[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21340-21343]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report S.J. Res. 33.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 33), as modified, deploring 
     the actions of President Clinton regarding granting clemency 
     to FALN terrorists.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the joint resolution.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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. COVERDELL. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. It is my 
understanding that we are now on S.J. Res. 33.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. By unanimous consent, there are 2 hours 
of debate on S.J. Res. 33 equally divided between the two leaders or 
their designees.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I want to read the resolution to open 
this discussion. It is a joint resolution deploring the actions of 
President Clinton regarding granting clemency to FALN terrorists:

       Whereas the Armed Forces of National Liberation (the FALN) 
     is a militant terrorist organization that claims 
     responsibility for the bombings of approximately 130 
     civilian, political, and military sites throughout the United 
     States;
       Whereas its reign of terror resulted in 6 deaths and the 
     permanent maiming of dozens of others, including law 
     enforcement officials;
       Whereas 16 members of the FALN were tried for numerous 
     felonies against the United States, including seditious 
     conspiracy;
       Whereas at their trials, none of the 16 defendants 
     contested any of the evidence presented by the United States;
       Whereas at their trials none expressed remorse for their 
     actions;

  I am going to repeat that clause, Mr. President:

       Whereas at their trials none expressed remorse for their 
     actions;

       Whereas all were subsequently convicted and sentenced to 
     prison for terms up to 90 years;
       Whereas not a single act of terrorism has been attributed 
     to the FALN since the imprisonment of the 16 terrorists;
       Whereas no petitions for clemency were made by these 
     terrorists, but other persons sought such clemency for them;
       Whereas on August 11, 1999, President William Jefferson 
     Clinton offered conditional

[[Page 21341]]

     clemency to these 16 terrorists, all of whom have served less 
     than 20 years in prison;
       Whereas the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal 
     Bureau of Prisons, and 2 United States Attorneys all 
     reportedly advised the President not to grant leniency to the 
     16 terrorists;
       Whereas the State Department in 1998 reiterated two long-
     standing tenets of counter terrorism policy that the United 
     States will: ``(1) make no concessions to terrorists and 
     strike no deals''; and ``(2) bring terrorists to justice for 
     their crimes'';
       Whereas the President's offer of clemency to the FALN 
     terrorists violates longstanding tenets of United States 
     counterterrorism policy; and
       Whereas the release of terrorists is an affront to the rule 
     of law, the victims and their families, and every American 
     who believes that violent acts must be punished to the 
     fullest extent of the law: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled,  That making 
     concessions to terrorists is deplorable and that President 
     Clinton should not have granted clemency to the FALN 
     terrorists.

