[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 2]
[House]
[Page 1501]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         NO PARDON FOR POLLARD

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, on January 19, I introduced House 
Concurrent Resolution No. 16, expressing the sense of Congress that 
Jonathan J. Pollard should serve his full sentence and not receive any 
presidential pardon for his crime of espionage.
  Jonathan Pollard was a civilian employee at the Department of the 
Navy from September 1979 until November 1985. He had access to 
classified documents and information and began making those documents 
available to Israeli intelligence officers in 1984. When he was 
arrested, by his own estimate, Pollard had given the Israelis enough 
documents to fill some 360 cubic feet. In 1987, he pled guilty and was 
sentenced to life in prison.
  The President has twice rejected release for Pollard, in 1994 and 
again in 1996. In fact, the White House press statement in 1996 found 
that, ``The enormity of Mr. Pollard's offenses, his lack of remorse, 
the damage done to our national security and the need for general 
deterrence in the continuing threat to national security that he posed 
made the original sentence imposed by the court warranted.''
  Of course, nothing has changed. Pollard remains unrepentant, and the 
damage to national security has not paled with the passage of time. But 
something must have changed, at least in the mind of the Clinton White 
House.
  In October 1998 President Clinton acceded to the request of the 
Israeli prime minister to review Pollard's sentence. The answer should 
have been a polite but a firm ``no.'' But, instead, the President 
agreed to a review.
  On January 11, the relevant executive agencies were to report back on 
the virtues of releasing Pollard. Not surprisingly, the director of the 
CIA, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense and the director 
of the FBI were unanimous in opposing any pardon for Pollard.
  The position of the Department of Justice has been less clear. 
Attorney General Janet Reno has delayed in offering an opinion to the 
President in the case pending a meeting with the prominent Jewish 
figures who support Pollard's release. The AG's office could not 
confirm for me yesterday whether such a meeting had taken place, nor 
could they offer any date when any legal opinion on Pollard's release 
may be offered.
  To me, this seems like a clear case for the Department of Justice. 
But apparently they require more extensive deliberations than our 
national security agencies are capable of providing.
  But what deliberation is really needed? Press accounts have given us 
some indication of how damaging Pollard's betrayal really was. He 
didn't just give away intelligence estimates, he also betrayed sources 
and methods, the very capabilities that make sound intelligence 
estimates possible.
  Revealing how our intelligence services learn secrets is extremely 
damaging, because it provides opportunities for our targets to hide 
assets and plant misinformation, negating the very capabilities we 
spend billions of taxpayer dollars over the years to develop and 
maintain.
  Of course, Pollard is now claiming that he never intended to spy 
against the United States. He claims that his espionage efforts were 
motivated by a noble concern for the State of Israel and a desire to 
avoid a return of the Yom Kippur War.
  He says, very charitably, that the money he was paid, more than 
$50,000, did not motivate his spying, and that he intended to repay it 
all, and he suggests that because Israel is an ally of the United 
States, his sentence should be reduced, as if spying for a friend is a 
lesser evil than spying for an enemy.

                              {time}  1300

  Of course, this logic also ignores the suggestions in the public 
record that much of what Pollard provided to Israel may have ended up 
in the hands of the Soviet Union. Then there is the issue of his 
willingness to provide information to countries in addition to Israel.
  It is important to point out that even though Pollard is now eligible 
for parole, he has not chosen to apply. All of the public deliberations 
on Pollard are occurring without his having even sought release.
  The granting of pardons is a constitutional power reserved for the 
President of the United States, but that does not mean that Congress is 
obliged to sit by quietly as this decision is made. Two weeks ago, 60 
Senators from the United States Senate sent a letter to the President 
urging that Pollard not be set free. House Concurrent Resolution 16 
similarly will allow the House of Representatives to go on record 
opposing any pardon, reprieve, or any other form of executive clemency 
for Mr. Pollard. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) has also 
introduced a resolution opposing a pardon, and I encourage all Members 
to join us as cosponsors of both resolutions. This betrayal of U.S. 
national security must not be rewarded with a presidential pardon.
  Last week, two Americans were convicted of spying for East Germany 
throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Releasing Pollard now suggests that 
when the political price is right, we are willing to look the other way 
on espionage. Pollard's betrayal of U.S. national security must not be 
rewarded with a Presidential pardon and I hope Members will join as 
cosponsors to H. Con. Res. 16.

                          ____________________