[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21017-21022]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



        CONDEMNING GRANTING OF CLEMENCY TO CONVICTED TERRORISTS

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I begin by thanking the majority leader for 
offering the resolution condemning the President's action in granting 
this clemency to convicted terrorists. What I want to do is begin by 
reminding people about the activities conducted by the organization to 
which these 16 terrorists belong. I then will remind people that we are 
about to see history repeat itself because a President has pardoned and 
given clemency to Puerto Rican nationalist terrorists before. Then I 
will make some basic observations about how outrageous I believe the 
President's action is.
  First, I remind my colleagues that on November 1, 1950, two 
terrorists who were, or at least claimed to be, promoting independence 
for Puerto Rico attempted to shoot and kill President Truman. One of 
the gunmen was killed and the other was sentenced to death but 
President Truman subsequently commuted the sentence to life 
imprisonment. On March 1, 1954, three such terrorists opened fire from 
the gallery of the United States' House of Representatives--in fact, 
there is a bullet hole in the ceiling of the gallery of the House of 
Representatives to this day and to this day, a bullet hole remains in 
the desk of the Republican leader on the House floor. Several 
Congressmen

[[Page 21018]]

were wounded in the attack, one of them quite seriously. This was in 
1954.
  In 1979, then-President Jimmy Carter pardoned the three Puerto Rican 
terrorists who were involved in the House of Representatives attack and 
the terrorist who attempted to take the life of President Truman.
  The point I want to make, and I think if you will listen to this 
pattern of activity you will see that we are in grave danger of history 
repeating itself. Several terrorists tried to kill the President; 
others actually shot and wounded Members of Congress; Jimmy Carter 
becomes President and pardons them, and I believe you will see when I 
go through the list of terrorist acts committed by those terrorists who 
are now being given clemency by President Clinton that there was a 
surge in such terrorist activity after the Carter pardons, when it 
appeared to became clear that you could actually attempt to murder the 
President, shoot Members of Congress, commit terrorist acts, and be 
pardoned by the President of the United States. In short, history is 
about to repeat itself.
  We use clinical terms in talking about these people. But I want to go 
back and give first a review of history and then I want to talk about 
four of their acts. Then I will talk about three of their victims. I 
will make my point and get out of the way and let other people have an 
opportunity to speak.
  Let me review the following facts. On Wednesday, August 11, President 
Clinton offered clemency to 16 terrorists who were members of the 
notorious FALN, Armed Forces of National Liberation, terrorist group in 
exchange for the simple act of agreeing not to use violence to promote 
their political agenda. I wonder if one looked at every felon, every 
murderer, every terrorist, every drug dealer in every prison in America 
and asked them, Would you be willing to say you won't do it again if we 
let you out, my guess is there would be no one left in any prison 
anywhere in America. That is the President's standard.
  The New York Times reported on August 27 that the FBI, the Bureau of 
Prisons, and the U.S. attorneys in Illinois and Connecticut, flatly 
opposed President Clinton's offer of clemency to these terrorists.
  Newsweek reported this week that some of the 16 terrorists offered 
clemency were captured on tape by the Bureau of Prisons discussing a 
return to violence upon release from prison.
  The FALN carried out 130 bombings of key political and military 
locations throughout the United States. The number of such attacks, and 
their frequency, has never been rivaled by any terrorist group in the 
history of the United States.
  The 16 terrorists who were offered clemency are serving prison 
sentences ranging from 15 to 105 years.
  Most of the 16 terrorists were charged with seditious conspiracy and 
weapons possession connected to 28 bombings that occurred in northern 
Illinois in the late 1970s.
  Despite the President's generous deal, and demonstrating a clear lack 
of remorse for their reign of terror and destruction, 13 of the 16 
terrorists have called the President's offer of clemency 
``intolerable.''
  On Wednesday, September 8, 12 of the jailed Puerto Rican terrorists 
accepted President Clinton's offer of clemency.
  That is a recounting of the recent events.
