[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 22284-22291]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          SOLVING PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROBLEM IS NO ROSE GARDEN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here for the last hour 
listening to the previous speakers and their comments about 
prescription drugs. I need to tell my colleagues, they brought up some 
very valid points.
  I think that the prescription drugs in this country are priced too 
high, and I think there are a lot of families in this country who 
suffer because they cannot afford those prescription drugs. But let me 
say to all of my colleagues who have also joined the previous speakers 
and listening to them in the last hour, do not let people promise you a 
rose garden.
  How can one possibly get the Federal Government involved in anything 
and then honestly look at the American people and say it is not going 
to have any cost. There is a tremendous cost every time the government 
gets involved.

[[Page 22285]]

  Now, what happens back here in Washington, D.C., as many of my 
colleagues know, programs often start on the promise that the cost will 
be a low cost. Take a look at almost any program my colleagues want to. 
The space program, it is a great program, but look at how the costs 
have just ballooned out of sight. Look at all the different social 
programs, the welfare programs.
  Look at Social Security. Social Security started out with good 
intent. It was going to cost this much, and pretty soon it was this 
much, and pretty soon this much, and pretty soon this much.
  So the only thing that I would add to the previous speakers' 
conversations is, let us look at the economics. We all agree there is a 
prescription problem out there. In fact, I would take issue with the 
one gentlemen I believe from Texas who made points that perhaps it was 
partisan warfare on this. I do not think so. I think, on both sides of 
the aisle, Members recognize there is a problem out there with the cost 
of affording prescription drugs. But I think on the Republican side of 
the aisle, there is a realization that somebody has got to pay for it.
  Nothing is free. We have heard that saying since we were little, tiny 
kids. One does not get something for nothing. That is what my mom 
always used to tell me. I always used to say, ``Mom, here is a great 
bargain; or, daddy, I can get this for free.'' My dad and mom would 
always say to me, ``You do not get something for nothing. Somewhere 
somebody has got to pay.''
  It is just like our social programs. Every time one gives a dollar to 
somebody who is not working one has got to take that dollar from 
somebody who is working. So as we go together as a team to take a look 
at what we can do for the people of this country in lowering those 
prescription costs, getting the FDA to approve these drugs instead of 
sitting on a bureaucracy, almost a bureaucratic strike before they 
approve these drugs, as we begin to approach these challenges, let us 
not forget what the consequential costs will be to the future. Are we 
creating a new Federal program that will very soon balloon out of 
sight?
  We have a history. The United States Congress has a long history of 
starting out program after program after program with good intent after 
good intent after good intent, and they never, ever, ever come anywhere 
close in their estimations of cost at the beginning of the program 
versus what the actual costs are once the program gets on its feet. 
Never anywhere close. I mean, it is just not close.
  So, again, this is not the intent of my speech tonight, but I want to 
say, because I thought their comments were well made, and I think some 
of the problems my colleagues spoke about in the last hour, they hit 
the nail right on the head; but let us not promise the American people 
a rose garden. Let us be realistic about this. Let us talk about the 
economics of it. Let us talk about who is going to pay the bill. We 
need to consider that.


                           Clemency For FALN

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to visit with my colleagues this 
evening about a couple of things. Many of the people in my district 
already know that I used to be a police officer. But for my colleagues 
that are not familiar with it, I used to be a police officer.
  I have got some experience in the field of law enforcement. I know 
that the best way to stop crime is to have consequences for one's 
crime. If one commits a wrong, one has to pay a price. There is a price 
to pay if one decides to take behavior that is not normal or behavior 
that creates bad things in our society. We all know we have to have a 
price. As a police officer, I saw that every day.
  Well, tonight I want to talk about a couple things that just smack 
right in the face of trying to bring civility and trying to cut down 
the crime rate in our society. We all know that for many, many, many 
years in this country, we have suffered unfairly at the hands of 
terrorism. It has happened right here in these House Chambers, right 
here where my colleagues are sitting.
  Take a look right up there. Look up there on the roof. Do my 
colleagues know what is up there on the roof of the U.S. House of 
Representatives Chambers? There is a bullet hole right up there. My 
colleagues can see it right here.
  I will show my colleagues something else. Look, I am not tearing up 
the desks in here, but I want to show my colleagues something. This is 
drawer. Do my colleagues know what is right there. It is a bullet hole. 
That is a bullet hole. A bullet shot in the House chambers.
  Theoretically, this should be one of the safest places in the 
country. This is the people's House. That is a bullet hole.
  Now, how did that bullet hole get there? Puerto Rican terrorists in 
March 1954. Puerto Rican terrorists. They were there, right there in 
the galleries, and they opened fire. They wounded at least five 
congressmen. They wounded a number of other people. But more than that, 
they broke that cloak of security that we thought we had in the 
people's House in Washington, D.C.
  We have to have consequences for those Puerto Rican terrorists that 
did that. We have to have consequences for the next generation that 
followed in that terrorism group.
  Well, what happened in the last couple of weeks? Our President, 
President of the United States, granted clemency for a number of Puerto 
Rican terrorists. What do I mean by clemency? It is kind of a fancy 
word. He let them go. He absolved them of their sins. It is kind of 
like going to confession except they did not really have to confess. 
All they had to say is, take me on my word. I am a person that should 
be trusted. I will not do it again. They were let free. There will be a 
price to pay for letting terrorists walk free.
  Tonight let us talk a little bit about that organization. What is 
that organization? We are going to call it the FALN, F-A-L-N. What does 
it stand for? It is the acronym for Armed Services of National 
Liberation. That is the only time I am going to say that tonight 
because I am going to use the initials.
  FALN. The easiest way we remember it as we go through our comments is 
that it is a Puerto Rican separatist group. Now, they really came to 
light here in 1954 here, as I said. I showed my colleagues the bullet 
hole right here. I showed them the bullet hole in the roof of the U.S. 
Capitol of the House Chambers.
  Well they struck again. They struck again January 24, 1975 by 
attacking another icon of American history: New York City. As a result 
of their terrorist act, the 1975 bombing of the tavern in New York City 
where General George Washington bid farewell to his troops in 1738, and 
left four dead as a result of this, they quickly became the most feared 
domestic terrorist group in the United States. The most feared group in 
the United States.
  This is the same group that, in the last week, the President of this 
country let them go. He gave them clemency. He said, ``Okay, you have 
been absolved. You are free to go.''
  I have got a lot of comments about that, a lot of comments from the 
law enforcement community. My colleagues know how politicians sometimes 
say, look, I like to listen. I listen before I make my decisions. So, 
logically, if I have something dealing, for example, with prescription 
drugs, we talk to seniors who are having problems with prescription 
drugs. We talk to the pharmaceutical companies who are having troubles 
getting approval by the FDA. We talk to the FDA. We talk to the 
different parties.
  How many law enforcement agencies were ever visited by the 
administration before they let these terrorists walk? Do my colleagues 
know what the answer is? Zero.
  I am going to give my colleagues some statistics here in just a few 
minutes, statistics I think will stun them as to how this decision was 
made and why this decision was made.
  Clearly, a decision of that kind of significance is not made without 
some reason, without some kind of purpose. There is something behind 
the decision of that kind of significance. We are going to explore that 
here in just a few minutes.

