[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21242-21244]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 21242]]

     DEPLORING THE GRANTING OF CLEMENCY--MOTION TO PROCEED--Resumed

  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I rise to express my strong opposition 
to the President's decision to commute the prison terms of 16 members 
of the FALN, a Puerto Rican terrorist group. I also strongly support 
S.J. Res. 33, which expresses the Senate's opposition to this misguided 
decision.
  There is no question that the President has the Constitutional power 
to do what he did. The President receives thousands of requests per 
year for a pardon or clemency, and the Department of Justice has a 
standard procedure under which the Pardon Attorney reviews these 
requests each year. However, all indications are that the procedures 
were not followed in these cases, and that these cases were anything 
but routine.
  News reports indicate that the Justice Department did not make a 
recommendation for or against clemency in these cases like it normally 
does. There is no excuse for the Department to stand neutral on very 
significant requests such as these. Also, the terrorists apparently did 
not personally take the proper steps to seek the relief, given that one 
of the conditions for clemency was that the prisoners had to sign 
statements requesting it.
  Although the White House says the members were not convicted of 
committing murder or physical injury, it is clear that these criminals 
were actively involved in the militant group. Making bombs and 
transporting firearms designed to carry out the reign of terror, or 
committing armed robbery to finance the deeds, is not fundamentally 
different from personally harming innocent victims. They were 
conspirators in the FALN, a terrorist group, and they received stiff 
prison terms for good reasons.
  News reports indicate that the law enforcement organizations that 
reviewed the issue, including the FBI and Federal Bureau of Prisons, 
recommended against it. Also, law enforcement organizations have 
expressed strong opposition.
  The opposition is based on good reasons. America has long had a firm 
policy of intolerance regarding terrorism. Granting clemency to members 
of the FALN sends the wrong message about America's commitment to 
fighting terrorism. In fact, it sends the wrong message about America's 
commitment to fighting crime at home.
  It is telling that the FALN terrorists did not immediately agree to 
the simple conditions that the President placed on his generous offer. 
It took them weeks to agree to renounce the use of violence and submit 
to standard conditions of parole. Indeed, some never did. Moreover, it 
does not appear that they have even expressed regret or remorse for 
their crimes. This is clear from one of the members' appearance on a 
Sunday news program, where he refused to express sorrow or regret for 
his crimes.
  An obvious question we must ask is whether the President will 
continue to grant clemency in a way contrary to American interests. I 
sincerely hope the President will not pardon or commute the sentence of 
convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard. I sent the President a letter 
last week asking him to clearly affirm that he will not do this.
  I hope the Senate today will invoke cloture on the resolution and 
express our profound opposition and concern regarding this matter.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Hispanic whose actions and fate I 
would like the Senate to focus on for action is Richard Paez. Richard 
Paez has never been convicted of a crime and is not associated with the 
FALN. He is not a petitioner seeking presidency clemency. Rather, he is 
a judicial nominee who has been awaiting consideration and confirmation 
by the Senate since January 1996--for over 3\1/2\ years.
  The vacancy for which Judge Paez was nominated became a judicial 
emergency during the time his nomination has been pending without 
action by the Senate. His nomination was first received by the Senate 
almost 44 months ago. This nomination has now been held even longer 
than the unconscionable 41 months this Senate forced Judge William 
Fletcher to wait before confirming his nomination last October.
  Judge Paez has twice been reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary 
Committee to the Senate for final action. He is again on the Senate 
calendar. He was delayed 25 months before finally being accorded a 
confirmation hearing in February 1998. After being reported by the 
Judiciary Committee in March 1998, his nomination was held on the 
Senate Executive Calendar without action for over 7 months, for the 
remainder of the last Congress.
  Judge Paez was renominated by the President again this year and his 
nomination was stalled without action before the Judiciary Committee 
until late July, when we were able to have his nomination reported 
again. The Senate refused to consider the nomination before the August 
recess. I have repeatedly urged the Republican leadership to call this 
nomination up for consideration and a vote. If they can make time on 
the Senate floor for debate and consideration of a Senate resolution 
commenting on the clemency grant, which is a power the Constitution 
invested in the President without a congressional role, the Senate 
should find time to consider the nomination of this fine Hispanic 
judge.
  Judge Paez has the strong support of both California Senators and a 
``well-qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association. He has 
served as a municipal judge for 13 years and as a federal judge for 
four years.
  In my view Judge Paez should be commended for the years he worked to 
provide legal services and access to our justice system for those 
without the financial resources otherwise to retain counsel. His work 
with the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, the Western Center on Law 
and Poverty and California Rural Legal Assistance for nine years should 
be a source of praise and pride.
  Judge Paez has had the strong support of California judges familiar 
with his work, such as Justice H. Walter Crosky, and support from an 
impressive array of law enforcement officials, including Gil Garcetti, 
the Los Angeles District Attorney; the late Sherman Block, then Los 
Angeles County Sheriff; the Los Angeles County Police Chiefs' 
Association; and the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs.
  The Hispanic National Bar Association, the Mexican American Legal 
Defense and Educational Fund, the League of United Latin American 
Citizens, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed 
Officials, and many, many others have been seeking a vote on this 
nomination for what now amounts to years.
  I want to commend the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his 
steadfast support of this nominee and Senator Boxer and Senator 
Feinstein of California for their efforts on his behalf.
  Last year the words of the Chief Justice of the United States were 
ringing in our ears with respect to the delays in Senate consideration 
of judicial nomination. He had written: ``Some current nominees have 
been waiting a considerable time for a Senate Judiciary Committee vote 
or a final floor vote. . . . The Senate is surely under no obligation 
to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for 
inquiry it should vote him up or vote him down.'' Those words resonate 
with respect to the nomination of Judge Paez.
  I trust the American people recognize who is playing politics with 
the issue of clemency. I disagreed with the President's decision, but 
it was his to make. He says that he granted clemency with conditions 
after study and based on a sense of proportion and justice. The calls 
for clemency in these cases came from Bishop Tutu, Coretta Scott King, 
other Nobel peace prize winners, a number of churches and religious 
groups. It has drawn praise in some circles and criticism in others.