  Let me talk about four of the crimes that were committed because, 
again, it is easy to talk about this act of clemency and pardon by the 
President, and sometimes it is hard to remember what happened.
  In January of 1975, members of this terrorist group bombed a 
historical site in lower Manhattan and killed 4 people and injured 53 
people.
  In August of 1977, they bombed the Mobil Oil Corporation building on 
East 42nd Street in Manhattan and killed a 26-year-old young man.
  On New Year's Eve in 1982, their terrorist acts accelerated; they 
bombed the New York City Police Headquarters, the Manhattan office of 
the FBI, the Metropolitan Correctional Center, and other locations, 
seriously injuring several New York City police officers, including 
Detective Richard Pastorella.
  Let me tell you about him.
  Detective Pastorella was blinded in both eyes. He lost all five 
fingers on his right hand. He is deaf in his right ear and lost 70 
percent of his hearing in his left ear. He required 13 major operations 
on his face alone. He had 20 titanium screws used to hold his facial 
bones together.
  Let me give you a quote from him: ``You wake up with nightmares at 
night, cold sweats. It never leaves. It never goes away.''
  The second police detective who was wounded in this terrorist attack 
on New Year's Eve in 1982 was Anthony Senft. He underwent five 
operations in 1983 alone. He is blind in his right eye. He has 
diminished hearing in both ears. His nose, eyeball sockets, and hip 
have been reconstructed.
  Police Officer Rocco Pascarella had his left leg amputated below the 
knee. He is deaf in his left ear. He lost 20 percent of his hearing in 
his right ear. He is legally blind in his left eye.
  Let me make two other points of fact, and then I will say what I have 
to say.
  Carmen Valentin, one of the 16 terrorists offered clemency, called 
the judge a terrorist when she was being sentenced and said that only 
the chains around her waist and wrists prevented her from doing what 
she would like to do; and that is, kill the judge.
  Ricardo Jiminez shouted to the judge, when he was sentenced to 
prison, ``We're going to fight . . . revolutionary justice will take 
care of you and everybody else!''
  The worst wave of terrorist attacks in the history of America were 
committed by the group to which the 16 people whom the President is in 
the process of pardoning and letting out of jail, belong and all he 
asked is that they say they won't do it again.
  Joe Lockhart, the White House Press Secretary, on September 8, 1999, 
when he was talking about the Osama bin Laden terrorist case, said: 
``You know, I think that our efforts to bring terrorists to justice are 
one of the highest priorities of the president's national security 
agenda.''
  I ask my colleagues, if bringing terrorists to justice, if deterring 
terrorism is one of the President's top priorities, what is he doing 
pardoning 16 terrorists who killed Americans on our own soil?
  When we are facing, as our greatest national security crisis in the 
world, terrorist acts, when we are threatened with terrorism in our 
homes and in our cities and in our businesses, in our capital, in the 
Capitol Building, in our embassies, when we are trying to deter 
terrorist acts, what is the President of the United States doing 
pardoning people who have committed such acts?
  I think I know what he is doing. I think he is playing New York 
politics. We have offered a resolution condemning this action by the 
President.
  I wonder, if the First Lady were a Senator, if she would cosponsor 
this resolution. I wonder if our Vice President, who is running for 
President, supports the President's policy. I wonder if he would 
support this resolution.
  But I say I think it is an absolute outrage, at the very moment when 
we face terrorist attacks and threats to our embassies all over the 
world, when we face the very real threat of terrorism in the heartland 
of America, at the very moment when our No. 1 national security problem 
in the world is terrorism, we have the President of the United States 
pardoning terrorists who are reported to have no remorse about the acts 
they have taken, and at least some evidence is available that they have 
said they will commit these acts again if they are freed.
  As I have said earlier, I do not know what kind of standard it is, 
saying you are sorry and you won't do it again. By that standard, we 
would release every criminal in every prison in America.
  But I believe Congress should go on record. Let me also say that if 
we could overturn the President's decision, I would be in favor of 
doing it. The President has the right to pardon under the Constitution. 
We have no powers, as far as I am aware, to overturn that decision. But 
if we could, I would offer an amendment to do it.