[[Page 22286]]

  But let us talk a little bit more about the FALN. By the way, I give 
credit to the USA Today. They did an excellent article. Last week, on 
Tuesday, September 21, if my colleagues have a copy of the USA Today, 
take a look at it. Excellent article on this very issue.
  In their heyday, the FALN members bombed public and commercial 
buildings, bombed public and commercial buildings. Do my colleagues 
know the fear that went through this country just a couple of years ago 
with McVeigh in Oklahoma City or the Unibomber?
  Gosh, I hope not 20 years from now that some other president steps up 
there and says, ``We ought to pardon this fellow that bombed Oklahoma 
City, or we ought to pardon the Unibomber out here. You know, 20 years 
is a long time to serve for a bombing.''
  There were people killed for these bombings. There was fear put in 
the hearts of everybody in this country, just like all of us now have 
fear about truck bombs. My colleagues know what it was like when a 
moving van drove up by one's house 1 or 2 weeks after Oklahoma City. It 
instilled fear in us. It is a fear that we should not have to live with 
in this country. The only way, the only way that we will move from that 
fear is to have consequences for the actions that drive that fear.

                              {time}  2200

  Let me go back. They robbed banks. This is the FALN, this is the 
organization of which the administration released, absolved, gave 
clemency to last week. This group, in their heyday, they bombed; they 
robbed banks; they held up armored cars and stole dynamite from a 
mining company in Colorado. That is my home State. They took weapons 
from the National Guard Armory in Wisconsin.
  Let me quote Wayman Mullins. He is the author of a source book. Here 
is his book. Mr. Mullins' book, a source book, the sources, he has done 
a lot of research, a source book on domestic and international 
terrorism. He says this organization, of which these, many of these 
members were released last week, they were dangerous, dedicated, and 
committed. Dangerous, dedicated and committed. As a former cop, let me 
say that that is a very lethal combination. A very lethal combination. 
The FALN was a group that got involved in a lot of things.
  I think we should have some examples. I am standing up here talking 
about bombings and armed car robberies and talking about other acts of 
terrorism in major cities, New York City, which put fear in the hearts 
of people throughout the country. Let me give my colleagues some 
specific examples so they will know exactly what these people who were 
released from prison last week because the President let them go, we 
all should have an idea of what they did, of what they were involved 
in.
  Among the FALN actions: October 26, 1974, five bombings. Five 
bombings in downtown New York City. More than $1 million in damage. 
That was in 1974.
  December 11, 1974, New York police were called to an upper East Side 
building to collect a dead body. The building was booby trapped. A 
police officer was injured and lost an eye.
  January 24, again the FALN, January 24, 1975, Fraunces Tavern bombed, 
four killed, 54 injured, more than $300,000 in damage.
  June 15, 1975, two bombs detonated in the Chicago Loop area.
  February 1977, Merchandise Mart in Chicago bombed, millions in 
damages.
  August 3, 1977, Mobile Oil employment office in New York bombed. One 
killed, several injured.
  November, 1979, two Chicago military recruiting offices and an armory 
bombed.
  March, 1980, FALN members seized at the Carter-Mondale campaign 
office in Chicago and the George Bush campaign office in Chicago 
destroying property and spray painting separatist slogans on all the 
walls.
  December 31, 1982, four bombs detonated in New York outside police 
and Federal buildings. Does this sound like a replay of Oklahoma City? 
Maybe Oklahoma City was modeled after some of what these people had 
done. Let me repeat that. Four bombs detonated in New York outside 
police and Federal buildings. And, remember, this is the same group 
that called in a report of a dead body and booby trapped the building 
so that these police officers, and we all know cops, we all have some 
in our families, some that are our friends, to walk in this building 
and hopefully be hurt. That is exactly what the intent was of the FALN.
  Now, they had a leader, their leader was Morales, William Morales. 
Morales escaped from a hospital in New York and fled to Mexico. Guess 
what he did in Mexico. Well, he killed a cop. Shot a police officer. 
Guess what Mr. Morales is now doing. Mr. Morales went to Cuba. What is 
he doing? He just heard the news. The news has gone to Cuba that the 
President of the United States has issued a pardon to the terrorists of 
the FALN. So what has Mr. Morales now done? He has applied for a 
pardon. He has now asked for clemency from the President of the United 
States.
  If anyone were to have asked me a few weeks ago what the chances were 
of any of these people being granted clemency, I would have said none, 
zero, zip. That is not going to happen. Now, I do not know. Maybe this 
guy in Cuba is going to get to walk away from killing the cop, from 
leading this organization. It is disturbing. It is really disturbing.
  Let us talk about a few of the people that have just walked. Edwin 
Cortes, born 1955, sentenced in October 1985, 14 years ago, 35 years 
for conspiracy, including the bombing of military training centers. 
Released by order of the administration.
  Elizam Escobar, born 1948, sentenced in February 1981, 18 years ago, 
to 60 years for firearms violations. Released by order of the 
administration.
  Ricardo Jimenez, born 1956, sentenced in February 1981 to 90 years, 
to 90 years. He served 19. Ordered released under the clemency by the 
President last week.
  Robert Maldonado-Rivera, born 1936, sentenced in June 1989 to 5 years 
for his role in the 1983 heist of $7.1 million. Released in 1994. But 
the clemency that he got forgave his $100,000 dollar fine.
  They not only let these people out of jail, but if they owed a fine, 
which they had not paid for the damage they had done, the millions in 
bombings and the money they had stolen from armored cars and so on, 
they do not even have to pay the money back any more. Take a regular 
citizen in our country who owes money to a bank in default. I wonder if 
they get to walk away from that? No, they do not get to walk away from 
it. But if an individual happens to be a terrorist with the FALN, then 
they can get this clemency.
  Let us go on, and I will pick a couple more here. Juan Segarra-
Palmer, born 1950, sentenced in October 1985, 14 years ago, 55 years in 
prison and a $500,000 fine for conspiracy, for bank robbery, for 
interstate transportation of stolen money in connection with the 1983 
armored car heist. He will serve 5 more years, and he gets out of the 
medium-security prison.
  Norman Ramirez-Talavera, born 1957, sentenced in June 1989 for 5 
years for a 1983 armored car heist. He was released in 1994, but the 
clemency just worked out forgave a $50,000 fine.
  Well, we will not go through all of them. Let me pick one or two 
others.
  Luis Rosa, born 1960, sentenced in February 1981 to 75 years for 
conspiracy and firearms violations.
  Carmen Valentin, born 1946, sentenced in February 1981 to 90 years 
for conspiracy and firearms violations.
  So I think we all get an idea of what we are dealing with. We have a 
good idea of what these people are. They are not our neighbor next 
door. They are not regular Joe or regular Jane down the street. These 
are bad people and they did bad things and they hurt a lot of people.
  I do not know if any of my colleagues have been watching TV in the 
last couple of weeks, but maybe they have seen the widow or some of the 
surviving family members of those people bombed in New York City. It 
reminded me of Oklahoma City. And I cannot for the life of me 
understand how a president can pardon those people. We

