[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 28286-28291]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



              CONVICTED MURDERER SEEKS EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tancredo). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago I was moved by an 
article that I read about an individual by the name of Leonard Peltier. 
Mr. Peltier is currently in the penitentiary, Federal penitentiary, for 
the assassination of two FBI agents. He has been in prison for 25 
years.
  I need to be fair to all of my colleagues here and give you some 
disclosures. First of all, I used to be a police officer. As a result 
of being a police officer, over the years and especially during the 
time of my tenure as a police officer, I developed a very close 
relationship with agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Over 
the years, I have also developed a great deal of respect for the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation. But I must also tell my colleagues 
that over these years I have also had an opportunity to carefully 
scrutinize the Federal Bureau of Investigation, because, you see, I 
think it is a very important agency for our country. But I think the 
integrity of the agency is also very, very important.
  In the past, I have been very critical of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation when they messed up. I can give you an excellent example, 
Ruby Ridge. The agents involved at Ruby Ridge in my opinion should have 
been immediately terminated. What happened at Ruby Ridge I will not 
repeat this evening but I will tell you that the command officer from 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation was not terminated, in fact the 
command officer was put on a paid leave of absence for 1 or 2 years and 
retired and received in my opinion no punishment at all.
  I am also looking with a very careful eye at the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation's role at the Waco, Texas goof-up. That, too, is a very 
tragic situation in the history of our country, and I think 
unfortunately, there will be revealed within the report about the 
incident at Waco, Texas, that the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
misstated their role, understated their contribution, so to speak, or 
their involvement in the situation at Waco, Texas.
  So I am not necessarily in lockstep with the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation. But I can tell you, when I look at all of the law 
enforcement agencies I have seen over the years, and as a former law 
enforcement officer, I have had the opportunity to be involved with 
many of them, at the very highest, when you look at the picture as an 
average, the Federal Bureau of Investigation comes out at the very top. 
And I think it is incumbent, Mr. Speaker, colleagues, of every one of 
us when we see an attack launched against the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation that is launched without justification, or when we see an 
action being taken against the Federal Bureau of Investigation without 
justification, we have a commitment to step forward and say something 
about it.
  As I mentioned at the beginning of my comments, I saw an article the 
other day about this individual. This gentleman's name is Leonard 
Peltier. I saw today in fact an article in the USA Today. The article 
is Indians, FBI Face Off in Washington. First of all, I am not sure why 
the author of the USA Today article uses the word Indians in a broad or 
general descriptive form. In my particular district, which is the Third 
Congressional District of the State of Colorado, we have the Indian 
tribal lands, and I have yet to hear from any of the leaders of those 
Indian tribes, of which I work with very closely on projects such as 
the Animus LaPlata, the kind of appeal that may be suggested by all 
Indians as a result of this particular article. It is my opinion that 
the Native American involvement in this case is limited. And it is also 
my opinion that if you sit down with the average Native American in 
this country and you look at the facts of this case, that there will be 
very few Native Americans who would step forward and say that this 
particular convict is a political prisoner.
  I think this is a stage being set by the defense attorneys for this 
convict. Actually using the word convict is somewhat gentle. He is not 
a convict, he is a murderer, and he is a cold-blooded murderer. He 
killed two FBI agents in cold blood. Now, 25 years ago, as one defense 
attorney would suggest, is something that enough time has passed by 
that perhaps he has served his time for this violent and horrible 
crime. I will quote exactly from the USA Today.
  Peltier, that is the convict, the murderer that I am talking about, 
has been in prison as long as anyone responsible for similar crimes 
should be in, attorney Carl Nadler says. Can you believe this? Let me 
repeat what this defense attorney says. Peltier has been in prison as 
long as anyone responsible for similar crimes should be in prison. What 
he is suggesting is that 25 years is enough time for somebody to serve 
that goes out and in cold blood assassinates two officers of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
  Well, I stand here tonight, colleagues, in deep disagreement with 
this defense attorney. And I urge that all of my colleagues on the 
floor take time to review what is going on in the month of November in 
regard to this case. Now, why have I suggested the month of November? 
Well, apparently this murderer's defense team has put together a little 
political show and tell, and they call November the month of publicity 
or the month to get reprieve for this convicted murderer. What I mean 
by that, it is this month that they are submitting papers to the 
President of the United States requesting that clemency be granted to 
Leonard Peltier, a convicted murderer.
  A couple of days ago, I read an open letter. This open letter is a 
joint letter authored by the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents 
Association located in New Rochelle, New York and the Society of Former 
Special agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation located in 
Quantico, Virginia. The above organizations, which are professional, 
nongovernmental associations, represent over 20,000 active duty and 
former FBI agents. I was so moved by this letter that I ask my 
colleagues to follow me closely this evening as I read verbatim that 
open letter to the American people.
  As many of you know, I do not often read from notes when I speak from 
this podium, but I am going to be very careful this evening that I read 
this letter verbatim, because I think it is important that every one of 
us in this room have a clear understanding of the facts of this case 
before Peltier's defense attorney arrives here in Washington, D.C., 
sets up this political show and tell, and tries to convince through 
propaganda that for some reason this convicted murderer deserves 
clemency from the President of the United States.
  We should not take this lightly. We had a very difficult situation 
about 1 month ago when clemency was given to the Puerto Rican 
terrorists.