[[Page 21019]]

  Let me say to the minority leader, it is true that this resolution 
was just introduced last night. But there is hardly anything startling 
in this resolution. Basically, this resolution says that we deplore 
what the President has done. You either deplore it or you do not 
deplore it. So I think we can engage in these parliamentary gimmicks 
for a while, but I think eventually people are going to understand.
  I say, as one Member of the Senate, we are going to vote on this 
resolution or we are going to vote on a cloture motion related to it. 
We are going to have Senators on record. I think people have a right to 
know whether you think it is a good idea for the President of the 
United States to be pardoning terrorists who have killed Americans. I 
think this is a very serious matter.
  It is a very serious matter, not because it has to do with New York 
politics, not because we have gotten into this absurd charade where the 
President clearly undertakes this action to respond to a political 
constituency in New York only to see it backfire--the First Lady is 
opposed to it unless they say they are sorry and they won't do it 
again--I think that is, to a large extent, beside the point. The real 
point is, at a time when the greatest threat we face to national 
security is terrorism, what are we doing pardoning terrorists?
  I conclude by asking my colleagues, do we never learn anything? When 
we had terrorists promoting with violence and attempted murder exactly 
the same cause of the terrorists that the President is pardoning today, 
when we had terrorists with the same goal shoot Members of Congress in 
1954 and try to kill President Truman in 1950, and when we see Jimmy 
Carter as President in 1979, pardon those terrorists. What happened in 
the 1970s and 1980s? New members of the terrorist group committed acts 
of violence in the same name to promote the same objective. We have a 
process. If people in Puerto Rico want to be an independent nation, let 
them choose to do it. But let's not use violence to promote an 
objective. I think civilization breaks down when we allow that to 
happen.
  We saw terrorist acts in 1950 and 1954. Jimmy Carter came into 
office, pardoned the terrorists in 1979, and you have heard me describe 
some of the terrorist acts that took place in the early 1980s, and now 
we are about to repeat, in my opinion, the same sad history. I think 
this is a bad idea. I think it is wrong. I am opposed to it. I think it 
is outrageous. I think the President ought to be ashamed of it. I think 
the American people need to hold him accountable. I think the American 
people have a right to know who finds the President's act deplorable.
  I do. I want people to know it. I think our colleagues ought to be on 
record, and they will be as a result of this resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I join with the Senators from Georgia 
and Texas and the majority leader, Trent Lott, in expressing my very 
deep concern about what I consider to be one of the greatest 
miscarriages of justice I have seen in our country.
  When the President of the United States chose to pardon these 16 
terrorists, he did an act which I can only conclude is based on 
political reasons and not on merit, and in doing so, he has damaged the 
credibility of the Department of Justice, a Department of this 
Government I dearly love, at which I spent 15 years and have some real 
appreciation for and have some understanding about how it works. Equal 
justice under law is a cornerstone of our Government. It is on our 
Supreme Court building right across the street, chiseled into the 
marble of that building, ``Equal Justice Under Law.''
  Before we go into the details of this matter, I suggest that there 
are a million or more Americans in jail at this very moment. As a 
Federal prosecutor, part of the Department of Justice, and U.S. 
attorney, I had the responsibility to preside over cases in which young 
men and women involved, maybe for the first time, with large amounts of 
cocaine and marijuana received very severe sentences for their 
offenses--15 years, 20 years, life without parole for people as young 
as 25 years of age. I have seen that in Federal court under the laws 
this Congress has passed for serious drug offenses.
  Now, there are other criminal offenses in this country, and every one 
of those individuals has some excuse for what they did. They have some 
basis to claim they didn't mean it or they have changed or they have 
turned over a new leaf.
  In 1893, the President of the United States issued a document, an 
Executive order, that transferred the investigatory power over clemency 
and pardons to the Department of Justice, a logical step. The country 
was growing and he had no ability to investigate these cases. So an 
office in the Department of Justice exists, known as the pardon 
attorney, and it is the responsibility of that office to investigate 
these matters.
  Let me read to you from the current Department of Justice manual. 
They call it the United States Attorney's Manual. It says this when it 
talks about the pardon attorney:

       The pardon attorney, under the direction of the associate 
     Attorney General, receives and reviews all petitions for 
     executive clemency--which is what we have here--
     which includes pardon after completion of the sentence, the 
     commutation of sentence, remission of fine and reprieve, 
     initiates necessary investigation, and prepares the 
     Department's recommendation to the President.

