reasons that I was appalled when President Clinton offered to 
give these terrorists an early release from prison, ignoring unanimous 
opposition from federal law enforcement professionals and

[[Page S10813]]

siding with liberal human rights activists and Puerto Rican nationals. 
Eleven FALN terrorists were released from federal prison last Friday.
  As you know, Mr. President, I chair the Senate Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary, which funds the 
FBI and other law enforcement agencies that are responsible for our 
Nation's counterrorism strategy. Over the last few years we have 
significantly increased the resources available to law enforcement and 
now have in place for the first time a coordinated, government wide 
strategy to deter and respond to terrorism. Releasing convicted 
terrorists before they serve their full sentence sends the wrong 
message about how our Nation will deal with people who use violence to 
achieve their political objectives.
  There is no question that the President has the authority under the 
Constitution to grant pardons and reprieves for offenses against the 
United States. Once a pardon or clemency offer is official, no one can 
reverse or overturn the decision, not even the Congress or the Supreme 
Court. Given the magnitude of this power, the question that should be 
asked is why the President would use it to give convicted terrorists an 
early release from prison, especially the fact that President Clinton 
has reduced sentences in only 3 out of 3,042 prior cases.
  Hearings will be held in this body and in the House of 
Representatives in the next few weeks, and they should aggressively 
question the administration's reasons for this act. These hearing 
should explore how the clemency offer supports the State Department's 
antiterrorism policy which states that the United States shall ``make 
no concessions and strike no deals and will bring terrorists to justice 
for their crimes.''
  The primary argument for clemency appears to be that none of the 16 
FALN members were directly involved in any of the bombings. However, 
almost all of them were convicted for seditious conspiracy--the purpose 
of which was to wage a campaign of terror against the United States 
Government. Osama bin Laden may not have lit the fuse that detonated 
the bomb, but his participation in a conspiracy to commit these acts 
would be enough to incarcerate him for life. In addition, the Clinton 
administration contradicts its tough stance on gun violence by 
releasing these terrorists, almost all of whom were convicted of 
various gun violations, including armed robbery.

  Another explanation floated by the administration is that the 
sentences are too stiff. The President's early release certainly 
changes that. Eleven of the convicted FALN members are now free. Two 
others will serve additional time, and three others will be released 
from paying the remainder of their criminal fines. However, the 
sentencing judge's decision to order maximum prison terms was based on 
the evidence in the case and the fact that none of the FALN members 
showed any remorse for their acts at the time of sentencing. One 
sentencing judge indicated that he would have ordered the death penalty 
for one of the terrorists who showed no regret for his acts, but it was 
unavailable as an option. It is presumptuous for the President to grant 
clemency on the grounds that the federal judge who heard the testimony 
and saw the evidence firsthand imposed a sentence that was too severe.
  In fact, Oscar Lopez-Rivera, one of the FALN terrorists that 
President Clinton offered to release early, had this to say in an 
interview with the Associated Press last year,

       I have no regrets for what I've done in the Puerto Rico 
     independence movement . . . This onus is not on us. The crime 
     is colonialism. . . . If Puerto Rico was not a colony of the 
     United States, I would have had a totally different life.

  Mr. Lopez-Rivera was convicted of numerous charges, including weapons 
violations and conspiracy to transport explosives with intent to 
destroy government property.
  Our judicial system also provides an absolute right of appeal for 
criminal convictions. Superseding the judicial system should be 
reserved for cases in which the facts are clear and the benefits of 
release outweigh the dangers. That balancing test is not met in this 
case.
  Many people have speculated that the President's decision was an 
effort to woo the large Puerto Rican constituency in New York where 
Mrs. Clinton is likely to run for the U.S. Senate. It is not too much 
to imagine that the Clinton administration would jeopardize our 
national security to court potential voters based on their record of 
politicizing federal agencies, so I believe it should be examined 
during congressional hearings as a possible motivating factor.
  One of our government's primary responsibilities is to safeguard the 
freedom and liberty of its people. Given the growing terrorist threat 
around the world, now is not the time to go easy on convicted 
terrorists. Over 700 people died last year and more than 6,000 were 
wounded from the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania last year. The 
World Trade Center bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing are fresh 
reminders of the violence that can be wrought by terrorists. Releasing 
terrorists before they serve their full sentence sends the wrong 
message and undermines our nation's tough stance against 
terrorism.
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. How much time remains on this debate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 39 minutes remaining, with 16\1/2\ 
minutes remaining on the Senator's side.

                          ____________________