                              {time}  2300

  As I pointed out from this House floor, you can look right up in the 
roof of this fine room and you can see the bullet hole, or I could walk 
over here to this desk drawer and show you the bullet holes through 
that desk from the Puerto Rican terrorists who entered this floor many 
years ago firing weapons.
  Well, this case is somewhat similar, except in this case we know, we 
have

[[Page 28287]]

the person who conducted two savage, cold blooded murders on these FBI 
agents.
  Let me begin the letter.

       June 26, 1975, was a hot, dusty Thursday on the Pine Ridge 
     Indian Reservation in Southwestern South Dakota when two FBI 
     agents arrived from their office in Rapid City. It was about 
     noon when Special Agents Ronald A. Williams, age 27, and Jack 
     R. Coler, age 28, pulled into the Jumping Bull compound area 
     of the remote reservation seeking to arrest a young man in 
     connection with the recent abduction and assault of two young 
     ranchers.
       Observing their suspect Peltier's vehicle, the agents 
     pursued it. Unknown to Special Agent Coler and Special Agent 
     Williams, one of the three men in the vehicle was Leonard 
     Peltier, a violent man with a violent past. He was a 
     fugitive, wanted for attempted murder of an off duty 
     Milwaukee police officer.
       Knowing that the two vehicles pursuing him were occupied by 
     FBI agents and believing they were seeking to arrest him on 
     that attempted murder case, Peltier and his associates 
     abruptly stopped their vehicle and began firing rifles at the 
     agents. Surprised by the sudden violence, outmanned, 
     outgunned, and at an extreme tactical disadvantage, Coler and 
     Williams were both wounded and defenseless within minutes.
       Coler sustained a severe wound, the force of the bullet 
     nearly tearing his right arm off. Williams, wounded in the 
     left shoulder and the right foot, removed his shirt during 
     the hail of incoming rifle fire, and fashioned a tourniquet 
     around the arm of Coler, who had by then fallen unconscious.
       Agents Coler and Williams were then at the mercy of Leonard 
     Peltier and his associates. But there was to be no mercy for 
     these fine young law enforcement officers.
       Not satisfied with the terrible injuries that they had 
     inflicted, Peltier and the two other men walked down the hill 
     towards the ambushed agents. Three shots were fired from 
     Peltier's rifle. Williams, kneeling and apparently 
     surrendering, was shot in the face directly through his out 
     extended shielding handled. He died instantly. Coler, who was 
     still unconscious, was shot twice in the head at close-range. 
     He died instantly from those shots.
       The crime scene examination testified to the brutality of 
     the ambush. Coler and Williams had little chance to defend 
     themselves. They had fired only five shots. In contrast, over 
     125 bullet holes were found in into the car.
       Following the murder, Peltier fled the reservation. In 
     November 1975 an Oregon state trooper stopped a recreational 
     vehicle in which Peltier was hiding. Peltier fired at the 
     trooper and escaped. Coler, the FBI agent who had been 
     assassinated earlier on, his revolver which was stolen when 
     he was murdered, was found in a paper bag under the front 
     seat of the recreational vehicle. Peltier's thumb print was 
     on that bag.
       When arrested later in Canada by the Royal Canadian Mounted 
     Police, Peltier remarked that had he known the Royal Canadian 
     Mounted Police officers were there to arrest him, he would 
     have blown them out of their shoes. These are not the 
     comments of an innocent man and they portray the true 
     character and the violent nature of Leonard Peltier.
       In April 1977 a jury convicted Peltier of the murders of 
     those two FBI agents, Coler and Williams. A judge sentenced 
     him to two consecutive life sentences. While incarcerated in 
     the Lompoc, California, Federal prison, and, with outside 
     assistance, Peltier shot his way out of jail using a smuggled 
     rifle to make his escape. Several days later, after 
     assaulting a rancher and stealing a pick up, Peltier was 
     captured. He was tried and convicted of escape and of being a 
     felon in possession of a firearm.
       Peltier has since appealed his various convictions numerous 
     times. Each time the Federal courts have upheld earlier legal 
     decisions. The United States Supreme Court has twice denied 
     Peltier review without comment.
       The record is clear: There were no new facts. There are no 
     new facts. The old facts have not changed, and Peltier is 
     guilty as charged.
       Several times on national television Peltier has admitted 
     to firing at the two agents. In his most recent public 
     interview, Peltier has even reluctantly conceded what he had 
     previously denied, that he had in fact gone down to where the 
     agents were executed. Still, he openly states that he feels 
     no guilt, no remorse, nor even any regret for the murders.
       Leonard Peltier has lived a life of crime. He has earned 
     and deserves a lifetime of incarceration. Leonard Peltier is 
     a murderer without compassion or feeling towards his fellow 
     man. In turn, he deserves no compassion.
       Mr. President, there is no justification for relieving 
     Leonard Peltier from his punishment. Our judicial system has 
     spoken in this case again, again, and again. Leonard Peltier 
     is a vicious, violent and cowardly criminal that hides behind 
     legitimate native American issues. Leonard Peltier was never 
     a leader in the Native American community. He is simply a 
     brute, thug and murderer with no respect, no regard for human 
     life. Our citizens, on and off the reservations, must be 
     protected from predators like Peltier.
       Mr. President, since Leonard Peltier could not fool the 
     Federal courts, he is now trying to fool you, to fool the 
     public. He is shading and hiding the facts and playing on 
     sympathy. He and his advocates want to confuse the fact of 
     his guilt with matters completely extraneous to that fact. Do 
     not let him get away with it, Mr. President. Sympathy is 
     appropriate only for dead heroes and surviving families. Do 
     not let their sacrifice be forgotten.