  Now, fundamentally, that is a logical requirement. The Constitution 
flatly gives unreviewable power to the President to pardon anyone for 
an offense against the United States as he so chooses. They have set up 
this procedure to make sure we have some sort of order and consistency, 
but the President ultimately has the power. I understand he has only 
done a few commutations --maybe as few as four--in recent years. At any 
rate, that is an unreviewable power. To the extent to which he does it, 
we don't legally have the power to stop it in this body. We might as 
well accept that.
  But when the President of the United States takes a power given to 
him by the Constitution and he abuses it and he denigrates the orderly 
procedures of justice, when he elevates terrorists over other people 
who may well deserve pardons much more, or having their sentence cut 
much more, he has abused his power and abused his office, and it is the 
duty and responsibility of this Congress to do the only thing we can, 
and that is to adopt a resolution that speaks clearly that we don't 
accept it, don't agree with it, and we deplore it. So I salute the 
Senator from Georgia for preparing that resolution and presenting it 
and bringing it forward this day.
  There are thousands of people in Federal prisons today--thousands of 
them, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands--who are more deserving 
of a commutation of their sentence, or a pardon, than these defendants 
in this case. There is no doubt about it.
  I am quite confident, and I would be shocked if the pardon attorney 
who is required to do an evaluation of this approved and recommended 
that the President make these clemency actions. I just would be amazed 
if that happened. If they did, that pardon attorney needs to come 
before the Congress for hearings in this body and explain why they 
chose to have these terrorists' sentences cut and not someone else. If 
the person did recommend that, I don't see how they are fit to remain 
in office. I don't see how they can look in the eyes of the mothers and 
fathers, as I have, of people in prison who are asking for a break on 
their sentences, and you tell them no, no, no, no, no--and then you 
give a break to these people. It is a fundamental question of justice 
that is so deep that a lot of people don't understand it. But we must 
exercise the pardon and clemency powers in this country effectively, 
fairly, and judiciously. The President has not done that in this case.
  I wanted to share with the Members of this body a letter to the Wall 
Street Journal from just a couple of days ago, written by Deborah A. 
Devaney, former assistant U.S. attorney. I once was an assistant U.S. 
attorney. I supervised some of the finest assistant U.S. attorneys this 
country has ever produced for

[[Page 21020]]

12 years as U.S. attorney. I want to read what she said about this 
case. It chills my spine. This is clearly what this is about. Make no 
mistake about it, when Deborah Devaney and her cohorts were prosecuting 
these terrorists, you better believe when they came home at night and 
talked to their families about it, they talked about their own personal 
safety because these were terrorists, murderers, who suggested they 
would kill the judge if they had a chance to do so. This was a 
courageous prosecution, and this person deserves to be heard on this 
subject. This is what she said:

       As one of the FALN prosecutors, I know too much. I know the 
     chilling evidence that convicted the petitioners--the 
     violence and vehemence with which they conspired to wage war 
     on all of us.

  I am quoting her exact words:

       I know, too, the commitment and sacrifice it took the FBI 
     and the U.S. Attorney's Office to convict these terrorists in 
     three separate prosecutions.
       In the first prosecution, some of the petitioners were 
     captured in the back of a van loaded with weapons to be used 
     to commit armed robberies to fund the FALN operations.

  Now, we have a President who is always talking about some new gun law 
to apply to some innocent American citizen. Here we have people with a 
van full of weapons designed to conduct armed robberies to get money to 
create bombs to kill American citizens, and he cuts their sentences.

       In the second prosecution, three of the petitioners were 
     caught on videotape in safehouses--

  That is where they thought they had a safe house--

     making bombs that they planned to plant at military 
     installations.

  So they had a house set aside to make bombs to blow up a military 
installation, and the FBI penetrated it, apparently, and videotaped it. 
Now, I will tell you, there are a lot of people in the Federal 
penitentiary today who deserve clemency a lot more than these, but only 
four others have gotten it since this President has been in office, 
apparently. She goes on to note:

       Through determination and luck, the FBI was able to obtain 
     search warrants allowing them to surreptitiously disarm those 
     bombs at night.

