[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Page 2435]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 2435]]

                PARDON ATTORNEY REFORM AND INTEGRITY ACT

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, a few weeks ago Senator Hatch, Senator 
Nickles, and I, along with other Senators, introduced S. 2042, the 
Pardon


Attorney Reform and Integrity Act. The Judiciary Committee has now 
reported this legislation to the floor. I wanted to say just a few 
words about why I believe this legislation is needed and why I hope the 
Senate will act quickly.
  Last September, President Clinton decided to grant clemency to 11 
members of the Puerto Rican terrorist groups FALN and Los Macheteros. 
When this decision became known, it was greeted with virtually 
universal shock and disbelief, followed by calls for the President to 
reconsider and ultimately by near universal condemnation. The FALN had 
been involved in numerous terrorist acts. The most heinous of these 
acts was the bombing of Fraunces Tavern in New York City. In the middle 
of the lunch time rush at this Wall Street tavern, FALN members planted 
a bomb. The explosion killed four people and left 55 people wounded. In 
addition, FALN has taken credit for more than 130 bombings, attempted 
bombings, bomb threats and kidnapings. They took credit for the bombing 
of office buildings in New York and Chicago where at least one other 
person was killed and several more injured.
  Although it has been suggested that the individuals the President 
pardoned were not convicted of direct involvement in these acts, the 
conduct that they were convicted of made clear that they all played 
important roles in facilitating the activities of the organization, 
fully aware that the entity in question engaged in just this kind of 
conduct. Despite this, there is no evidence that any of them are 
seriously remorseful about their serious wrongdoing. Singling them out 
for the extraordinary favor of Presidential clemency is, under these 
circumstances, frankly inexplicable.
  Both this body and the House of Representatives passed resolutions 
stating our disapproval of the President's action. Following these 
events, the Committee on the Judiciary held two hearings on how the 
President had made his decision. In the first of these hearings, it was 
discovered that Reverend Ikuta, a supporter of clemency for the 
terrorists, had several meetings with the Department of Justice 
concerning the potential grant of clemency. At the same time, law 
enforcement officials, who attempted to contact the President and the 
Department of Justice concerning the clemency, received no response 
from the administration. Nor were the victims consulted in any way. The 
son of one of the victims of the Fraunces Tavern bombing was told in 
1998 by the FBI that they were still searching for the FALN member 
thought to have planted the bomb. Meanwhile, the President was 
considering granting clemency to individuals who not only were members 
of the group responsible for the bomb in the first place, but also who 
may have had information about the whereabouts of this primary suspect. 
The victims of the terrorists' acts were never even informed of the 
President's grant of clemency. They had to read it in the newspaper. 
Perhaps the gravest oversight of all is that the terrorists were never 
asked to provide any information about other FALN members who are still 
on the FBI most wanted list.
  The goal of this bill is to try to do what Congress can to prevent 
this situation from recurring. The bill would require the Department of 
Justice, if asked to investigate a pardon request, to make all 
reasonable efforts to inform the victims that a pardon request is being 
reviewed and give the victims an opportunity to present their views. 
The Department is also required to notify the victims of a decision to 
grant clemency as soon as practical after it is made and, if it will 
result in the release of someone, before release of that person if 
practicable. The bill also requires that the Department of Justice make 
all reasonable efforts to determine the views of law enforcement on 
whether the person has accepted responsibility for his or her actions 
and whether the person is a danger to any person or society. Finally 
the Department must determine from federal, state and local law 
enforcement whether the person may have information relevant to any 
ongoing investigation, prosecution, or effort to apprehend a fugitive, 
and to determine the effect of a grant of clemency on the threat of 
terrorism or future criminal activity.
  Opponents of this bill argue that it is an unconstitutional 
infringement on the Presidential pardon power. This is not so. This 
bill dictates a process to be used when the President delegates 
investigatory power to the Department of Justice. Accordingly, this 
bill is not a usurpation of the President's pardon power, but within 
the legitimate exercise of Congress's power, in establishing the 
Department of Justice, to ``make all laws which are necessary and 
proper for carrying into Execution'' not only the powers vested in 
Congress but also ``all other powers vested by this Constitution in the 
Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer 
thereof.'' The President's own freedom to exercise the pardon power 
however he sees fit is in no way infringed by this bill. In fact, this 
bill only acts to ensure that the President has the information before 
him to make a well rounded and informed decision. The President can 
ignore the information provided by the victims and the law enforcement 
officers if he chooses to do so. I would hope that he would not. But 
while requirements that would force him to give particular weight to 
their views would most likely be unconstitutional, requiring the 
Department to make this information available to him, for whatever use 
he chooses to make of it, surely is not. Indeed, the President and the 
Department of Justice should be supportive of this bill as it should 
help return to the American people confidence in the clemency process 
that may have been lost following the release of the FALN and Los 
Macheteros terrorists.
  It is unconscionable that in this instance, the views of the victims 
and law enforcement officers, the parties most affected by both the 
criminal act and the clemency, were ignored in the decision making 
process. This bill goes a long way in helping to prevent a recurrence 
of the defects in process in President Clinton's grant of clemency last 
September to the 11 terrorists. It will enhance the quality of 
information available so as to ensure a more balanced basis for the 
President's decisions regarding clemency. I am, therefore, pleased the 
committee has reported this legislation to the floor of the Senate, and 
I urge its prompt enactment.

                          ____________________