  Mr. Speaker, that was somewhat of a lengthy letter, but as you can 
tell, it is a subject that should be dear to every one of our hearts in 
this room, to the heart of every American out there that believes in 
law and justice, to every law enforcement family out there that 
currently has someone in law enforcement or has had a member of their 
family in law enforcement.

                              {time}  2310

  If we let, if we let this kind of violent assassin out of prison 
after serving only 24 years, it will in my opinion be a crippling blow 
to the message that we need to send to the law enforcement in this 
country.
  That message really is fairly simple. That is that you work as a law 
enforcement officer to provide, as your duty, peace and justice in our 
system, and that when peace and justice are attacked in our system, our 
system has a price, it has a consequence, it has a punishment. It is 
the only way we can uphold the integrity of our system of law 
enforcement is to have a zero tolerance or a limited tolerance of any 
type of direct attack against our system of peace and justice.
  The assassination of two Federal Bureau of Investigation agents, no 
matter how many years ago, is a direct attack against the legal and 
justice process in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to join with me in attempting 
to be persuasive with the President of the United States and the 
American public in saying how important it is that this political 
charade being put on by the defense attorneys for this convicted 
assassin, that this kind of show be stopped, that this kind of show be 
denied their goal. Their goal, of course, is to let this convicted 
assassin walk the streets of America again.
  Do not let him hide under the shield of being a Native American. That 
is a disgrace to the Native Americans. Do not pull Native Americans 
down to the level of this convicted killer. Do not affiliate this 
convicted killer with the Native Americans in this country. That is an 
insult, in my opinion, if we do.
  Do not forget the facts of the case. Just so that I can remind the 
Members, let me go through the facts again in a little briefer form 
than the letter.
  Two FBI agents were assassinated. They attempted to pursue a vehicle 
which contained this suspect, at the time suspect, now a convicted 
killer, Leonard Peltier. They were wounded. They were disarmed by the 
wounds that they had. In other words, they could not fight back. They 
didn't have any weapons left to fight back with. They were not 
physically capable. One the FBI agents was unconscious. The other FBI 
agent was rendering first aid to the unconscious FBI agent.
  This convicted killer, who by the way was a fugitive from justice for 
the attempted assassination of an off-duty police officer in Milwaukee, 
walked up to these two FBI agents and executed them in cold blood. He 
was later stopped in a recreational vehicle. In that vehicle they found 
one of the deceased agent's pistols in a paper bag. That bag had 
evidence, Peltier's fingerprints on it.
  Peltier was captured in Canada. He was convicted of two counts of 
murder for these FBI agents. He escaped from the Federal prison. Do not 
let people tell us this guy is a nonviolent guy. He was in Federal 
prison and he shot his way out of Federal prison. Think of the last 
time since the John Dillinger days or Bonnie and Clyde and so on that 
somebody shot their way out of the Federal prison. That is who this 
individual is.
  Now today, now today he is in front of the American people, in front 
of the President of the United States, asking