[[Page 22287]]

should make them pay the price. What kind of message are we sending out 
there? What kind of message do we send to our young people? What kind 
of message do we send to the rest of the world?
  Now, some of my colleagues may ask why I am bringing up all these 
points; that it seems so one-sided; that there must be some logical 
thinking behind this. The President must have had a profound reason why 
he would take such a dramatic step to release these hardened criminals 
well before they were supposed to be released. There must be some 
reasoning to it.
  Well, I think before we go to what I think the reasoning is, we ought 
to talk a little more about these convicts. One of the things that the 
President quickly said after he found out he had created a firestorm in 
this country, after he found out some people were going to say we want 
accountability, Mr. President. It is true that the President has the 
right to grant clemency. That is under the constitution. We are not 
contesting this right. But the President owes it to the American people 
to explain to the American people why he is letting these Puerto Rican 
terrorists go.
  Well, the answer came back, because they have held up their hand and 
promised that they will not commit any more violence; that they have 
renounced violence as a part of their life. It is amazing. I used to be 
a cop. It is amazing how many convicts and how many people we arrest 
that all of a sudden will find a new life; all of a sudden they would 
promise me, look, I am not going to do it any more. I have changed my 
ways. I have changed my life. Really, to determine whether that person 
is sincere or not we have to do some research. It is like anything 
else. What are the facts? What is the research? We have to look into 
the person's background.
  Well, it has happened on a couple of these people. They tape recorded 
these convicts' conversations in jail. And what was interesting was 
that these convicts knew, they knew their conversations were being 
taped, so this was not anything secret. They were not secretly 
disclosing their thoughts about violence. They knew they were being 
tape recorded and they could have cared less. They wanted people to 
know. And I will give an example.
  Jailhouse statements of some of the FALN members. In October 1995, 
for example, Luis Rosa, Alicia Rodriguez, and Carlos Torres told the 
Chicago Tribune they have nothing to be sorry for and they have no 
intention of ever renouncing an armed revolution.
  Another FALN member granted clemency, Ricardo Jimenez, told the judge 
in his case, ``We are going to fight. We are going to fight. 
Revolutionary justice will take care of you and everybody else.'' Now, 
does that sound like the average case that a president should let out 
of jail?
  Well, what does the FBI think about all of this? What are their 
thoughts? Well, first of all, guess what has happened? We in the United 
States Congress think, as I stated earlier, that the people deserve an 
explanation of why the President and the administration took this 
action. We do not doubt that the President has the authority, as I 
mentioned earlier, under the Constitution to do this, but he owes an 
explanation to the American people. But guess what. The White House all 
of a sudden grabs a paper and says executive privilege. It is executive 
privilege.
  Executive privilege used to be used by the presidents when we had a 
secret we were afraid our foreign enemies would find out about, like a 
military secret, or a secret military mission or something with the 
Central Intelligence Agency that the President, to protect those 
secrets, would say executive privilege. What secret is to be protected 
here of a national threat? None. But there may be some political intent 
that ought to be protected. But that is what the President has done. 
They have said executive privilege. They do not want there to be 
testimony to these Federal agencies. The President does not want them 
to go to the United States Congress, who are elected by the people of 
this country, and to testify about this.
  Well, the FBI was able to speak, a top FBI official, and I am quoting 
from the Associated Press of September 22, that is today, this is hot 
off the wire, this happened yesterday on the Hill, so let me read a 
couple of things, ``Federal Bureau of Investigation. A top FBI official 
told Congress he regards,'' he regards, and, remember, he is at the 
very top echelon of the FBI, ``he regards Puerto Rican militants, freed 
in a grant of clemency by President Clinton as terrorists who continue 
to represent a threat to the United States of America.''
  Here is the agency that we charge with law enforcement, the agency 
that we charge with the priority investigation of terrorist acts. And 
what do they say to the President? Well, what they say I wish they 
could have had the opportunity to say before he released them. I wish 
the President would have called them and asked them, but he did not. 
They say, one of the top officials says, they continue to represent a 
threat to the United States of America.
  The article goes on: ``Gallagher,'' that is the gentleman's name, 
FBI, ``Gallagher's testimony marked the first time that Federal law 
enforcement officials have testified on the issue. Also on hand were 
officials from the Justice Department and the Bureau of Prisons. They 
were barred.'' They were stopped. ``They were barred from answering 
questions about clemency because of the White House executive 
privilege.''
  Do I think they should be out on the street? I think these are 
criminals and that they are terrorists and that they represent a threat 
to the United States, says Gallagher, the top FBI officer. Let me 
repeat that.