  I commend the House of Representatives. It has already passed House 
Congressional Resolution 180: 311 voting aye, 41 voting no, and, in an 
unprecedented act, 72 voting ``present.''
  I conducted a hearing this morning, the witnesses of which were 
former New York Detective Senft, former New York Detective Pastorella, 
the president of the Fraternal Order of Police, Mr. Gallegos, and a son 
of one of the victims of the New York bombing at a restaurant, Fraunces 
Tavern, in New York, Mr. Connor.
  It was a very moving hearing. The two detectives, one of whom, in the 
bombing in New York by this organization, has lost permanent sight in 
one eye, some 60 percent of his hearing, and has gone through, I guess, 
some 16 reconstructive operations. The other detective is permanently 
blind and has lost the majority of his right hand. They made rather 
poignant statements. They said that there would be no pardon for what 
they had suffered; there would be no clemency; that theirs were life 
sentences. Both nearly lost their lives. One still has metal particles 
in his stomach and shoulders from the bombing.
  Mr. Connor, very movingly, talked about the notice that he and his 
mother received on his 9th birthday that their father, an innocent 33-
year-old, who had taken a client to lunch, had died in the bombing.
  It was sort of interesting; Detective Senft, 2 years ago, began 
writing the President about this matter, to which there has been no 
response. Several of the witnesses talked about having written the 
Attorney General and the White House, with no response. To me, it is 
hard to imagine that such a letter would come to the White House or to 
the Attorney General and not be responded to.
  Lieutenant Senft over 2 years ago wrote and has yet to receive a 
response. Mr. Connor cited current law which requires that victims are 
to be notified of the release of prisoners in cases in which they were 
involved.
  None--neither of the detectives nor the Connor family--have been 
notified at all.
  One of the concerns that came out of the hearing was to embrace these 
questions so our committee, and the Judiciary Committee, can make 
appropriate inquiries as to what was done to advise these individuals. 
In the hearing they pointed out that the clemency advocates have had 
numerous meetings with the Attorney General's Office and others in the 
Government, but those who would oppose it have had none, and requests 
to have these meetings have gone without response.
  The representative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who was to 
have testified on behalf of the Government to try to explain how this 
policy would not be incongruous with Federal policy with regard to the 
handling of terrorists, at 9:30 last night, notified the committee they 
would not testify, that they had been instructed not to testify by the 
White House.
  So the inquiries over the last 2 weeks to give the administration an 
opportunity to air their view of this circumstance and how it 
interacted with U.S. policy with regard to terrorism went unheeded, and 
neither the State Department nor the Justice Department nor the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation would even make a witness available on behalf 
of the committee to air the Government's view with regard to this act 
on the part of the President.
  No one is challenging the President's right and power to grant the 
clemency. To the extent they say, well, it is a constitutional power, 
et cetera, that is a smokescreen. What we are trying to understand is 
what its effect is on U.S. policy with regard to terrorism.
  Interestingly--to comment just a moment or two more on the hearing--I 
posed the question to the witnesses that the President has endeavored, 
in his clemency finding, to draw a distinction for these 16 terrorists, 
indicating they themselves did not actually throw or place the bomb.
  These were conspirators. These were planners. Senator Sessions so 
eloquently stated the other day that one of the reasons they did not 
get to do that is they were caught with all these weapons in their van. 
In other words, if you are an unsuccessful terrorist, you have a higher 
standing under U.S. law than if you are a successful terrorist.
  But when the question was posed to the panel, Mr. Gallegos, who is 
president of the Fraternal Order of Police, said: Wait a minute. What 
kind of question are we introducing to the adjudication of criminal 
activity? He said: For example, if you are the get-away driver in a 
bank robbery--you did not actually rob the bank--under U.S. law you are 
as guilty and subject to as much of a punishment as the man who walked 
into the bank.
  I mentioned the other day on the floor, under this theory of 
separation of degree, why is Bin Laden a No. 1 fugitive for the United 
States? He didn't drop the bombs in Kenya and Tanzania. He was a 
conspirator, as these people were. I asked the question--and I will 
turn to my colleague--what this did to the morale, and New York 
Detective Senft said it undermines every active-duty law enforcement 
officer. He said, as damaged as he is permanently in life, he took 
solace that the perpetrators who attacked him were in prison. It has 
been a devastating fact for him to know that clemency can be granted 
for that kind of activity. All of the law enforcement officials said 
these decisions were particularly devastating to men and women on 
America's front line protecting citizens day in and day out from these 
kinds of hostilities and violence.
  With that, I yield up to 15 minutes of our time to the Senator from 
Texas, Mr. Gramm.
  Mr. DURBIN. May I inquire of the Senator from Georgia?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. May we have some understanding of how the time will be 
allocated? It is my understanding that, generally speaking, we have an 
equal amount of time on a side, and 1 hour is allocated to this debate. 
Senator Conrad is here on the Democratic side; he would like to speak 
for 10 minutes. I see the Senator from Georgia has at least two 
colleagues interested in speaking. Could we reach some kind of 
agreement as to how we will proceed?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, in response to the Senator from 
Illinois, that is a perfectly legitimate question. My idea is to go to 
the Senator from Texas, back to your side, and then back to our side. 
After the Senator from Texas has 15 minutes, of course, which will be 
counted against our side, it will be about 10 minutes and 10 minutes 
back and forth.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time of the Republican side has 
been used to this point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Another 15 minutes from your side will mean you have 
consumed 30 minutes of your 1 hour of debate before we have spoken. So 
can we agree that after 15 minutes we would have the remaining time 
until 12:30?
  Mr. COVERDELL. With one exception. Senator Kyl has come to the floor 
and asks that we give him some opportunity in that timeframe. I ask the 
Senator from Texas if he might limit his remarks to 10 minutes so we 
can accommodate Senator Kyl.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have the obligation of chairing a 
nominations hearing in the Judiciary Committee at

[[Page 21342]]