  They went in the place and disarmed the bombs as part of the 
undercover effort.

       In the third prosecution, the imprisoned leader of the 
     FALN, (whose sentence President Clinton has drastically 
     reduced) led a conspiracy of cooperating radical groups to 
     obtain C-4 explosives to be used to free him from Leavenworth 
     Penitentiary --

  He was already in jail and they were going to free him--

     and to wage war on the American people. Most of the 
     petitioners were convicted of seditious conspiracy, a 
     prosecution reserved for the most serious conspiracies, that 
     of opposing by force the authority of the United States.
       Yet the President has seen fit to reward these conspirators 
     simply because they were unsuccessful in their murderous 
     attempts.

  Well, he said, ``I pardon them because nobody was hurt.'' Now you 
know why nobody was hurt by this bunch. It was because they were caught 
in the act before they completed their crime. They were caught with a 
van load of guns to commit robberies, apparently, before they were able 
to commit the robberies.
  They penetrated the bombmaking enterprise and caught them before they 
could make the bombs. Morally they are as responsible as if they had 
been able to carry out their intentions. There is no basis to suggest 
they deserve a lesser punishment or should be relieved of the just 
sentence that was imposed on them by a Federal judge and had it 
affirmed by the courts of appeals in full appellate review.
  It goes on to note that when the news of the clemency petition broke, 
the White House spun the tale that Mr. Clinton was freeing only those 
who harmed no one. A few dedicated agents are the only people who stood 
in their way.
  That is what Ms. Devaney says. Only a few dedicated agents were 
there, or they would have harmed someone at the risk of their very 
lives, I submit to you. The conspirators, she says, made every effort 
to murder and to maim. It is no small irony that they should be freed 
under the guise of humanitarianism.
  Then she goes on.
  Since the granting of the clemency petition, we have been subjected 
to the spectacle of convicted terrorists objecting to the conditions 
precedent to their release.
  Isn't that a spectacle? Isn't she correct about that? He has given 
them a pardon--letting them out of jail. And now they are not happy 
because he asked them not to do violence in the future. That is too 
much of a burden on them, they say.
  That is really an embarrassment to this Nation. This Nation is a 
great nation. The Presidency of the United States is an august office 
of power and prestige, and the President needs to exercise that power 
carefully. The world will be laughing at us over this. The world is 
laughing at this.
  We ought not to be. We ought to be outraged.
  Contrast those protestations, she says, with a poignant message of 
the Connors whose lives were forever diminished by the political murder 
of their father. There is little anyone can say to give solace, but I 
would like the Connor family to know that there were those who cared 
about the victims and fought for them, Ms. Devaney--and those FBI 
agents--being one of them who fought for them and who believed these 
crimes were the precursors to heightened domestic terrorism, and who 
tried very hard to protect the American people.
  In fact, I will add that this series of prosecutions and tough 
sentences that were imposed by a courageous Federal judge broke the 
back of these terrorist acts. We have a safer country today because of 
it and because of the courage of the people who brought these cases 
successfully.
  Then she finished. All of America ought to hear this. This is her 
last line.

       I would like the Connor family to know that the American 
     justice system did not fail them. The President did.

  This is a real serious issue. Justice in this country is extremely 
important. Out of all the people who are in jail today--all over 
America in Federal jails, many of them convicted and serving long 
sentences, some of them might deserve a sentence to be cut every now 
and then. For some of them maybe their offenses were not so serious 
that a pardon after some period of time in private life living a good 
life would be justified.
  I have supported, in 15 years as a Federal prosecutor, two or three 
pardons for people who I believe justified it. These were pardons after 
they had served their time--not letting them out of jail before their 
time was over--after they had led a good life for a number of years, 
and only after I thought, after fully evaluating their case, that the 
offenses were not so serious that a pardon would be improper. Many of 
those offenses may have been technical offenses, paperwork offenses, or 
things that were less serious.
  But to take a terrorist, a person with a truckload of guns, C-4 
explosives, and plans to blow up military bases, and give them a pardon 
over everybody else in the prison system in America--that doesn't make 
sense to me. There is something afoot here.
  I think it is important that the First Lady rejected this after the 
storm blew up. I think we need to know where the Vice President stands 
on this and what his views are on this. The President has apparently 
acted. I hope it is not too late for him to change his mind. But if it 
has been done, it has been done. It is his power. He can do it. And we 
can't do anything about it.
  Let me show you what the Department of Justice U.S. Attorneys Manual, 
section 1-2.108 under the Office of the Pardon Attorney rubric notes 
about how you determine who deserves clemency.
  With respect to commutation of sentence--that is what we are talking 
about here--appropriate grounds for considering clemency include 
disparity of sentence. Have they received a lot more sentence than 
somebody else of the same offense? A terminal illness--we don't have 
that here--and meritorious service on the part of the petitioner in 
some fashion.

