[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 123 (Tuesday, September 21, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11085-S11087]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     OUR DOMESTIC TERRORISM POLICY

  Mr. GREGG. I rise today to talk about the recent clemency decision, 
pardon decision by the President, relative to 16 Puerto Rican 
terrorists. This occurred on September 10.
  There has been a lot of discussion in the newspapers and amongst 
people generally as to the reasons for this, as to the background of 
why this occurred, and as to the political implications within the 
election cycle as to what were the real causes. But that is not what I 
want to talk about.
  What I want to talk about is the effect of this action by the 
President on our domestic terrorism policy and our preparedness to deal 
with domestic terrorism. The committee that I chair, the Commerce-
State-Justice Committee, has spent a great deal of time trying to build 
an infrastructure to address the threat of terrorism.
  Regrettably, we know as a nation that some time in the coming years 
we will be subjected to another terrorist attack. That is the nature of 
the times that we live in. Regrettably, it is even possible that such 
an attack may be a chemical or biological attack or an even more 
threatening attack.
  We have attempted over the last 3 years to develop a coherent, 
thoughtful strategy for how to get ready for, to anticipate, and to 
hopefully interdict an attack and, should an attack occur, to respond 
to such a terrorist event. We have set up a system of developing a 
policy of addressing the issue of terrorism as a result of that.
  The decision by the President to free these terrorists who were 
jailed for terrorist activity has fundamentally undermined this effort 
at reforming and preparing for the terrorist threat in the United 
States.
  Stated simply, the question has to be: How can you claim you are 
being tough on terrorism if you free terrorists from your jails?
  Today, we held a hearing in my committee, in the committee that I 
chair. We heard from the director at the FBI, Neil Gallagher, the 
director of the bureau dealing with terrorism. He is their expert on 
it. And we heard from Patrick Fitzgerald, the head of the terrorism 
bureau in the U.S. attorney's office in the city of New York. These two 
individuals talked about the policy implications and the effect of the 
decision by this President to free these terrorists.
  I want to review a little bit of what the testimony was because it 
was startling and it was serious, and it shows that the implications of 
this decision by the President could have a very broad-reaching impact 
on the lives of Americans.
  First off, we discussed the issue of what type of terrorist act these 
folks participated in relative to the decision for clemency. The 
decision for clemency has been represented in the press by the White 
House public spokespersons as having been made because these people 
were not actually involved in a violent act or, if they were involved 
in a violent act, they were not charged with participating in a violent 
act; therefore, they really were not that bad is essentially the 
defense that the administration makes for giving clemency to these 16 
terrorists.
  First off, it should be pointed out the FBI agent recited that these 
individuals participated in activities which led to the death of five 
different individuals as a result of bombings and terrorist attacks, 
which also led to the injury of 83 individuals, many of them U.S. 
service people who were directly attacked by the organization, the 
FALN, that also represented millions of dollars of property damage and 
spanned a period of approximately 10 years of violent action against 
the United States, citizens of the United States, and military and 
police personnel of the United States, leading to the death and the 
maiming of American citizens by the actions which were participated in 
by these 16 individuals. Yes, they were charged and convicted, in most 
instances, of something less than actually pulling the trigger--no 
question about that.

  So I asked the U.S. attorney from New York, what was Sheik Abdul-
Rahman, who was the orchestrater of the World Trade Center bombing, 
charged with? Was he present at the scene? Did he pull the trigger? Did 
he light the fuse that blew up the World Trade Center?
  Of course, the U.S. attorney said, no, he was not there. He is blind. 
He was charged with seditious conspiracy--the same thing that the 
Puerto Rican terrorists from the FALN were charged with.
  Then I asked him: What was Terry Nichols charged with, who was not at 
the scene of the explosion in Oklahoma City where so many Americans 
were killed but, rather, who aided the individual who undertook that 
specific act? And he said he was charged with seditious conspiracy.
  Then I asked, if we bring to trial Osama bin Laden--and an indictment 
has been brought back against Osama bin Laden--who perpetrated the 
attacks on the American embassies in Kenya and Dar es Salaam--and that 
indictment is not for lighting the fuse or being at the scene of the 
crime but for conspiracy to participate in the crime--all of these 
major terrorists who have caused huge harm to American citizens and to 
the American institution of Government, to our free democratic form of 
government were not on the scene of the crime any more than were the 
Puerto Rican terrorists, at least as they were charged and 
convicted. Rather, they were all, with the exception of Bin Laden 
because he wasn't American, he wasn't on American soil. But the tenor 
of the charges being, they were all essentially charged with seditious 
conspiracy--all 16, I believe, FALN members, the sheik, Mr. Nichols, 
and Bin Laden.