                              {time}  2215

  ``Do I think they should be out on the street?''
  That is the question.
  ``I think these are criminals, and they are terrorists, and that they 
represent a threat to the United States.''
  How much clearer can that information be?
  As my colleagues know, we have to rely, and we have had some 
problems. We will talk about Waco and some other issues. We have had 
some problems with our law enforcement agencies, but we have got a lot 
of good cops out there, and we ought to rely on them, and it is not 
just the FBI that said do not do it, there are a lot of law enforcement 
agencies out there that said:
  Mr. President, do not do this. These people remain a threat to our 
society. They remain a direct threat to the United States of America. 
Listen to us.
  That is what happened. Signed the paper.
  Let me go further:
  The FBI was one of several law enforcement organizations opposed to 
the clemency. Asked about the continuing threat of the FALN and its 
sister group in Puerto Rico, Gallagher ticked off a handful of more 
recent bombings in Chicago and Puerto Rico believed to have been 
conducted by these very organizations.
  Clinton's offer of clemency has come under fire from some who have 
accused him of making it to boost First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's 
popularity amongst New York's 1.3 million Puerto Ricans. Mrs. Clinton 
is considering a bid for the Senate from New York in 2000.
  Oh, finally, finally we are beginning to look at maybe there is some 
kind of reason, some kind of profound thought behind such a ludicrous 
decision to let these terrorists back out on the street.
  You know what I think the average Puerto Rican in New York, and I am 
not Puerto Rican, I am not from New York, but you know what I think the 
average hard-working Puerto Rican in New York thinks about this? They 
probably agree.
  Now I may get some calls tonight from some angry people who do not 
agree with me. I expect that; that is part of my job. But I think there 
are a lot of American citizens out there, regardless of whether they 
are Puerto Rican, whether they are Irish or Scottish or African 
American or Hispanic, and there are a lot of ordinary Americans out 
there that do not think this is right. They think, if you are a 
criminal, if you are a terrorist, you ought to

[[Page 22288]]