[[Page 28288]]

for mercy. Look, 25 years ago may seem like a long time to some, but it 
has been a real long time for the families of those young FBI agents 
that were assassinated in cold blood.
  In conclusion on this particular issue, Mr. Speaker, let me ask for 
Members' support in standing up strong for the law enforcement 
community of the country, in standing up strong for the families and 
the agents and professionals of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in 
standing up strong for the concept of peace and justice within the 
boundaries of our country.
  Let us all have our voice heard, that in the United States of 
America, if you assassinate a police officer, or, just as soon, two 
Federal Bureau of Investigation officers, you will pay a price and we 
will stick with the punishment that we deal out. We are not a bunch of 
patsies. Do not come back to us and think you are going to get a free 
walk 25 years later after that kind of action.
  If we fail to do this, if we fail to do this, we are sending the 
wrong message out there and we are crippling justice and peace in our 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to do an update on a couple of other 
subjects this evening while I have the opportunity to visit with the 
Members.
  As Members will recall, about 2 or 3 weeks ago, maybe a month ago, 
there is a museum in New York City called the Brooklyn Art Museum. The 
Brooklyn Art Museum, it was discovered, with taxpayer dollars, with 
taxpayer dollars, was sponsoring an art exhibit that depicted, among 
other things, a portrait of the Virgin Mary, which is one of the 
holiest symbols of the Catholic religion throughout the world and of 
Christianity throughout the world, this art museum was allowing in this 
art exhibit, with taxpayer dollars, this portrait of the Virgin Mary 
with elephant dung, as they say, crap, as I say, thrown all over the 
portrait. Can Members imagine that?
  How long do Members think that type of art exhibit would have been 
tolerated or should have been tolerated in this country at taxpayer 
dollars if it was an exhibit of Martin Luther King, for example, or if 
it were an exhibit of an outstanding Jewish rabbi, for example, or if 
it were an exhibit of some other outstanding leader that meant so much 
to a religious organization anywhere in this world? They would not put 
up with that.
  But for some reason, there seems to be some justification out there 
by some people that an attack on Christianity should be separated from 
an attack, say, on Martin Luther King, or an attack on the image of a 
Jewish rabbi, and so on and so forth.
  What happened is that the mayor of New York City, Mayor Rudy 
Giuliani, I think had some guts. He stood up and he said, we are 
drawing the line. That has gone too far. There is a strong freedom of 
expression in this country. There is a First Amendment in this country, 
but there is a balance that we have in this country.
  Just the same as under the freedom of speech we do not allow 
individuals to go into a theater and yell ``fire, fire, fire,'' we do 
not allow that. That is not a violation of your First Amendment rights, 
but we do not allow you to go into a theater and do that. We draw a 
line. This thing is not carte blanche, this First Amendment, to do 
anything that you feel like doing, especially when you do it with 
taxpayer dollars.
  The mayor came under heavy criticism by the very elite that were 
dealing with the Brooklyn Art Museum, the board of directors, who I 
think were acting very pompous in somehow defending this disgraceful 
work of art, not a work of art that is just controversial, that brings 
up lots of discussion, but a work of art that hit at the very integrity 
of a large religious group throughout the world, that was the maximum 
type of insult that you could throw at that particular religion, and 
did it with American taxpayer dollars.
  Why do I keep bringing up the fact of American taxpayer dollars? 
Because therein lies the distinction as to whether or not this is an 
issue under the First Amendment of our Constitution.
  Under our Constitution, frankly, had the United States taxpayer 
dollars not been used to fund this portrait of the Virgin Mary of which 
dung was thrown all over it, had taxpayer dollars not been used, I am 
afraid to say that this would have been probably protected, or would 
have been protected under the First Amendment. We can tolerate that.
  It is horrible, and I cannot imagine, for example, why the First 
Lady, Hillary Clinton, stood up for this thing. She said, however, in 
her comments that while she would not go see it, but she certainly 
stood up for the right to go around and exhibit this with taxpayer 
dollars.
  I understand where some would say it is a First Amendment right if 
there is not taxpayer dollars being used, although I can tell the 
Members that the press in this country and the liberal left in this 
country would not have stood for 2 seconds if it were Martin Luther 
King or a Jewish rabbi or some other celebrated figure being treated in 
that fashion. But the key here is taxpayer dollars.