[[Page 21243]]

  I do not agree with the President, but I caution that the 
overreaching by Republican critics in the Congress on this is 
worrisome, as well. To contend that this shows a weakness of resolve 
against international terrorism is both wrong and may itself be 
creating a dangerous atmosphere.
  We ought to be careful when anyone, let alone the Senate and Congress 
of the United States, start bandying about declarations that accuse the 
United States Government of making ``deplorable concessions to 
terrorists,'' ``undermining national security'' or ``emboldening 
domestic and international terrorists.''
  Playing politics with this matter and accusing the President of 
``undermining our national security'' or ``emboldening terrorists'' 
carries significant risks. Could a potential terrorist somewhere in the 
world believe this political rhetoric and be ``emboldened'' by it? This 
is risky business. I do not believe the short-term political gain to 
the other party is worth having the Senate endorse a resolution that 
might itself have precisely that effect.
  The Senate cannot find time to vote on the nomination of Judge 
Richard Paez or that of Bill Lann Lee to head the Civil Rights Division 
of that of Justice Ronnie White to be a federal judge in Missouri or 
any of the scores of other nominees pending before it. The Senate has 
not completed work on 11 of the 13 appropriations bills that must be 
passed before October 1. The Republican Congress cannot find time to 
consider campaign finance reform or pass a real patients' bill of 
rights or consider raising the minimum wage or reforming Medicare or 
complete the juvenile crime bill conference, but there is plenty of 
time for floor debate and on the President's decision to exercise his 
clemency power. The Senate has had three hearings on judicial 
nominations all year and the Republican Congress will have that many 
hearings on the clemency decision this week.
  In closing, I ask: If the Senate has the time to debate and vote on 
this resolution, why does it not have time to vote on the nomination of 
Judge Richard Paez to the Ninth Circuit?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to address Senate Joint 
Resolution 33, regarding the President's granting of conditional 
clemency to certain Puerto Rican prisoners.
  Before addressing the merits of this resolution, I must note that I 
am troubled by the procedure which has been employed for its 
consideration. Almost two weeks ago, Senator Coverdell announced that 
he would hold a hearing on President Clinton's decision in the 
Terrorism Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, this 
coming Wednesday, September 15. Last Wednesday, the Judiciary Committee 
also gave notice of a hearing on this subject for September 15. 
However, notwithstanding these planned hearings, the Republican 
leadership filed this resolution condemning the clemency and scheduled 
a vote related to it for today.
  Holding a vote before the hearings is akin to having the verdict 
first, and then the trial.
  Nevertheless, since we must vote, I will address the merits of the 
President's decision, based upon the information which is available to 
me before the hearings.
  At the outset, let me say that serious, thoughtful people urged the 
President to offer this clemency. These people include former President 
Carter; eleven Nobel Peace Prize winners, including Archbishop Desmond 
Tutu and Coretta Scott King; and dozens of religious leaders and 
organizations. President Clinton's decision was not a frivolous one, 
nor did it appear from out of thin air.
  However, that having been said, I believe strongly that the decision 
the President made was the wrong one.
  In the post-Cold War era, terrorism presents perhaps the greatest 
threat to our national security. As Ranking Member of the Terrorism 
Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, I have done what I can to 
assist law enforcement in combating terrorism.
  These prisoners were terrorists, and granting them leniency is 
exactly the wrong thing to do. We have tried in recent years to send a 