  So if the logic of the White House is--the logic of the President 
is--well, these aren't such bad people because they weren't convicted 
of actually killing the police officers, of actually maiming the police 
officers, of actually undertaking the heist of the armored cars, of 
actually attacking the U.S. Navy personnel and killing them, of 
actually killing the individual, Mr. Connor, in Chicago, of actually 
maiming the 83 other people who had been injured by these folks, 
because they weren't actually charged and convicted of that, and 
therefore they should be given clemency because their charge is a 
lesser charge, then the White House and the President are going to have 
to explain why the White House, why the President, is not giving 
clemency to Sheik Abdul-Rahman, Terry Nichols, and why they are even 
going forward with the prosecution of Bin Laden.
  The defense of the White House on that point simply does not stand. 
These people participated in acts of terrorism, orchestrated acts of 
terrorism, and should not be let out early as a result of having not 
been convicted of actually being physically on the site of the 
terrorist event any more than we should let out Sheik Abdul-Rahman, 
Terry Nichols, or Bin Laden should we be successful in prosecuting and 
convicting him.
  That was the first point. But it flows into the second point, which 
is, What is the effect of these clemencies on our ability as a nation 
to defend ourselves against other terrorist acts?
  The U.S. attorney from New York made a lot of excellent points. He 
said they are going to keep working hard, they are going to keep trying 
to prosecute, and they will aggressively prosecute to the fullest 
extent of their ability any terrorist they can charge and convict. And 
I congratulate them for that. But he also made the point, he said, you 
know, their decision could be misconstrued in foreign capitals around 
the world, and this decision for clemency could have an impact on how

[[Page S11086]]

trials are undertaken of terrorists in our country.
  So I followed that up. I asked Agent Gallagher: What impact will this 
have on our ability to deal with foreign countries?
  A great deal of our capacity to be successful in terrorism 
interdiction requires that our FBI agents overseas--and we have been 
expanding our FBI presence overseas, and our CIA and our State 
activities overseas--have the confidence of the countries they are 
dealing with--the police officers in those states, the law enforcement 
agencies in those states--that when they are given information which 
may lead to them having the capacity to act against a terrorist group 
by bringing them to trial and maybe extraditing them to the United 
States, that foreign official or country has the confidence that our 
legal system and our political system is going to handle this terrorist 
aggressively and they aren't going to let that person out so that 
someday they may come back to that country and take retribution for 
having had that country assist us in capturing them.
  This is a huge issue for our law enforcement agencies because without 
that sort of confidence, they can't get the cooperation they need in 
order to get the intelligence they need in order to capture these 
people before they act against us, against our country.
  The U.S. attorney, supported essentially by Agent Gallagher of the 
FBI, said essentially many countries may misread this decision on 
clemency--a generous way to say it. What they were really saying was: 
Yes, this has now created a problem for us; when our agents go overseas 
to try to interdict terrorists, we are going to have to deal with that 
foreign government, with that foreign official saying to us: Why should 
we cooperate with you? Your President frees terrorists for political 
reasons. Why should we cooperate with you and put our political system 
at risk by maybe having that terrorist return to our streets as a 
result of your President's clemency action?
  Then the U.S. attorney made another point: In the trial of 
terrorists, I do expect that the defense attorneys will use this 
decision on clemency in their defense of their clients, which is only 
reasonable. If you were a trial attorney and you were representing 
Sheik Omar Abdul-Rahman, or you were representing Terry Nichols, or you 
were about to try the Bin Laden case, you would say they were charged 
with the same crime for which the President just released 16 people. So 
why should my client have to go to jail when the President just let 16 
of these people out for the same crime, seditious conspiracy?
  Although it may not be definitive, it will certainly have an impact 
on the trial activity. And this point was made rather bluntly.
  Another question that comes to mind is: When the decision was made to 
proceed with clemency, since these folks had not been convicted of 
actually pulling the trigger which killed the 5 individuals involved 
here, or maimed the 83 others, or caused the robbery of the armored 
car, or did the other millions of dollars' worth of damage to places 
such as the Fraunces Tavern that they blew up--I think there were 70 
different incidents of bombings--before these people were released, did 
the White House have the courtesy to come to the FBI or any other law 
enforcement agency and say: Hey, we are going to give these folks 
clemency, but why don't you go talk to them and find out what really 
happened and who really is responsible. And if there is anybody out 
there on the street we should be picking up and arresting for the 
actual event, is there anybody we missed? Is there any intelligence we 
could gain?