                              {time}  2320

  The point here is very clear, and I think the citizens of this 
country, Mr. Speaker, I think we need to go out and ask our 
constituents, do the citizens of this country really think it is a 
justified and constitutionally protected right under the Constitution 
to fund this kind of art with taxpayer dollars or should this type of 
art be denied the access of taxpayer dollars and allowed to be funded 
in society with private dollars?
  Remember that my objection tonight, and the mayor of New York City's 
objection to this art, was not that the art should not be shown. Now, 
it is disgraceful. Do not get me wrong. I do not condone this kind of 
art, but there is a constitutionally protected right to show this art 
without taxpayer dollars. That argument has some legitimacy but that 
was not the debate that is being carried forward here.
  What the mayor said, what I said and, Mr. Speaker, what I think most 
of our constituents believe is that this kind of art, i.e., the Virgin 
Mary with dung splashed all over her, with taxpayer dollars, has gone 
over that line. You draw a line. You have gone over that line. Do not 
use taxpayer dollars.
  The Brooklyn Art Museum in New York, they could easily fund this 
through other monies. They just want to try and make an issue. What 
they want to do is open that door so that taxpayers in this country 
will have to pay out of their hard-earned dollars, will have to use 
those taxpayer dollars, to let the so-called art community, especially 
the elite of the Brooklyn Art Museum, fund anything they would like, no 
matter how offensive, no matter how derogatory it is. That is wrong. 
This art museum knows that it is wrong.
  Well, there has been a new step, a new report to update you on, and 
that is that a Federal court judge this week actually came out and said 
that the art museum has a right to use taxpayer dollars to exhibit this 
type of art, i.e. the Virgin Mary with dung thrown all over her in very 
obviously a disgraceful fashion intended to be as derogatory as 
possible, not only towards Christianity but towards one of the most 
important symbols of Christianity.
  I am telling you, Federal judge, you made a mistake. You are wrong. 
There is not a constitutionally protected provision that says you can 
use taxpayer dollars in this country to fund that kind of art. Why do 
you not use some common sense? Why do you have to offend the people of 
Christianity? Why do you do an all-out attack? You would not do it with 
Martin Luther King and the black community. You would not do it in the 
Jewish community with some rabbi of theirs. You would not do it with 
some other type of religious entity or important entity in this country 
with their leader.
  Why are you doing this? Why do you decide to use taxpayer dollars to 
offend every Christian in the world? It is wrong. You have got a 
temporary victory from this Federal judge but in the end I think the 
mayor of New York City, one, had a lot of guts to do what he did and, 
number two, I think he is going to prevail.

[[Page 28289]]

  I also think that the general opinion in this country is, look, that 
kind of art, as violent and as horrible and as disgraceful as it is, is 
protected but not with the use of taxpayer dollars.
  Our constituents, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe, are in any way about 
to buy the argument that we ought to take the tax dollars out of their 
paycheck every week and put a percentage of that towards the funding of 
this kind of art.


                      The Fall of the Berlin Wall

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this evening we have covered two topics so 
far. The first topic is the attempted request, well, not the attempted 
request but the actual request by an assassin, by a convicted murderer 
of two Federal Bureau of Investigation officers, Leonard Peltier, the 
convict is submitting to the President of the United States for 
clemency. I am in hopes with my colleagues that they join me in urging 
the President to deny that.
  The second issue that we have discussed tonight is the Brooklyn Art 
Museum and the fact that they use taxpayer dollars to fund an art 
exhibit of the Virgin Mary, a portrait of the Virgin Mary, with 
elephant dung or elephant crap thrown all over the face of the Virgin 
Mary.
  The third topic, however, is kind of we are changing engines here. I 
want to talk about, instead of the negative implications of a convicted 
assassin asking our President to let him walk from prison, get-out-of-
jail-free card, instead of talking about the Brooklyn Art Museum and 
the prima donnas who want to use your taxpayer dollars to fund that 
kind of obscene art, I want to shift to an accomplishment of this 
country. Actually it is an accomplishment that should be celebrated, it 
was celebrated throughout the world, and a lot of credit of this 
accomplishment goes to the people throughout the world.
  When people look back to the accomplishments of this century, they 
are going to look at one accomplishment which will stand out for many, 
many centuries to come, and that is the fall of the Berlin Wall. 
Recently, I had the opportunity to watch the tape on Ronald Reagan. Mr. 
Speaker, I would urge all of us to watch it. It is put out by the 
Public Broadcasting System, PBS, on the presidency of Ronald Reagan and 
it talked about Reagan's great leadership, and I will again disclose 
that I am a strong admirer of President Reagan, about the difficult 
transition period he went through in taking this country through a 
buildup in arms, a buildup in military defense, in order to accomplish 
a build-down; that how President Reagan, throughout his entire life had 
one goal, and that is to bring down the destructive society of 
Communism.
  It was interesting the pressure he went through, even within our own 
boundaries of this great country, about his concept of how to bring 
down that Berlin Wall.
  Now many of those critics, some of who sit on this floor, some of who 
sit in other chambers of political leadership throughout this country, 
who criticized President Reagan, we can now look back and see what a 
feat. Not just with President Reagan but what a feat President Reagan 
and what a role he played in bringing down that Berlin Wall.
  Now, why do I bring it up today? Because in one week, on November 9, 
on November 9, will be the tenth anniversary of bringing that wall 
down. Whenever I see pictures of that wall in the history books or I 
see it in some other type of periodical, I think of President Ronald 
Reagan standing there and saying, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear that wall 
down.''