be in jail, and once we get you in jail, you ought to stay in jail. At 
least serve out the sentences that our justice system gave to you. That 
is what I think the average American out there thinks regardless of 
their ethnic background.
  We are Americans. We all want a country with low crime. We do not 
want to have fear every time a truck pulls up that there is a bomb in 
the back of it. We want to be able to go into a Federal building, we 
like to go into the House of Representatives, without seeing a bullet 
hole in the roof, without seeing a bullet in the drawer. We all think a 
lot alike. Do not dare try and separate us based on ethnic background. 
Do not dare try and say because we are Hispanic American or Puerto 
Rican American or Irish American or African American, but for some 
reason just because of ethnic background we think these terrorists 
ought to walk. That drive by the administration is wrong; you are going 
down the wrong path.
  Let me talk a little more about why and quote the Wall Street 
Journal, Friday, August 13, same subject to understand.
  Remember earlier in the speech I talked about statistics? You know, 
do not just take Scott McInnis' word for it. Let us take a look at what 
the statistics say about how many, you know, about the clemency, how 
many times, for example, a logical question, how many times has the 
President during his tenure been asked to grant clemency for prisoners? 
And once we know how many times he has been asked, how many times of 
that, how many of those, did he actually grant?
  You know, we measure. A lot of times we measure a good Governor, you 
know, on how many pardons they give. I mean you measure people. We have 
to have a tool of measurement.
  Well, we have been kind of blessed in this case. We have got the 
tools of measurement. We have a darn good measurement out there.
  To understand how rare it is, this is the Wall Street Journal, how 
rare it is for a President to commute a sentence or offer remission of 
a fine as Mr. Clinton did for 16 Puerto Rican terrorists this week, 
consider the numbers supplied by the office of the pardoned attorney. 
From the time he took office in January 1993 until April 2 of this 
year, the most recent report from the pardon office, Mr. Clinton 
received the request for 3,042 petitions. He received 3,042 petitions 
for clemency. Until Wednesday out of that 3,042 he granted three, three 
of those out of 3,042 in the 7 years or so that he has been in office.
  Now the Wall Street Journal, and I quote again from the Wall Street 
Journal, September 8, 1999, and get a hold of this: This almost makes 
me my gut wrench. Listen to this:
  The Puerto Ricans had not even submitted a clemency request, did not 
even submit a request, and they got to be No. 4 out of 3,042.
  Now what fell out of the blue sky for this President all of a sudden 
to be interested in 16 Puerto Rican terrorists who had committed 
bombing crimes? I remember very well the language in the speech that 
the President made in Oklahoma City. It was a very compassionate 
speech. It was a good speech. He cared. Every American cared about the 
tragedy that occurred in Oklahoma City. And I remember the President 
talking to us in his State of the Union addresses about terrorism and 
the need to stop it: We must not tolerate terrorism coming from that 
President.
  What happened? What fell out of the sky?
  Well, I tell you what it points to. It points to a United States 
Senate race in the State of New York. He has a lot of interest in that 
race up there.
  I read to you earlier, Associated Press, Hillary Clinton 1.3 or 1.4 
Puerto Ricans in New York State.
  What is going on here? Are politics so driven in this country? Is the 
winning of elective office so demanding in this country and so 
important in this country that we are willing to put at risk American 
lives by releasing these 16 terrorists? Somebody ought to answer that 
question. And you know somebody has answered that question.
  I want to read you their answer.
  Before I read you this answer, let me read one other thing that I 
think is important for us to consider out of the Wall Street Journal, 
Friday, August 13:
  Mrs. Clinton of course hopes one day to take her place in the parade 
alongside New York's other pols which we would say explains in a 
nutshell why her husband has just granted clemency to these 16 Puerto 
Rican terrorists against the advice of the Justice Department, the FBI 
and the U.S. Attorneys Office that prosecuted the terrorists back in 
the early 1980's. All of these law enforcement agencies were consulted 
several years about the wisdom of releasing these 16 people. All 
advised against it.
  Well, let me wrap it up with a letter.
  I am going to read the letter verbatim. It is a couple pages long. I 
know that it requires some patience for you to listen to this. I mean I 
have been speaking for a while here. But it is important because I 
think it really addresses from the heart somebody who has experience in 
the atrocities that these terrorists have committed, somebody who 
understands that terrorism must have consequences, that the people that 
commit, that misbehave in our society, must be punished, and there must 
be punishment that means something. You cannot just slap them on the 
hand after they rob the bank and serve a few years and let them go, 
especially considering there were only 3,042 requests and only three 
got granted.
  Well, let us read that letter. Who is it from? It is from the New 
York City Police Commissioner, Howard Safir, and as I said, I am 
reading the letter verbatim.
  With last Friday's release of 11 of the 14 FALN terrorists President 
Clinton has committed an ill-advised and egregious error. He has broken 
the fundamental rule in addressing terrorism. He has broken the 
fundamental rule in addressing terrorism. Never negotiate deals with 
terrorists. Never negotiate deals with terrorists.
  Now obviously, Mr. Speaker, when I repeat a sentence, that is mine, 
it is not repeated in the letter.
  Mr. Clinton has sent the message that the lives of American citizens 
and of the heroic police officers who defend them are disposable. As 
the Police Commissioner of New York City, I represent 40,200 officers 
and take the responsibility for the safety of 7.4 million residents. I 
have become all too familiar with the violence that has been 
perpetrated by the members of the Puerto Rican separatist group known 
as the FALN and the manner in which my city and my officers have 
suffered at the their hands.
  During a 9-year reign of terror the FALN was responsible for at least 
150 bombings that killed six people and injured more than 70. The brunt 
of their viciousness, the brunt of their viciousness, was aimed at the 
people of New York City who endured more than 70 attacks and accounted 
for four of the deaths and 57 of the injuries. What others have termed 
a war of liberation, New Yorkers know that to be a war against the 
innocent. The targets of this organization included restaurants at 
lunch time, hotels, banks, and department stores.
  While the passage of time may have faded the memory of some, I cannot 
share that perspective. I have seen the devastating consequences of 
these destructive acts. I have spoken with several victims of the 
attacks and their families, people like Joseph Connor whose father, 
Frank T. Connor, was killed in the bombing in the Fraunces Tavern. I 
know too well the permanent scars that are carried, the permanent scars 
that are carried by Detectives Rocco Pascarella, Richard Pastorella, 
and Anthony Semft. During a wave of terror that saw the FALN detonate 
four separate explosive devices across the city in the course of a 
single hour, these men suffered horrific injuries. Defending New York 
City from these terrorists cost these heroes, cost these heroes their 
hands and legs and left them permanently blinded and painfully maimed. 
No one can commute the life sentences, no one can commute the life 
sentences that the FALN imposed upon its victims.
  Some argue that the felons to whom Mr. Clinton offered clemency are 
not personally responsible for their organization's violence. I cannot 
agree. The crimes for which these men and women

[[Page 22289]]

were convicted included robbery, the plotting of bombs and the 
possession of dangerous weapons. One of the petitioners possessed a 
loaded firearm and more than 10 pounds of dynamite.
  In a January, 1998 letter Ronnie L. Edelman, a deputy bureau chief 
from the Department of Justice, acknowledged that several of the 
petitioners offered clemency were arrested in 1980 for their 
involvement in 28 bombings, and in a recent letter to this newspaper 
former assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Devaney recounted her 
experiences with the petitioners. A former federal prosecutor in 
Chicago who spent years bringing criminal cases against the FALN 
terrorists, Ms. Devaney describes capturing several of the petitioners 
in a van loaded with weapons and videotaping several others making 
bombs that they planed to use at military installations. I must 
question the unusual progression of events that surround this clemency 
offer.