clear, unequivocal message to terrorists: if you plan or commit acts of 
terrorism against the United States, we will find you, hunt you down, 
and punish you severely. Until this point, President Clinton's 
administration carried this message forward forcefully, including, for 
example, apprehending and punishing the Oklahoma City bombers and 
taking retaliatory strikes against Osama bin laden. However, the 
President's decision last month undermines this message.
  Some have described these prisoners as political prisoners. They were 
not. They were terrorists. Let me describe for a minute some of what 
they did.
  These prisoners were members of the FALN, the Armed Forces for 
National Liberation, which seeks to make Puerto Rico and independent 
nation, through violent means. While some of them will not admit it, 
this was alleged and proven in the trials against them.
  According to the FBI, and I quote, ``In the past, Puerto Rican 
terrorist groups struggling for Puerto Rico's independence from the 
United States have been responsible for the majority of terrorist 
incidents perpetrated by domestic terrorist groups within the United 
States.'' The FBI's Terrorist Research and Analytical Center reported 
in 1996 that the ``FALN has been linked to over 130 bombings which have 
resulted in over $3.5 million in damages, 5 deaths, and 84 injuries.''
  The prisoners who received clemency were active participants in this 
campaign of terror. For instance, Alejandrina Torres, Edwin Cortes and 
Alberto Rodriguez were convicted of conspiring to, and I read now from 
the indictment against them, ``oppose by force the authority of the 
government of the United States by means of force, terror and violence, 
including the construction and planting of explosive and incendiary 
devices at banks, stores, office buildings and government buildings . . 
. It was a further part of the said conspiracy that the conspirators 
would claim credit in the name of the FALN for certain . . . bombings 
through either telephone calls or typed communiques.'' This is classic 
terrorist activity.
  As part of this plot, Torres and Cortes stockpiled dynamite, weapons, 
blasting caps and bulletproof vests. Together with Rodriguez, they 
planned to bomb U.S. military facilities in the Chicago, cased the 
facilities, and reviewed a communique to be published in conjunction 
with the planned bombings. They built bombs containing 21 pounds of 
dynamite. They also planned to use explosives to free FALN leader Oscar 
Lopez (who also was offered clemency by the President) from prison, to 
rob a Chicago Transit Authority facility to fund FALN operations, and 
to harbor another FALN leader who had escaped from prison.
  Four others who were offered clemency were convicted in connection 
with the armed robbery of seven million dollars from a Wells Fargo 
depot, to fund a similar Puerto Rican revolutionary independence group, 
Los Macheteros. This is an organization that ambushed a Navy bus and 
killed two U.S. servicemen and launched a rocket attack at the federal 
courthouse in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico.
  Madam President, building bombs and committing armed robberies on 
U.S. soil are not political acts. They are crimes, plain and simple, 
and these people were appropriately locked up for their offenses. It 
should make no difference that the prisoners had political motivations 
which some may share. Virtually all terrorists are politically 
motivated, and many justify their acts in the cause of ``national 
liberation.'' But terrorism is a cowardly and evil means to achieve 
such ends, which can never be justified, and which must be punished 
harshly.
  It has been reported that the clemency petition was opposed by the 
FBI and the Bureau of Prisons. The Fraternal Order of Police has 
vehemently condemned this offer, calling it a ``horrendously bad 
idea.''
  Clemency proponents have asserted that these prisoners harmed no one. 
A former Assistant U.S. Attorney who prosecuted some of these FALN 
members counters this assertion, noting: ``A

[[Page 21244]]