                              {time}  2330

  What a fascinating time of history and how neat it is that we were 
able to bring that down. Look at what has happened since. Look at what 
has happened in Germany. Look at what has happened in Europe. Look at 
what happened to communism.
  Now, there are some tough times still ahead for the countries of 
Russia and so on. There is a lot of peace and justice that needs to be 
brought into the country of Russia.
  As my colleagues know, one of the big failures of the society today 
in Russia, in my opinion, is the failure of their justice system, the 
mob over there. But the fact is, despite all of these painful headaches 
and this long journey towards capitalism and freedom, it will arrive. 
It will come to the station. Some people think it is late. But it will 
arrive at the station due in a large part to the leadership of this 
country and large part due to the leadership throughout the free world 
10 years ago.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues have not had an opportunity, I 
would urge them to take a look at this week's Newsweek. I did. It has 
an article in there, excellent article written by Newsweek, about the 
Berlin Wall. I would like to go through. What it did is it picked up 
some of the conversations during those few critical days of the fall of 
the Berlin wall. It brings out some of the conversations as reflected 
by memos written at the time between the President of the United 
States, George Bush, and the German Chancellor Kohl. I will like to 
repeat some of those because I think they are pretty fascinating.
  This is a conversation that took place between West German Chancellor 
Helmut Kohl and President George Bush. October 23, 1989, just a little 
over 10 years ago, 9:02 in the morning. Tens of thousands of East 
Germans flee via Hungary. Others seek sanctuary in the West German 
embassy and the Prague. Demonstrators calling for freedom take to the 
streets of major German cities. Kohl phones Bush to describe the 
situation, and here is how the conversation took place.
  Kohl: The changes in east Germany are quite dramatic. None of us can 
give a prognosis. There is enormous unrest among the population. Things 
will become incalculable if there are no reforms. My interest is not to 
see so many flee Germany because the consequences there would be a 
disaster.
  I am also concerned about the media coverage that, crudely speaking, 
holds that Germans are now committed in their discussions about 
reunification and that they are less interested in the West. This is 
absolute nonsense. Without a strong NATO, none of these developments in 
the Warsaw Pact would have occurred.
  President Bush in response: I could not agree more. We are trying to 
react very cautiously and carefully to change in East Germany. We are 
getting criticism in the Congress from liberal Democrats that we ought 
to be doing more to foster change, but I am not going to go so fast as 
to be reckless.
  November 10, 1989, 3:29 in the afternoon. The previous night the 
world had watched transfixed as the East Germans stormed the wall.
  Kohl to President Bush: I have just arrived from Berlin. It is like 
witnessing an enormous fair. It has the atmosphere of a festival. The 
frontiers are absolutely open. At certain points, they are literally 
taking down the wall and building new check points. This is a dramatic 
thing, a historic hour. Without the United States, this day would not 
have been possible. Tell your people that.
  President Bush: First, let me say how great is our respect for the 
way West Germany has handled all of this. I want to see our people 
continue to avoid especially hot rhetoric that might, by mistake, cause 
a problem.
  Kohl to the President: Thank you. Give my best to Barbara. Tell her 
that I intend to send sausages for Christmas.
  November 17, 1989, 7:55 in the morning, Bush and Kohl discussed the 
Soviet reaction. They are concerned that Moscow, which still has 
390,000 troops in East Germany may panic.
  Kohl: I had a long conversation with Gorbachev. Of course the Soviets 
are concerned. I told Gorbachev that if East German leader Egon Krenz 
does not carry out reforms, the system will fail.
  President Bush: It is important that the Germans see that they have 
the support and the sympathy of their allies. In spite of congressional 
posturing, the United States will stay calm and support reforms. The 
excitement in the United States runs the