[[Page 21021]]

  Pardons after completion of the sentence usually are granted on the 
demonstration of good conduct for a significant period of time after 
release from confinement.
  The seriousness of the offense, it goes on to say, are factors that 
should be considered in whether to grant clemency.
  I think we have a number of things that we need to know about. I hope 
the Senator from Georgia will be having some hearings about it. We need 
to know. What did the Attorney General do? Did she recommend for or 
against this?
  Frankly, I cannot imagine the Attorney General recommending these 
pardons. I am going to be shocked if she recommended it.
  We need to know whether the pardon attorney recommended them or not. 
He has a duty in this case. Did they even bypass him?
  You will notice one other thing that is most unusual about how this 
process was conducted. Here it is in the Code of Federal Regulations--
referring to the same subject--petitions and recommendations: Executive 
clemency, says the Attorney General, shall review each petition and all 
pertinent information developed through the investigation.
  It says ``shall review each petition.''
  Is there a petition in this case? From what we have seen in the 
papers, there was not. These people never even asked for a pardon. They 
never even petitioned for a pardon to set forth why they are entitled 
to one.
  According to the U.S. attorney's manual, the petition initiates a 
background investigation to see if it is worthwhile to go forward.
  That, again, is an extraordinary event--the President pardoning 16 
convicted terrorists sentenced to a very long time in prison who have 
not even petitioned for it.
  I can't imagine that. That is beyond my comprehension. It is a threat 
and a diminishment to the rule of law in this country. It is an 
embarrassment to the justice system of our country.
  I hope we will continue to look into it. We will find out what basis 
there was for it. We know the FBI opposed this clemency. We know the 
Federal Bureau of Prisons opposed it. Indeed, the Federal Bureau of 
Prisons, it is reported, have audio records indicating that some of 
these 16 have vowed to resume violent activities--recordings made while 
they were still in prison. And he has pardoned these people?
  That is beyond my comprehension.
  Mr. President, I hope that we will proceed with it carefully. It is 
not a matter that is insignificant. If this is what we call 
politicizing justice in America, it is sad, and we need to know if that 
is true. We need to stand up as a nation and as a Senate, reject it, 
and say we will not condone politics when it comes to justice; we will 
not do so; we will protect the lives of Americans; we will validate the 
personal risk this young prosecutor and those FBI agents expended in 
order to apprehend these criminals and the risk and damage and 
suffering of the victims throughout the procedure. I hope we can do 
that, get to the bottom of it, and that the truth will come out.
  To pardon somebody is so serious, if I were the pardon attorney of 
the United States and I recommended against these pardons, and then the 
President of the United States pardoned them, I don't believe I could 
continue to serve in that administration. I believe I would submit my 
resignation.
  Every year there are thousands of requests for pardon and clemency. A 
lot of them are so much more deserving of this. And the President comes 
along, for some unknown reason to me as pardon attorney, and grants 
these pardons to terrorists, and I am supposed to forget that and 
continue to deny every day young men and women who have served 
sentences who are so much more deserving of a pardon. What kind of 
justice system is that? What kind of right and wrong is that?
  I say to the pardon attorney who is presidentially appointed and 
confirmed by this Congress: We want to know your position on this. This 
goes for the Attorney General. We want to know what the Attorney 
General's recommendation was on this before it got to the President.
  As someone who loves justice and the legal system of America, as 
someone who cares about its faithful execution and the laws being 
fairly and objectively enforced, equal justice under law, I believe we 
have to talk about this. We cannot let this slide.
  I congratulate the Senator from Georgia. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I commend both the Senator from Alabama 
and the Senator from Texas who preceded him on their remarks regarding 
this subject.
  I am particularly taken with the personal experience the Senator from 
Alabama brings to this as a former prosecutor. He raises a point in 
conjunction with the exchange that occurred between the majority and 
minority leader about the timeliness of this. The minority leader 
suggested we can't really affect the President's decision--that is 
correct--and therefore we are under no mandate to speak hurriedly--
wrong.
  The Senator from Alabama talked about the duty and the honor of the 
law enforcement officials who put their lives on the line to stop this 
terrorist activity. He alluded to victims, two sons who lost their 
father in the tavern in New York.
  The Senator from Alabama is making the case that there must be a 
voice in our Government that says to these people and the world that 
this divergence from policy about how the United States handles 
terrorism is not universally accepted here. In fact, there is massive 
objection. It is setting the record straight. Because of the speed with 
which the President has proceeded with this, a speed must occur that 
responds to it. There is no terrorist in the world, no law enforcement 
official, no living victim who does not understand what U.S. policy is 
with regard to terrorism, even if there is confusion in the White 
House.
  The U.S. State Department has a report entitled ``Patterns of Global 
Terrorism in 1998'' which is exceedingly pertinent to this discussion. 
Before I read from this paragraph, terrorism is now a component of 
strategic warfare. It is not a passing fad as we might have thought in 
the 1980s. It is a permanent tool of forces throughout the world that 
would destabilize large free societies such as the United States. It is 
here. It will become even more perfected. Therefore, this issue 
requires massive attention of our Government.
  The introduction to this chapter reads:

       The cowardly and deadly bombings of the U.S. Embassies in 
     Kenya and Tanzania in August of 1998 [just a year ago] were 
     powerful reminders that the threat of international terrorism 
     still confronts the world.

  This is our State Department telling all Americans that this issue is 
dynamic, it is large, and we had better be paying attention.
  It goes on to list the number of casualties and wounded. It says:

       It is essential that all law-abiding nations [the rule of 
     law to the Senator from Alabama] redouble their efforts to 
     contain this global threat and save lives.

  That is a correct statement coming from our State Department in this 
administration.
  It says:

       The United States is engaged in a long-term effort against 
     international terrorism. [These are international terrorists 
     we are talking about.] To protect lives and to hold 
     terrorists accountable we will use the full range of tools at 
     our disposal, including diplomacy backed by the use of force 
     when necessary as well as law enforcement and economic 
     measures.

  In other words, no stone unturned in terms of recognizing the threat 
of terrorism to the United States and to the free world and our resolve 
to contain it.
  Obviously, this clemency is a contradiction with policy. It is 
incongruous. It is illogical.
  Let me go on to the summary of the policy:

       The United States has developed a counterterrorism policy 
     that has served us well over the years [Republican and 
     Democrat administrations] and was advanced aggressively 
     during 1998.
       First, make no concessions to terrorists and strike no 
     deals.


[[Page 21022]]


  I repeat the one sentence: ``Make no concessions to terrorists and 
strike no deals.''

       Second, bring terrorists to justice for their crimes.

  Now, a tortured editorial in the New York Times endeavors to give 
some credence to this action, although they say it is a bit difficult. 
The President has been totally silent. He has not defended his actions. 
He hasn't given reasons for them. He is just quiet, so it makes it a 
little complicated here.
  They say in closing:

       At a time when the United States must be vigilant against 
     terrorism [that is certainly true] all over the world, the 
     administration cannot afford mixed signals about its 
     tolerance of violence. At the same time, justice demands the 
     sentence fit the crime as proved in a court of law. The long 
     sentences of the men in this case resulted at least in part 
     from their declining even to contest the charges. They 
     accepted the case presented against them and even threatened 
     the life of the judge presiding over the case.

  I have to say that if you commute, pardon, the sentences of 16 
convicted terrorists who did not dispute the facts, who had arms in 
their vans, who were planning these bombings, who created 130 bombings 
in the United States, 70 wounded--we have heard certain personal 
descriptions about it: 6 dead and, by the grace of God and these law 
enforcement officers, not more--how clear a case must we have?
  I repeat our policy, the United States policy:

       First, make no concessions to terrorists and strike no 
     deals.