                              {time}  2230

  ``Mr. Clinton's offer to the FALN members represents only his fourth 
clemency grant out of more than 3,000 applications filed since 1993. It 
was extended before any of the 16 agreed to renounce violence. The 
President made his offer over the objections of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, the Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. attorneys in Illinois 
and Connecticut, the States where the 16 were convicted.
  ``In my 26 years as a Justice Department official, I never heard of a 
clemency report being delivered to the President over the strenuous 
objections of these agencies.''
  Let me repeat that. ``In my 26 years as a Justice Department 
official, I never heard of a clemency report being delivered to the 
President over the strenuous objections of these agencies. The White 
House has tried to defend the President's decision, in part, as a 
response to the urgings of church leaders. In particular, the White 
House has invoked the name of Cardinal John O'Connor as a staunch 
supporter for the petitioners' release. This is all the more perplexing 
given that in letters and through his top aides the cardinal has said 
he never backed clemency for these terrorists.
  ``Mr. Clinton erred grievously in failing to follow the 
recommendations of his own Federal agencies, the House of 
Representatives, the 17,500 members of the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police, the 295,000 members of the Fraternal Order of Police 
and countless others who voiced their outrage at this decision. The 
United States must make clear that it will never again make deals with 
terrorists.''
  That was a letter read verbatim from the New York City Police 
Commissioner Howard Safir.
  The question that needs to be answered, of which the White House has 
claimed executive privilege, is why these terrorists, why three out of 
3,042 petitions being granted and now we go to the fourth, and why New 
York State?
  Mr. President, if it does not have anything to do with that U.S. 
Senate race in New York State, you ought to waive your executive 
privilege, although I do not think it exists under these particular 
circumstances but regardless of that argument you ought to waive it and 
you ought to answer the American people. You ought to go to the 
American people. You do not hesitate one minute to have a press 
conference when you are touring foreign countries. Whenever you have 
something to say, you go right to the microphone. You are a good 
speaker. You are not afraid to address the American people. Certainly 
you have addressed them on a number of controversial issues. You ought 
to address them on this one. You ought to explain, because what we see 
on paper, what we saw walk out of that prison cell, what we now see on 
the streets of America, what we fear in the hearts of every American, 
is terrorism that exists today, and you have not answered it and you 
ought to answer it.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask for a time check.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). The gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. McInnis) has 15 minutes remaining.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their 
comments to the Chair and not to the President.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record a 
document I have dated September 21, 1999, from the Wall Street Journal.

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 21, 1999]

                            Revisiting Waco

       The siege at Waco in 1993 is the sort of complicated mess 
     that can end up on the doorstep of any White House. But the 
     Clinton White House seems to operate under some unique 
     genetic map, which instinctively triggers legal corner-
     cutting and then coverups. Waco is starting to sound, feel 
     and smell familiar.
       We all recall how Charles La Bella, Justice's investigator 
     of the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign funding scandals, was 
     isolated and ushered out of the department after he called 
     for an independent counsel to take over his job. Precisely 
     the same thing has happened to a Waco prosecutor.
       Bill Johnston, the assistant U.S. attorney in Texas, warned 
     Attorney General Janet Reno that her own department might be 
     involved in a coverup of the Waco disaster. Now we learn that 
     the Justice Department then removed Mr. Johnston and his boss 
     from the case on the pretext that there'd be an appearance of 
     conflict of interest if they were called as witnesses. But it 
     hasn't treated anyone else who is likely to become a witness 
     this way.
       Obviously, the six-year delay in the release of key details 
     of Justice's final assault on Waco is a matter of extreme 
     sensitivity for Washington Democrats who must figure out 
     every six weeks or so how to survive inside the Clinton 
     orbit. While Ms. Reno made a grand show of sending U.S. 
     marshals across the street to seize evidence from the FBI's 
     building, it's now clear that Justice lawyers preparing its 
     defense in a civil suit filed by the families of dead Branch 
     Davidians had the crucial information all along.
       House Democrats meanwhile, led by Rep. Henry Waxman, claim 
     that Republicans were informed back in 1995 of the 
     pyrotechnic devices used at Waco, but in making that point 
     they concede that Justice had the information too. Hill 
     Democrats are clearly sensitive about any suggestion of their 
     own complicity in a possible coverup.
       Who can forget Rep. (now Senator) Charles Schumer's highly 
     successful attempts to sidetrack the House hearings on Waco 
     with discussions of the National Rifle Association's contacts 
     with Republicans and alleged child abuse by David Koresh? Mr. 
     Schumer's smoke did more than anything else to obscure 
     realities we're now facing.
       Webster Hubbell, the convicted felon from Little Rock, was 
     Justice's point man with the White House on the Waco siege. 
     He also is in a sensitive frame of mind. In his recent 
     memoirs he obviously makes excuses for his role in approving 
     the use of dangerous CS gas against the Branch Davidians. He 
     even claims to have come up with a ``solution'' to the 
     standoff hours before the final assault began, but was 
     blocked from entering the FBI building until after the gas 
     rounds were fired. Sure would be nice if former Senator John 
     Danforth could establish the truth of this claim.
       What precisely is at issue here? It is clearly in the 
     public interest to have a full and complete historical 
     record, in part to defuse conspiracy theorists who already 
     believe the government is out to get them. More precisely, at 
     issue in Senator Danforth's independent probe of Waco is 
     whether and how law enforcement overreacted. The Branch 
     Davidians were a particularly deranged sect, and four Bureau 
     of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents were killed in the 
     initial raid that started the seven-week siege. But we will 
     probably never conclusively learn who or what started the 
     fire that killed dozens of Mr. Koresh's followers that day.
       In any event, law enforcement did learn an important lesson 
     from Waco. No similar incident has occurred during the 
     administration of FBI Director Louis Freeh. In 1996, for 
     instance, a group of con artists in Montana named the Freemen 
     were safely lured out of their armed standoff with the Feds 
     through the use of more patient tactics.
       But the unfinished business of Waco persists in the public 
     mind: Was there a coverup? Is there something beyond the 
     death of two dozen children to explain the extreme 
     sensitivity of the FBI, the Justice Department and congress 
     on the issue?
       It is certainly interesting that one of Mr. Danforth's 
     primary missions is to explore the implications of the 1878 
     ``Posse Comitatus'' law. It forbids use of the U.S. military 
     in domestic law enforcement actions. The Texas Rangers seem 
     to have uncovered evidence that members of the Army's elite 
     Delta Force anti-terrorist unit were at Waco. The law 
     provides for a Presidential wavier in case of emergencies: 
     President Reagan signed a waiver, for example, to use Army 
     units to quell prison riots. The White House claims no one 
     ever asked President Clinton to sign a waiver for Waco. So 
     Mr. Danforth has to determine, was Delta Force at Waco, and 
     if so, on whose authority? Obviously it