[[Page 28290]]

risk of forcing unforeseen action in the U.S.S.R. or East Germany. We 
will not be making statements about unification or setting any 
timetables. We will not exacerbate the problem by having the President 
of the United States posturing on the Berlin Wall.
  February 13, 1990, 1:49 in the afternoon. The East German regime has 
agreed to free elections in March and Kohl has just returned from a 
visit to Moscow. Both he and Bush are worried that Gorbachev will 
demand a neutral Germany as a price for unification.
  Kohl to the President: The situation continues to be dramatic. 
Between January 1 and today, 80,000 have come to the West from the 
East. That is why I suggested a monetary union and an economic 
community. We will have to urge the government that comes in after 
March 18 to go through with these.
  Let me say a few words about my talks in Moscow. Gorbachev was very 
relaxed. But the problems he faces are enormous, nationalities, the 
food supply situation, and I do not see a light at the end of the 
tunnel yet. We also discussed that the two German states should be 
working together with the four powers, the United States, the United 
Kingdom, France, and the U.S.S.R. I told Gorbachev again that 
neutralization of Germany is out of the question.
  Bush: Did he acquiesce or just listen? How did he react?
  Kohl: My impression is that this is a subject about which they want 
to negotiate but that we can win that point.
  March 20th, 1990, 8:31 in the morning. In the March elections, the 
East Germans overwhelmingly support reunification and democratic change 
by voting for a coalition of parties led by Kohl's Christian Democrats.
  Bush to Kohl: Helmut, you are a hell of a campaigner.
  Kohl: Thank you. The results are very important for the NATO 
question.
  Bush: Helmut, your firm stand on a united Germany remaining a full 
member of NATO is great. We need to continue holding firm. This is 
vitally important for European security and stability and for the 
United States.
  May 30, 1990, 7:34 in the morning. Gorbachev is due in Washington for 
his first visit since the fall of the wall. Bush and Kohl discuss that 
agenda.
  Bush to Kohl: I am getting ready for Gorbachev's big visit.
  Kohl: That is why I am calling. One thing that is very important for 
Gorbachev to understand is that, irrespective of the developments, we 
will stand side by side. And one sign of this cooperation are the links 
between us by the future membership of the united Germany and NATO 
without any limitations. You should make this clear to him, but in a 
friendly way. A second point, we can find a sensible economic 
arrangement with him. He needs help very much. He should also know that 
we had no intention of profiting from his weakness.
  Bush: I will assure him that we are side by side. We want him to come 
out feeling that he has had a good summit.
  July 17, 1990, 8:48 in the morning. Kohl briefs Bush on his most 
recent visit to Moscow.
  Kohl: George, first of all, Gorbachev is in excellent shape. He is 
aware of his special situation and of his responsibilities. And he is 
aware he has to act quickly to get through pluralism to change society 
and to get through the necessary legislation by the end of this year.

                              {time}  2340

  ``I told him there would be no chance to receive western aid if he 
does not get these reforms through. We also discussed extensively his 
determination to pursue the modernization of his country. He said 
something I had never heard before. He told me his grandfather was 
tortured and imprisoned under Stalin. His wife said her grandfather was 
liquidated under Stalin. It is remarkable.''
  One other interesting thing. We talked about German-U.S. 
relationships in our one-on-one. I told him that this relationship was 
of great importance, and I told him that if the Soviets tried to 
undermine it, this would affect German relationships with the USSR. His 
reply will be of interest to you. He said that they learned a lesson, 
that it was wrong to try to make the United States withdraw from 
Europe, and that they had not succeeded in this in the past.
  Finally, he impresses me as a man who knows himself well and who has 
a sense of self-irony. He has burned all his bridges behind him. He 
cannot go back and he must be successful.
  August 3, 1990, 9:56 in the morning, nearly a year after the Wall 
falls, East and West Germany are officially reunited.
  Bush: ``Helmut, I am in a meeting with members of our Congress and I 
am calling on this historic day to wish you well.''
  Kohl: ``Things are going very, very well. I am in Berlin. There were 
one million people here last night at the very spot where the Wall used 
to stand and where President Reagan called on Mr. Gorbachev to open 
this gate. Words cannot describe the feeling. American presidents from 
Harry Truman all the way up to our friend George Bush made this 
possible.''
  The Berlin Wall did not come down in a day. It did not come down in a 
season. What is interesting about these conversations that I just 
related to you is it is kind of symbolic of the effort that our country 
made to see that communism fell and that the non-free people of this 
world were able to enjoy freedom as we have enjoyed our entire life. 
But it was not without a price.
  President Reagan went on a massive military buildup. His concept to 
build up in order to build down turned out to be correct. But during 
this massive buildup, he received a lot of criticism. Frankly, the 
Russians were worried about President Reagan.
  I reviewed this tape from Public Broadcasting, and I hope my 
colleagues take time to take a look at it, it is fascinating. Whether 
you are Republican or Democrat, this time period sets aside those 
partisanship contests to take a look at the biggest threat to the 
world, and that was communism and how this president, President Reagan, 
really took us right to the brink and the Russians blinked and the 
Russians disarmed and the Russians allowed that Wall to be taken down.
  They pulled out of Hungary. They pulled out of Poland. And today in 
our history, most of the countries in this world enjoy the freedom that 
we enjoy as Americans. In 100 years from now, it is my prediction that 
every country in the world will have some form of capitalism, that the 
days of communism, even the days of socialism will be days long past. 
It gives us a lot to be proud of in America.
  Colleagues, I know that as United States congressmen we are 
privileged to be up here to represent what I think is the finest 
country in the history of the world. And the reason that we came out of 
this so well, the reason that we have stood strong for such a long time 
is that we understood America does not have to apologize for being 
free. America owes nobody in this world an apology for standing up for 
the abused people of this world.
  But the United States of America owes no apology to anybody in this 
world for strength that we maintain with our defense. Because we 
understand that if we do not have a strong defense, if we are not the 
toughest kid on the block, we are going to be in a lot of fights.
  I forget the source of the quote. I think it was back in the early 
days of the country, Jefferson, maybe Washington, who said, ``the best 
way to avoid a war is to be prepared for war.''
  The best way to protect freedom is to be strong. Every generation 
will be tested. Freedom will always come with a price and a cost. But 
in the end, if we pay that cost, if we stand up strong, as this country 
has done in the past, if we have great leaders like Ronald Reagan and 
many of the other great leaders this country has had, we can look to 
the next generation and we can say to that next generation, you too 
will enjoy a lifetime in the greatest country in the history of the 
world.
  As you can tell from my remarks, I am proud to be an American. And so 
are every one of you. Next week I hope all of us take just a few 
minutes outside of our busy schedules and I hope we try and convince 
our constituents