2 o'clock, which I am sure my colleagues on the other side would like 
to move forward on, since all of the nominees appear quite qualified 
and presumably could move forward.
  I ask unanimous consent that I may take 30 seconds to express my 
support for what the chairman is doing and then put a statement in the 
Record. That would be satisfactory from my standpoint.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have had the pleasure of attending the 
subcommittee meeting this morning, and I heard witnesses who are 
victims of the terrorists who were given clemency. It was a 
heartbreaking experience, frankly, because at the conclusion of it one 
understands that we haven't closed a chapter by doing this. In fact, 
the President has probably opened a new chapter. I believe there will 
be additional terrorism as a result of the clemency that he ordered. I 
hope that will be addressed by this Senate, working together with the 
administration, so we can continue a policy which has been effective 
heretofore, and that is making certain that terrorists are hunted down, 
prosecuted, and incarcerated so they can't commit terrorist acts again.
  To the extent the President's actions in this case were different 
from that past policy, they should be condemned, and we as a Senate 
should make sure it doesn't continue in the future. So I commend the 
chairman of the subcommittee for holding his hearing. I indicate again 
that the Judiciary Committee will have its hearing tomorrow and will 
have more to say about this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous agreement, Senator Gramm is 
recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wasn't aware that there was an 
agreement. Can we restate it so there is a clear understanding? The 
Senator from Texas will speak up to 15 minutes; is that correct?
  Mr. GRAMM. I have been recognized for 15 minutes, as I understand it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Then the Senator's side will have the 
remaining time.
  Mr. DURBIN. We will try to maintain the floor until 12:30, which I 
understand we have agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me remind everyone how we came to this 
point under the leadership of Senator Coverdell. A resolution was 
introduced condemning the President's decision to grant clemency to 16 
terrorists who were part of a wave of violence and death across the 
country that started in the mid-1970s and ended when these terrorists 
were incarcerated. We sought to bring that resolution to a vote on the 
floor of the Senate. Our Democrat colleagues, using their rights under 
the rules of the Senate, objected. We were forced to file cloture to 
force the consideration of this resolution, and that cloture motion 
carried. Now we are in the process of debating a resolution where 
Congress, in this instance, takes the strongest action it can under the 
Constitution, and that is condemn the President's actions.
  The President is given, under the Constitution, the power of pardon. 
There is nothing we can do that would override that constitutional 
prerogative. But while the President has the right to pardon, I believe 
the President is profoundly wrong in pardoning these terrorists.
  Now, I wish I had the ability of our President to articulate so 
clearly and to put a human face on so many of the public policy issues 
he discusses because there is a very real human issue involved here. It 
started with a bombing of historic Fraunces Tavern in Manhattan.
  This is the front page of the New York Times from Saturday, January 
25, 1975. In this article, in excruciatingly painful and bloody detail, 
it outlines how a bomb was set the day before, how it decimated this 
restaurant, injured 44 people, killed 4 people, decapitated 1 person. 
These were innocent people who just had the bad luck to go to lunch at 
this place, at that time on Friday, January 24, 1975.
  Some of my colleagues may have read a recent article in the Wall 
Street Journal, written by two sons of a man who had the bad luck of 
going to lunch that day in that tavern. Basically, they put a human 
face on that one brutal murder. The picture they drew was that of a 
young man who grew up in a very poor family. Actually, he grew up in a 
Puerto Rican neighborhood in New York and worked his way up to be 
successful. Today, both of his sons are investment bankers. So in that 
sense, he was successful. But he died--and he was 33 years old--because 
a group of brutal murderers, calling themselves a ``liberation army,'' 
planted a bomb that day in New York that took this man's life, took him 
away from his family. The FALN--this terrorist group--claimed 
responsibility and, in fact, left a note near the bomb scene outlining 
their grievances.
  They said they had grievances. So they injured 44 people and brutally 
murdered four people.
  That started a reign of terror--the greatest terrorist assault in the 
history of the United States of America in our homeland among our 
people, innocent people. This reign of terror continued until these 
terrorists, now pardoned by the President, were arrested and 
incarcerated.
  Our President says, and I quote, talking about these terrorists:

       They had served very long sentences for offenses that did 
     not involve bodily harm to other people.

  It is true that while they are the core, or were the core, of this 
terrorist organization, while they were its leadership, and while they 
were arrested and convicted for engaging in terrorist activities--they 
were convicted of things such as unlawful storage of explosive 
materials--it is also true that the terrorist attacks ended when they 
went to jail.
  So you can say they weren't convicted of these specific, brutal 
tavern murders in New York. They weren't convicted of the bombing on 
New Year's Eve in 1982 when a New York City police headquarters and 
other sites were bombed, and in the process you had victims who were 
blinded in both eyes, who lost five fingers on their right hand, who 
lost hearing, who required 13 major surgical operations on their face 
alone, and had 20 titanium screws put in place to hold their face 
together. They weren't convicted of those particular crimes, but they 
were leadership, the core, of the organization that claimed credit. 
Those crimes ended when they went to prison.
  They were part of the leadership of that organization. They were 
accessories whether they were there and planted the bomb or not; we do 
not know, we may never know, but they were accessories before and after 
the fact as part of FALN. Yet the President says they were nonviolent.
  If you are going to put a human face on it, you would have to go back 
and talk to these police officers who have been blinded, and who have 
had their faces destroyed. You would have to talk to the children and 
grandchildren of these people who were murdered in the tavern in New 
York.
  I call that violence. I call that a fundamental assault on the 
American people. This is not a violence where someone is selected for 
retribution, wrong as it may be, for an act they committed. This is 
violence against people who had nothing to do with this desire to see 
Puerto Rico an independent nation. These were people living their 
lives, routinely going about their business, who certainly didn't know 
about this group, or if they knew, they weren't in any way involved.
  So to say that these people were nonviolent, who were the core of 
this terrorist organization that planted 130 bombs that killed and 
maimed across America, is an outrage.
  While I know our President has no shame, he ought to be ashamed of 
that statement.
  What are we doing? We are here because the President of the United 
States decided, based on pleas made by various individuals and groups 
around the country to grant a pardon--clemency--to these people who 
were leadership of a group that planted 130 bombs in America over a 7-
year period and that brutally killed and maimed our fellow citizens.