  Not only was there clemency offered here but the standards of it were 
made known: If you will just promise not to associate with that kind of 
crowd anymore and tell us you are going to be OK and you won't do this 
anymore, we are going to let you out. What an absurd condition, 
relating to people who have been convicted for international terrorism.
  My point here is that the New York Times editorial is hopelessly lost 
because there is no way to achieve anything other than a mixed signal. 
If the policy is ``make no concessions to terrorists and strike no 
deals,'' and the President makes a deal with 16 terrorists and says you 
can get out because you didn't throw the bomb, what kind of message is 
that? Does that mean bin Laden is some lesser problem to the United 
States because he did not personally throw the bomb in Kenya and 
Tanzania? Is he, therefore, less of a threat to the United States just 
because he planned it, less than the person who threw it? Would anybody 
in their right mind believe that?
  So we do have a mixed signal. And, therefore, we need these 
resolutions to be adopted by the people's branch of Government that 
says to these terrorists wherever they are, whatever their plans, our 
policy is: Make no concessions and strike no deals, and if you are 
arrested and caught by these law enforcement officers, you are going to 
face the harshest form of justice. It is the only way we will be able 
to stabilize the threat of terrorism in the United States.
  I am going to conclude by just noting that the House resolution on 
this subject, H. Con. Res. 180, has just been agreed to. There were 311 
Members of the House who voted ``aye,'' 41 voted ``no.'' But here is 
the shocker: 72 only voted ``present.'' That is pretty remarkable.
  I have always said the best barometer of where the American people 
are is the House. It is a great barometer. This says the American 
people do not accept this incongruity in our pursuit to throttle 
terrorism. The message that has been sent by the President is a wrong 
message, and the responsibility of the people's branch is to get the 
message straight and fast.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, one of the key things in any pardon is 
that the individual is presumed to be guilty of the offenses, and when 
they review a pardon or a clemency it normally does not even deal with 
the question of guilt or innocence. It is assumed since the jury has 
convicted them and the case has been affirmed--and I don't think there 
is any doubt about these defendants. They have never even denied their 
involvement in these offenses. But I would like to point out that 
before you have clemency for individuals, they really should renounce, 
clearly and unequivocally, the acts which they have done.
  You would think that would mean some of these prisoners would say 
that violence in these circumstances was terribly wrong, I wish I 
hadn't done it, I am sorry for the lives, I apologize for the 
destruction and devastation it has caused. But that is not the case.
  I am reading here from the Washington Post, a newspaper here in 
Washington known for its pro-Clinton leanings. This is what Michael 
Kelly has written about this very subject, about whether or not they 
have renounced their wrongdoing. He says:

       . . . none of the 16 prisoners has ever admitted to 
     complicity in any fatal bombings or expressed specific 
     remorse for those bombings. No one has ever apologized to the 
     families of those murdered. The statement signed by the 12 
     who have accepted commutation does renounce the use of 
     violence, but it expresses no contrition or responsibility 
     for past actions.
       And these selected statements distributed by the White 
     House did not fully and honestly represent the views of the 
     16. Not included, for instance, was a 1998 [just last year] 
     statement by one of the FALN leaders, Oscar Lopez Rivera, in 
     which Rivera rejected the whole idea of contrition.

  I am quoting here Michael Kelly in the Washington Post:

       I cannot undo what's done. The whole idea of contrition, 
     atonement, I have a problem with that.

  So I will just say that is a sad event we are now proposing, to offer 
clemency to persons with that type of mentality. I believe this has 
been a colossal error, a great stain on the integrity and consistency 
of the Department of Justice pardon and commutation procedures. It 
cannot be explained to any rational person. It represents an 
aberrational, unfair, and unjust act that I can only conclude was 
driven by some forces, probably political, outside the realm of 
justice. It is a terrible thing.
  I agree with the Senator from Georgia, it is important that at least 
this branch of Government, the Senate and the House, speak out clearly 
and deplore it.
  I thank the Senate for its time and attention and I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

                          ____________________