[[Page 28291]]

to take a few minutes out of their busy schedules and think of those 
days 10 years ago when that awful, terrible wall began to crumble. 
Think of those days when President Reagan stood up there, broad-
shouldered, looking them right in the eye and said, Mr. Gorbachev, tear 
down this wall. Open up this gate.
  Take a few moments next week on this tenth anniversary to think of 
the joy and the excitement and the happiness of those individuals in 
Germany who now were able to go across that border without being shot, 
without having to sneak through at night trying to get through the 
barbed wire.
  I can remember 15, 20 years ago, even longer than that, when I was 
young about reading the Reader's Digest. It seemed to me that twice a 
year the Reader's Digest would carry a story in there about somebody in 
East Germany who had that taste of freedom, who wanted to live in a 
free world, who wanted a Democratic society. They would risk and their 
family would risk everything they had to get across that Wall.
  I remember reading in a study of history when our American planes and 
our allies went into Germany and past the Wall to bring those in the 
Berlin airlift. What a great accomplishment that was.
  And now, less than 10 years ago, whoever imagined that that horrible 
Wall would crumble as quickly as it did? You know, it was not a very 
strong structure. It did not stand up for very long, too long, but not 
very long. And that credit goes to the American leadership and the 
leadership of our allies in this world.
  Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by just recapping the three things that 
I discussed this evening.
  First of all, I beg my colleagues in here to carefully watch what is 
going on with this request for clemency by a convicted assassin of two 
agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This man, Leonard 
Peltier, will be requesting through a political horse and pony show 
with the President clemency to let him walk as a free man. He has got a 
very sharp defense team. But do not let that shield all of us from the 
fact that in cold blood he killed two FBI agents.
  This man should never see the outside of a jail cell for as long as 
he lives. I hope many of my colleagues will join me in that effort in 
attempting to convince the President or help persuade the President to 
ignore that request.
  Second of all, let me point out that to you, Brooklyn Art Museum, you 
are wrong. You will not be able to continue to defy, I think, the 
taxpayers of this country by using taxpayer dollars to fund your art 
exhibit of the Virgin Mary with dung slapped all over her. I hope at 
some point you prima donnas who serve on the board of directors at that 
Brooklyn Art Museum, I hope really seriously you have a moment to look 
in the mirror when nobody else is around and you ask yourselves the 
question, is it right?

                              {time}  2350

  Does what we did make me feel good? Have I completed my duty as a 
trustee of the Brooklyn art museum? Would I have done this to the great 
leader Martin Luther King? Would I have done this to a great leader in 
the Jewish community? Would I have done this to a great leader in the 
Buddhist community? Or should I just pick on Christianity and use 
taxpayer dollars to do it? The taste of art has gone too far when you 
use taxpayer dollars for that kind of effort. It is not a protected 
right in my opinion under the first amendment.
  Finally, the day of celebration next week as we are running around 
this floor, we ought to take a few minutes and just remember what a 
great day in our history it was to see that Berlin Wall fall, to see 
those people in East Germany taste freedom, many of them for the first 
time in their entire life, and to see through the great leadership of 
the United States of America, through the response of the citizens of 
the United States of America, through the strength of the military 
forces of the United States of America, we brought the taste of freedom 
to millions and millions of people, and we will as the United States of 
America preserve the taste of freedom for many centuries to come.

                          ____________________