[[Page 21343]]

  I don't understand the President's action. The FBI was reported to be 
opposed to it. The Justice Department and the prosecutors who were 
involved were opposed to it. Maybe I should take the Justice Department 
out. I don't know. They probably have not heard about it yet. But the 
prosecutors who were involved were opposed to it. Law enforcement 
officials across the country were opposed to it. It was supported by 
some political leaders of the Puerto Rican community in New York.
  Quite frankly, I don't understand that. Many of these terrorists 
weren't even from Puerto Rico. They were born in the United States of 
America.
  Yet somehow, despite the fact that Americans were killed and maimed, 
these terrorists are given special status, seemingly because they could 
identify a cause, a cause, interestingly enough supported by only 2.5 
percent of the people who voted in the December 1998 plebiscite in 
Puerto Rico.
  We will never know why the President did this. If he did it to court 
political support for Mrs. Clinton running for the Senate in New York, 
it turned out to be a bad deal. It turned out to be something that 
probably was harmful and not helpful.
  But let me tell you why I am concerned, which goes beyond politics.
  What the President did was lower the cost for committing acts of 
terrorism in America. He lowered the cost for committing acts of 
terrorism in America by pardoning people who participated in a reign of 
terror that, as far as I am aware, is unparalleled in America's 
history.
  If we are going to pardon people who brutally murdered innocent 
citizens, who maimed and mutilated police officers, then what is the 
penalty for terrorism?
  The President says President Carter urged him to pardon them.
  It is very interesting to note when these acts of terrorism 
accelerated. In fact, the police headquarters in New York City was 
bombed 3 years after then-President Carter pardoned the Puerto Rican 
terrorists who came into this sacred temple of American democracy--the 
Capitol Building--when there was a quorum call on in the House of 
Representatives and stood in the House balcony and shot and wounded 
Members of the House of Representatives. In fact, there is still a 
bullet hole in the ceiling of the House of Representatives. There is 
still a bullet hole in the drawer of the Republican leader's desk from 
that day in 1954.
  President Carter decided in 1979, 4 years after the Fraunces Tavern 
bombing, to pardon the Puerto Rican terrorists--which is an inaccurate 
media description because many of these people were born on the 
mainland of America--who in this great temple of democracy assaulted 
civilization itself. He pardoned them and let them out of prison.
  Three years later, this terrorist group bombed New York City police 
headquarters, the Manhattan office of the FBI, and the Metropolitan 
Corrections Center in New York.
  Here is the point. Jimmy Carter, as President, lowered the cost of 
committing terrorist acts. Those terrorist acts accelerated after that 
pardon in 1979.
  Now the President has pardoned the members of the very group that 
claimed credit for those acts, and who were convicted, among other 
offenses, of storage of explosives and conspiracy to make bombs. So, 
obviously, they were planning more attacks and more bombing. They 
claimed credit for the bombings in New York--the bombing of the police 
headquarters, the killing of innocent citizens, the mutilation of 
police officers.
  Now the President has pardoned them. I would like to conclude with 
these points.
  The President and his spokesman on many occasions have said that 
fighting terrorism is the No. 1 objective of his administration, that 
the greatest threat we face in the world today is the threat of 
terrorists. Obviously, there is some other objective somewhere that is 
of a higher order because for some reason the President pardoned these 
terrorists.
  I think it was a terrible mistake. I believe the American people will 
hold President Clinton accountable for it. I want to know how the 
process occurred and whether the process outlined in law was followed. 
Whatever the process was, the decision was wrong. I believe we should 
condemn it in the strongest possible language.
  I hope we get strong bipartisan support. I hope we don't have in the 
Senate what we saw in the House when some Democrat Members of the House 
didn't vote yes and didn't vote no. The best they could do is to say 
they were there that day, and they voted ``present.'' I don't think 
this is an issue where Members want to vote ``present.''
  I want people to know I think it was an absolute outrage that the 
President did this. He ought to be ashamed of it. The American people 
ought to hold him accountable. The Congress, in the strongest action we 
can take in this matter, is deploring the President's action.
  I thank our colleague from Georgia for his leadership on this issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, on the subject that has been discussed by 
the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Georgia, I think the 
President did make a mistake. I don't think it was appropriate to 
extend clemency to these people. I hope this is an issue that we can 
address by resolution and make clear where the Senate stands. We are 
going to have an opportunity to do that.

                          ____________________