few dedicated federal agents are the only people who stood in their 
way. The conspirators made every effort to murder and to maim. It is no 
small irony that they should be freed under the guise of 
humanitarianism.''
  History has shown us that making concessions to terrorists spurs 
increased terrorism. The President made the wrong decision. I hope and 
pray that his decision will not have this effect, but I fear it will.
  Despite the flawed procedure, I will vote to proceed to Senate Joint 
Resolution 33, and I will subsequently vote for its passage. Terrorism 
does not deserve leniency.
 Mr. HATCH. Madam President, the President's ill-considered 
offer of clemency has now been accepted by 12 of the 16 FALN members, 
many of whom are now back on the street.
  These are people who have been convicted of very serious offenses 
involving sedition, firearms, explosives, and threats of violence. The 
FALN has claimed responsibility for past bombings that have killed and 
maimed American citizens. I pray that no one else gets hurt.
  This is yet another example of this Administration sending the wrong 
message to criminals--be they foreign spies, gun offenders, or--in this 
case--terrorists.
  In this case, it appears President Clinton put the interests of these 
convicted criminals ahead of the interests of victims, the law 
enforcement community, and the public.
  I think we need to know: Did Attorney General Janet Reno do her job?
  Media reports suggest that--notwithstanding the strong opposition of 
prosecutors, the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, and the victims of crime, 
the Department of Justice and the Attorney General apparently did not 
take a formal position on the matter even though the Department's own 
rules require doing so.
  Here we have another example of what people suspect: The Attorney 
General is asleep at the switch while the White House runs the Justice 
Department.
  As Chairman of the Senate Committee with oversight of the Department 
of Justice, I have requested copies of all relevant documents, 
including the Department's memo to the White House. Even our colleague 
Senator Schumer believes we should have these documents. But, so far, 
the Department has refused to turn over anything.
  The Department and the Attorney General are hiding behind their 
tired, old ploy of studying whether to assert executive privilege. If 
the President has confidence that his decision was a just one, then he 
ought to be willing to hold it up to public scrutiny.
  I will hold a hearing on the matter next Wednesday, September 15, at 
which time we will hear from the law enforcement community and those 
negatively affected by this grant of clemency.
  I believe, Madam President, that our entire nation is victimized by 
terrorism. A bomb at the World Trade Center, the Oklahoma City Federal 
Building, or a U.S. embassy abroad has an effect on all of us.
  This clemency deal is an insult to every American citizen. This 
clemency deal is not humanitarian; it is not just.
  Exactly what is this? A weak moment? Political favoritism? Another 
foreign policy miscalculation?
  I'll tell you what it is--it is wrong.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 5 p.m. 
having arrived, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to S.J. Res. 33, a joint resolution deploring the 
     actions of President Clinton regarding granting clemency to 
     FALN terrorists:

         Trent Lott, Conrad R. Burns, Ted Stevens, Peter 
           Fitzgerald, Jim Bunning, Larry E. Craig, Michael D. 
           Crapo, Chuck Hagel, Fred Thompson, Bill Frist, Michael 
           B. Enzi, Judd Gregg, Craig Thomas, Jesse Helms, Pat 
           Roberts, and Paul Coverdell.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 33, a joint resolution deploring the 
actions of President Clinton regarding the granting of clemency to FALN 
terrorists, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), 
the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), 
the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from North Carolina 
(Mr. Helms) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 93, nays 0, as follows:

                     [Rollcall Vote No. 270 Leg.] 

                               YEAS--93 

     Abraham 
     Akaka 
     Allard 
     Ashcroft 
     Baucus 
     Bayh 
     Biden 
     Bingaman 
     Bond 
     Boxer 
     Breaux 
     Brownback 
     Bryan 
     Bunning 
     Burns 
     Byrd 
     Campbell 
     Chafee 
     Cleland 
     Cochran 
     Collins 
     Conrad 
     Coverdell 
     Craig 
     Crapo 
     Daschle 
     DeWine 
     Dodd 
     Domenici 
     Dorgan 
     Durbin 
     Edwards 
     Feingold 
     Feinstein 
     Fitzgerald 
     Frist 
     Gorton 
     Gramm 
     Grams 
     Grassley 
     Gregg 
     Hagel 
     Harkin 
     Hollings 
     Hutchinson 
     Hutchison 
     Inhofe 
     Inouye 
     Jeffords 
     Johnson 
     Kennedy 
     Kerrey 
     Kerry 
     Kohl 
     Kyl 
     Landrieu 
     Lautenberg 
     Leahy 
     Levin 
     Lieberman 
     Lincoln 
     Lott 
     Lugar 
     Mack 
     McCain 
     McConnell 
     Mikulski 
     Moynihan 
     Murkowski 
     Murray 
     Nickles 
     Reed 
     Reid 
     Robb 
     Roberts 
     Rockefeller 
     Roth 
     Santorum 
     Sarbanes 
     Schumer 
     Shelby 
     Smith (NH) 
     Snowe 
     Specter 
     Stevens 
     Thomas 
     Thompson 
     Thurmond 
     Torricelli 
     Voinovich 
     Warner 
     Wellstone 
     Wyden 

                             NOT VOTING--7 

     Bennett 
     Enzi 
     Graham 
     Hatch 
     Helms 
     Sessions 
     Smith (OR)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). On this vote, the yeas are 93, the 
nays are 0. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.

                          ____________________