[[Page 22290]]

     didn't move there on its own, and breaches of the military 
     chain of command are a serious national issue.
       Mr. Danforth will need a thorough investigation and candid 
     report to still the drums of conspiracy. A sequel to an Emmy-
     award winning independent film on Waco, for example, will 
     soon question the denial that the White House counsel's 
     office ever considered a Posse Comitatus waiver. Indeed, Mr. 
     Danforth may find himself plowing some of the same ground 
     covered by Kenneth Starr. Lisa Foster, widow of the late 
     White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster, told the FBI that 
     her husband was deeply troubled by Waco and blamed himself 
     for the death of the children there. A Waco file was 
     inventoried in the contents of his office.
       Mr. Danforth says he is reluctant to question President 
     Clinton about the issue of a Presidential waiver from Posse 
     Comitatus. That is understandable, given the fate of the last 
     prosecutor to ask probing questions of the President. Yet 
     considering the sorry credibility of the White House, the 
     Justice Department and the FBI, he has a responsibility to 
     make sure the record is straight and complete. Otherwise, 
     we'll all be adding Waco as one more item in the high pile of 
     Clinton contradictions from which we're all supposed to 
     ``move on.''


                   Waco, Will We Ever Know the Truth?

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to wrap up my comments on another 
issue dealing with Waco. First of all, as I mentioned earlier, some who 
maybe have just come into the Chamber do not know this but I have a law 
enforcement background. I will say, the first thing that can happen to 
law enforcement is a bad cop, a bad decision. I do not know any 
profession in our society, well, I know some. Medical doctors, 
ambulance drivers, firemen, but the police officer really fits up there 
in that very top category of a respected profession.
  People trust us. They trust police officers. That trust needs to be 
protected and it needs to be extended.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to take a minute to talk about what concerns 
me on Waco, Texas. We all agree that in Waco, Texas, there was a whacko 
down there, there was a nut down there and he is primarily responsible 
for the deaths of a lot of people. He was a sick man, and he was so 
perverted in his mind he led many others to their deaths if he did not 
execute them himself.
  We have to put that aside and see what happened with our Justice 
Department and what happened at Waco, Texas. Did our own law 
enforcement agencies down at that particular situation, did they lie to 
us, the American people? Have they concealed something down in Waco, 
Texas? It appears they have.
  I can remember just 2 or 3 weeks ago when statements were being made 
by the Justice Department and others, there were no military operations 
going on at Waco, Texas. In this country, unless it is waived by the 
President of the United States, we have a ban of using military forces 
for domestic situations like this. The President has the right to waive 
it. For example, I think, if history serves my mind right, President 
Ford waived it to allow the military to help in rescue operations in a 
flood and so on. In Waco, Texas, I saw tanks being driven, others may 
have seen it, driven right into the side of the building. Who is 
driving those tanks? Nonmilitary people are driving those tanks?
  What are we doing? Ruby Ridge, one of the blackest eyes law 
enforcement has received in the history of this country. I resent what 
happened at Ruby Ridge because I like to think I was a good cop and I 
know there are a lot of good cops out there and Ruby Ridge put a black 
eye on law enforcement in this country.
  We had a sniper up there who the State of Idaho even felt it was 
necessary they file State charges against him and the U.S. Justice 
Department preempted it and had the charges erased. Guess where that 
sniper shows up again? That sniper is back in Waco, Texas.
  How did the law enforcement handle that? That is a question all of us 
ask. There is no question about whether or not the guy inside that 
building was a nut. He was a nut. The question is, how did you handle 
this? The response, it looks like, was a cover-up, a diversion and 
lies. That does not need to be done to the people you work for. In law 
enforcement, you work for the people. We are the good guys. You ought 
to be truthful with us. If you have got a bad cop, and I will say as a 
former cop if you are working with a bad cop you can stop it. You ought 
to stop it. You owe it to your career to stop it. You owe it to the 
very thoughts of law enforcement, to the ideals of law enforcement, to 
stop a bad cop. If you are out there and you are a cop or you are in 
the Justice Department or you are in the FBI and you know something 
that went on at Waco, Texas, and it has not been disclosed yet or it 
has been concealed, come forward now and let the American people know 
the whole story.
  I have no doubt that the American people would have supported what 
happened down there had the whole story been told in the first place. 
They do not think that you are God. They do not think that you are 
perfect. They understand that there were problems in a very difficult 
situation, but do not lie to them. That is what happened.
  We have an investigation by the Justice Department. Interesting, 
Justice Department investigating Justice Department. They call it an 
independent investigation. We have had a number of other independent 
investigations that have occurred in different areas. I hope it is 
truly independent, and I hope the Justice Department is willing to 
stand up and answer for what went on down there.
  I want to submit one other thing for the Record. Having the time, I 
want to read this editorial, Tuesday, September 7, Wall Street Journal: 
``This being the age of Clinton, Louis Freeh is being set up as the 
fall guy for a cover-up of the disastrous Waco assault. Never mind that 
he did not take over the FBI until nearly 4 months after the assault 
and crucial decisions on how to investigate it. What matters is that he 
has been a politically independent thorn in the side of Mr. Clinton and 
Attorney General Janet Reno.
  ``Miss Reno originally became a media darling by claiming to take 
responsibility for the 1993 raid that killed about 80 Branch Davidians. 
In fact, double felon Webster Hubbell was the contact between Justice 
and the White House; Miss Reno was not even in Justice's crisis-
management bunker during much of the assault day; she was out giving a 
speech.
  ``Now, a civil lawsuit has uncovered evidence of Justice Department 
deception, so we read stories quoting unnamed Reno aides that she is 
`furious' that she was not told that at least two incendiary devices 
were used at Waco after all. Other stories question Mr. Freeh's 
handling of the matter. And in case anyone missed the buck-passing 
point, the Attorney General ostentatiously sent U.S. marshals to seize 
previously undisclosed audiotapes of the raid from FBI headquarters.
  ``President Clinton then added his spin, pointedly expressing 
confidence in Miss Reno on Saturday from Camp David while withholding 
it from Mr. Freeh. `I think that with regard to the director, there is 
going to be an independent investigation,' he said.
  ``Maybe they should put Mr. Freeh's mugshot up at the post office.
  ``We have seen this kind of treatment before in Bill Clinton's 
Washington. Billy Dale got himself fired when the Friends of Bill 
wanted to take over the White House Travel Office, and was even 
indicted by Miss Reno's Justice hounds, though a jury quickly acquitted 
him.
  ``Linda Tripp found her personnel records leaked from the Pentagon. 
And Jean Lewis, who recommended action in Whitewater, had her deleted 
personal computer files unerased and broadcast in Congress.
  ``Mr. Freeh has now joined the target list because he has been a rare 
dissenter from the Reno pattern of politicized Justice. Along with 
Justice investigator Charles LaBella, he broke with Miss Reno to urge 
an independent counsel in the campaign-finance scandal.
  ``Congress recently discovered that Justice politicos had refused an 
FBI request to wiretape suspected Los Alamos spy Wen Ho Lee. And he 
knows the FBI opposed Mr. Clinton's outrageous recent grant of clemency 
to 16 Puerto Rican nationalists linked to a terrorist group.
  ``This is not to say Mr. Freeh has been entirely successful in 
rooting out