  This is very typical. This is not an unusual situation. Before you 
release someone on parole, you expect that person to be cooperative. 
There is usually a quid pro quo in a parole situation. Since clemency 
is a much broader event of freedom than parole, you don't answer to 
anyone in any instance of clemency. I am not sure what the rules were 
which were set down on this, but I suspect there is very little 
oversight, considering how the White House handled these individuals. 
Shouldn't they have at least afforded the FBI and the other law 
enforcement agencies the opportunity to talk to these individuals 
before they freed them, so the FBI would have the opportunity to find 
out the intelligence necessary to go after some of the other people who 
were bad actors?
  For example, there is a fellow named Morales--I think that is his 
name--who escaped from jail, who was part of their group and showed up 
at the rally, supposedly, in Puerto Rico to celebrate their return and 
in between went to Mexico and allegedly killed someone in Mexico. One 
wonders, if the FBI had been given an opportunity to try to track this 
fellow down through some information from these folks, whether that 
wouldn't have been helpful to the cause of law enforcement.
  Much more information could also have been obtained by the FBI if 
they had a chance to talk to these people maybe a little bit before the 
clemency occurred, which one would think is just good elementary law 
enforcement.
  Although the FBI did not specifically answer this question because 
they felt it was a matter of executive privilege, communications with 
the White House specifically stated that they had not interviewed these 
felons, these terrorists; since the time of their incarceration, the 
terrorists had not agreed to talk to them and they had therefore not 
been able to talk to them.
  So one assumes that the opportunity was not afforded by this White 
House to talk to these people and try to find out a little bit more 
about what was going on--a little information that might help save a 
few American lives down the road when we get another terrorist from 
this group, or their ancillary groups. In fact, it is discouraging.
  Another point that Agent Gallagher made was that on September 13, 3 
days after clemency was ordered for these people, the FBI received a 
communication from another activist-independence group in Puerto Rico 
that an individual, whose name I have forgotten, unfortunately, said 
essentially that they were going to turn to armed activity to make 
their point relative to the military base--I think earlier being 
discussed here--on an island off Puerto Rico unless they got their way.
  So within 3 days of clemency, you actually have the threat of further 
terrorist action occurring by a sister or brother organization of the 
FALN. The threat was directed not only against the military but against 
the FBI.
  The President was able to buy 3 days of peace with this clemency 
decision and at the same time turn 16 people loose who had participated 
in the most heinous crimes against American citizens.
  I asked what the standard of pardon petitions was in making this 
decision. Unfortunately, these folks do not specialize in this. They 
wouldn't know the answer to that question. But I want to read into the 
Record that Presidential pardons are subject to a certain standard. 
There is a set standard for them.
  Under section 1-2.112 of the Standards for Considering Pardon 
Petitions, there is a sentence that says:

       In the case of a prominent individual or a notorious crime, 
     the likely effect of the pardon on law enforcement interests 
     or upon the general public should be taken into account.

  I asked these folks if they felt it was taking into account the 
effect on law enforcement interests to not advise law enforcement or 
not give the law enforcement community the ability to interview these 
individuals. Obviously, it wasn't. Obviously, that standard of pardon 
was clearly not met--probably wasn't even considered. It didn't have 
anything to do with politics.
  But the most devastating statement made this morning--and I know it 
took courage to say this because there probably will be some reaction 
to it, but I think it was a very appropriate thing for Agent Gallagher 
to say because it is his job to protect us. And when he sees the 
American people at risk, or when the FBI sees the American people at 
risk, I think they have to speak up, even if it may affront the 
sensibilities of the President and the White House.
  His summation of the present status of the FALN was: ``As of today, 
they represent a threat to the United States.'' ``Today they represent 
a threat to the United States.''
  And more importantly, or equally important, the action of this 
President in granting pardons to these 16 terrorists has impacted our 
policy on terrorism and fighting terrorism dramatically. It has 
literally shredded that policy.

[[Page S11087]]

  We find ourselves now with a terrorism policy which has two 
standards: Once you are convicted of seditious conspiracy, which is the 
key offense in terrorism, you may be freed if you have political 
friends; you will stay in jail if you don't have political friends. If 
you are a terrorist, go out and find some political friends. It means 
foreign countries will no longer have the confidence to deal with our 
law enforcement agencies in releasing information or even physically 
releasing terrorists to our control for prosecution because they will 
believe that person could potentially be returned to their shores.
  It means trials of terrorists will now be tainted--when the charge of 
seditious conspiracy is included--by a clemency for 16 people who 
committed violent acts against the United States and were charged with 
seditious conspiracy.
  It has undermined the morale of those who work on our front lines to 
protect us from terrorism. And all for what purpose? I see none that 
can justify this action. I think we should condemn it. I hope we, as a 
nation, do not have to pay a dear price because of it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

                          ____________________