[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21352-21353]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Will the Chair advise the Senator the order of 
business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is S.J. Res. 33.
  Mr. COVERDELL. This is the resolution by Mr. Lott, myself, and Mr. 
Brownback, deploring the actions of the President of the United States 
regarding the granting of clemency to terrorists called FALN?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is supposed to be the order, yes.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thought it was interesting to make note of the 
business before the Senate at this moment. With that in mind, I yield 
up to 5 minutes of our time to the Senator from Kansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to talk about the business 
that is before the Senate because I think this is critically important. 
There were a number of allegations made in the last speech that I think 
deserve to be refuted, but what is presently before us, what has taken 
place, is something that needs to be addressed before the American 
public.
  I rise in support of the resolution condemning the President's 
actions in granting clemency to 16 terrorists. I want to be clear what 
I am talking about: 16 terrorists who were members of the Armed Forces 
of National Liberation, FALN. The President's condition for releasing 
these men was that they would be willing to say they would not use 
violence anymore. This is a standard that I think would easily be met 
by almost everyone in prison in America today. The condition is a sham. 
The FBI, the Justice Department, and the Bureau of Prisons all 
recommended strongly that these terrorists not be released. Yet the 
President went ahead and released these terrorists.
  The sad part about this is this administration claims to understand 
that terrorism is one of the greatest threats

[[Page 21353]]

facing America. And it is. We see that threat towards the United States 
being posed and acted upon in many places around the world. It is only 
because of our own abilities that we have been able to stop some of 
this. Yet some of it has still gotten through.
  This act of the administration of releasing these terrorists will 
have the effect of encouraging terrorism. They are repeatedly telling 
us they are bringing terrorists to justice and that is a high priority. 
How is this act of releasing terrorists compatible with fighting 
terrorism? By his actions, the President is sending a message that, in 
fact, he does not take terrorism seriously, that it is OK to kill and 
maim American people. After all, the President may pardon you even when 
there is no petition of clemency before him.
  This encourages terrorism. We should be very clear about that. At a 
time when terrorism is a great threat to our peace and prosperity, at a 
time when terrorism has touched everywhere in this Nation, at a time 
when Americans face terrorist threats all around the world, the last 
thing we should do is grant clemency to convicted terrorists. I believe 
Congress should be standing up to tell the President, as well as the 
Nation, that we strongly condemn pardoning terrorists who have killed 
and shown no remorse whatsoever. Whatever the reason the President took 
this action, it is clear the pardon was not based on the merits, and by 
carrying through with this he severely damaged our leadership in the 
world fight against terrorism.
  The FALN carried out more violence than any other terrorist group in 
the United States. They pose a direct threat to the safety of American 
citizens on American soil everywhere. Yes, these convicted terrorists 
have spent some time in jail, but the acts these people committed were 
the most heinous and should not seem less so simply because of the 
passage of time. A fair court system found them guilty and punished 
them accordingly. Nothing they have done or said since then can justify 
their unsolicited release.
  Making concessions to terrorists is wrong and it is very harmful to 
us as a country and as a people. In so doing, the President has made a 
mockery of all the administration's tough talk about terrorism and the 
need to combat it worldwide. This is an action that should be roundly 
condemned.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has 6 minutes and 40 
seconds.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, ever since the introduction of this 
resolution which basically put the Senate on record, if passed, we were 
deploring the action of the President commuting the sentences of 16 
known terrorists, in this timeframe, the White House so far has refused 
to allow any of its representatives in the Department of Justice, the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, its own White House, or the Bureau of 
Prisons to testify before any congressional hearing. It was as late as 
9:30 p.m. last evening that the testifier from the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation called our office to decline to testify. In other words, 
there is a total blackout at the White House.
  The vote that occurred on the House side had 71 Members of the other 
side of the aisle voting ``I am here,'' refusing to make a statement. 
This debate in the Senate will have soon been 2 hours long. So far, on 
the other side there has been only one sentence discussed about this 
national issue of the President commuting the sentences and releasing 
16 known terrorists. One sentence in the entire debate has come from 
the other side. Mr. President, 71 of their Members in the House simply 
voted they were in Washington, and the White House has refused to make 
any comment and refused to allow any of the administration to testify.
  Mr. President, this book, ``Patterns of Global Terrorism, 1998,'' is 
published by the State Department of the United States. It was 
published in April of this year. On the first page it says:

       United States policy with regard to terrorism.

  And the first statement is:

       Make no concessions to terrorists and strike no deals.

  These 16 terrorists have been given the concession of being released 
from prison, and the entire process was one of dealmaking and 
negotiations among the White House and representatives of the 
terrorists and the terrorists.
  The question is the incongruity with the administration as well as 
our Government's policy with regard to terrorism.
  The second premise is:

       Bring terrorists to justice for their crimes.

  We are in the midst of sending 16 of them from prison out into the 
population, again with no real assurance--in fact, we have already seen 
some signs that they would not recant terrorist activities.
  The President, in a rather tortured effort to explain--that these 
folks were not the ones who actually dropped the bomb or fired the 
weapon has already been alluded to by Senator Hatch, chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee--what they are trying to do is set degrees. Under 
that theory, bin Laden, responsible for planting the bombs in Kenya and 
Tanzania, would somehow be in a more favorable position. To put it 
another way, if you are a successful terrorist, you are going to be in 
a lot more trouble than an unsuccessful terrorist because you were 
captured by the FBI before you set off the bomb.
  In this very booklet published by the administration, it gives a 
definition of terrorism: ``The term terrorism means premeditated''--we 
have concluded that--``politically motivated violence''--we have 
concluded that was the case--``perpetrated against noncombatants''--and 
I met the son who was 9 years old when his father was killed when he 
was simply having lunch in New York as a noncombatant--``by subnational 
groups or clandestine agents usually intended to influence an 
audience.''
  The point I am making is, all 16 whose sentences were commuted fit 
this definition to a T. They are terrorists. What does not match is the 
President's violation of the terms of how we deal with such people when 
it says ``make no concessions'' and he did, it says ``and strike no 
deals'' and he did. We can only hope and pray that law enforcement 
officers who were involved with this, families who were involved with 
this, are not now in harm's way, or the judge who sat in the 
adjudication of these cases and who was threatened to be assassinated 
by these people as he conducted the trial of the 16.
  What a massive incongruity we face. We will shortly vote on this 
resolution. I very much hope this will be as successful as in the House 
so that international terrorists, law enforcement officials who put 
their lives on the line every day, and the victims of these terrorists 
will understand that the people's branch, the legislative branch of the 
U.S. Government, thinks these are the rules of the road when you deal 
with terrorists, that you do not make concessions, that you do not make 
deals, and that they are apprehended and, if apprehended, they are 
subsequently harshly dealt with and imprisoned accordingly.
  The Presiding Officer is signaling me that my time is up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Time has expired.
  Mr. COVERDELL. That being the case, and no Senator from the other 
side is here to speak on their version of the issue, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator withhold his request?
  Mr. COVERDELL. I withdraw my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.




                          ____________________