[[Page 22291]]

the FBI's self-protective culture. The agency's lack of candor 
regarding its role at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, was a serious black mark. It 
is entirely possible that agents also sought to cover up the truth 
about Waco. But anyone actually concerned about the merits of the 
matter should consult two articles we published last week by 
officially-designated outside investigators.
  ``It was Miss Reno, actually we are entitled to presume Mr. Hubbell, 
who decided on an internal investigation of the role of Justice and the 
FBI. By contrast, Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen chartered an 
independent investigation of the role played by his department through 
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. See the August 30 article 
by sometimes special Prosecutor Henry Ruth who served on the ATF team.
  ``When Mr. Freeh arrived on the scene, was he supposed to overturn 
the Reno/Hubbell decision?
  ``At the first meeting of a panel of 10 experts appointed to make 
recommendations about future Wacos, Harvard psychiatrist Alan A. Stone 
wrote on August 31, `We discovered that Justice had no intention of 
telling us what actually happened during the first raid.'
  ``Mr. Stone adds, `because the Justice Department's published 
investigation was so inadequate, I sent a copy of my preliminary 
memorandum to the newly-appointed director of the FBI, Louis B. Freeh, 
hoping to break through the stonewall. Soon the crucial FBI actors were 
phoning me with some of the candid answers.'
  ``A House committee also sought to investigate, but Democrats, led by 
now Senator Chuck Schumer, practiced up for impeachment hearings by 
turning the procedure into a circus. As the hearings wound up, 
Representative John Conyers said Republicans tried to implicate 
everyone `but the butler.' Mr. Schumer complained of `Monday morning 
quarterbacking,' and intoned `if we did hearings on D-Day, we would end 
up court-martialing General Eisenhower.'
  ``As for Miss Reno, on Waco as on so much else, she has run the most 
politicized Justice Department since John Mitchell under Richard Nixon. 
She has sought to protect the White House at every turn, especially 
after meeting with the President on her reappointment at the outset of 
his second term. She has named special counsels for trivial cases 
against cabinet members but refused them on serious charges against the 
President and the vice president, despite the LaBella and Freeh 
recommendation.
  ``Indeed, she humilitated Mr. LaBella, sending her department a 
potent message about dissent from the Clinton political line. Now she 
is trying to do the same with Mr. Freeh. Meanwhile, she has flagrantly 
violated the Vacancy Act by leaving important positions filled with 
`acting heads.'
  ``The result is a demoralized Justice Department that cannot be 
trusted to enforce the rule of law.''

                              {time}  2245

  ``This problem will not be solved by an outside Waco investigator, 
assuming any serious person would even take the appointment from her. 
The only way Ms. Reno can begin restoring confidence in justice is to 
resign.''
  That is a Wall Street Journal editorial dated Tuesday, September 7.
  My point here is this: it is time for us to weed out the bad cops. In 
our society, we want good cops. I used to be one of them. We respect 
them. But if we have a bad cop, we have to stand up; we have an 
obligation, we have a fiduciary duty to the American people, if we have 
a bad cop, get them out.

                          ____________________