SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
PLEASE NOTE: The following transcript is a portion of the official hearing record of the Committee on Government Reform. Additional material pertinent to this transcript may be found on the web site of the committee at [http://www.house.gov/reform]. Complete hearing records are available for review at the committee offices and also may be purchased at the U.S. Government Printing Office.
60–935 CC
2000
CLEMENCY FOR THE FALN: A FLAWED DECISION?
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
Serial No. 106–44
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/reform
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California
JOHN L. MICA, Florida
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia
DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida
STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio
MARSHALL ''MARK'' SANFORD, South Carolina
BOB BARR, Georgia
DAN MILLER, Florida
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
DOUG OSE, California
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
TOM LANTOS, California
ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, DC
CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
JIM TURNER, Texas
THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
———
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont (Independent)
KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director
DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director
DAVID A. KASS, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
CARLA J. MARTIN, Chief Clerk
PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
Hearing held on September 21, 1999
Statement of:
Barnes, Harry, director, Conflict Resolution Program at the Carter Center; and Reverend Dr. Thomas Dipko, executive vice president, United Church Board for Homeland Ministries, United Church of Christ
Cooksey, Michael B., Assistant Director for Correctional Programs, Bureau of Prisons; Jon Jennings, Acting Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice; and Neil Gallagher, Assistant Director for National Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Ettenson, Diana Berger; Thomas Connor; Detective Richard Pastorella, retired, New York City Police Department; and Detective Anthony Senft, retired, New York City Police Department
Fossella, Hon. Vito, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York
Romero-Barceló, Hon. Carlos A., a Representative in Congress from Puerto Rico
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Barnes, Harry, director, Conflict Resolution Program at the Carter Center:
Letter dated October 15, 1999
Prepared statement of
Biggert, Hon. Judy, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, prepared statement of
Burton, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana, information against clemency
Connor, Thomas, prepared statement of
Cooksey, Michael B., Assistant Director for Correctional Programs, Bureau of Prisons, prepared statement of
Dipko, Reverend Dr. Thomas, executive vice president, United Church Board for Homeland Ministries, United Church of Christ, prepared statement of
Ettenson, Diana Berger, prepared statement of
Fossella, Hon. Vito, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, prepared statement of
Jennings, Jon, Acting Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice:
Information concerning a draft letter
Information concerning a petition for clemency
Information concerning White House requests
Prepared statement of
Senft, Detective Anthony, retired, New York City Police Department, prepared statement of
Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the State of California:
Letter dated August 27, 1999
Letter dated September 21, 1999
CLEMENCY FOR THE FALN: A FLAWED DECISION?
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:16 p.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Burton, Morella, Horn, Barr, Miller, Hutchinson, Terry, Biggert, Ose, Vitter, Waxman, Towns, Mink, Norton, Cummings, Kucinich, Davis of Illinois, and Tierney.
Staff present: Kevin Binger, staff director; Daniel R. Moll, deputy staff director; James C. Wilson, chief counsel; David Kass, deputy counsel and parliamentarian; Kristi Remington, senior counsel; Mark Corallo, director of communications; Kevin Long, professional staff member; Kim Reed, counsel; Corinne Zaccagnini, systems administrator; Robin Butler, office manager; Carla J. Martin, chief clerk; Lisa Smith-Arafune, deputy chief clerk; Nicole Petrosino, legislative aide; Howard Denis, staff director, Subcommittee on Civil Service; Russell George, staff director/chief counsel, Subcommittee on Civil Service; Phil Schiliro, minority staff director; Phil Barnett, minority chief counsel; Kenneth Ballen, minority chief investigative counsel; David Sadkin and Michael Yang, minority counsels; Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk; Jean Gosa, minority staff assistant; and Andrew Su, minority research assistant.
Mr. BURTON. The Committee on Government Reform will come to order.
Good afternoon. A quorum being present, the committee will start conducting our business. I ask unanimous consent that all Members' and witnesses' written opening statements be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I ask unanimous consent that all articles, exhibits and extraneous or tabular material referred to be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that questioning in the matter under consideration proceed under clause 2(j)(2) of House Rule XI and committee rule 14 in which the chairman and ranking minority member allocate time to committee counsel or Members as they deem appropriate for extended questioning, not to exceed 60 minutes divided equally between the majority and minority. Without objection, so ordered.
Today we are going to focus on the President's decision to offer clemency to members of a Puerto Rican terrorist group, the FALN. Our system is based on checks and balances. The Congress can pass legislation, but the President can veto it. The President is the Commander in Chief, but only Congress can declare war. But there is one area where the President's power is absolute: the power to grant clemency.
There is nothing the Congress can do about it. There is nothing the courts can do about it. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states, ''He shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States except in cases of impeachment.''
Can we have some order, please.
This is an important responsibility. It is a power that the President has to exercise with a great deal of caution. Before the FALN terrorists, President Clinton had received more than 3,000 petitions for clemency and he had only granted 3 of them. Then on August 11th, the President offered clemency to 16 members of the FALN, a terrorist group seeking independence for Puerto Rico. Almost a month later, 14 of the 16 people accepted the President's offer and were released from prison.
This whole issue has ignited a firestorm of controversy. The FALN was involved in 130 bombings, 5 people were killed, 84 were injured. What we want to know is why did the President make this decision? What is the public benefit? Who advised him on this issue? Was the FBI consulted? The Bureau of Prisons? That is why we are holding this hearing today.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
First, we are going to examine what the FALN is. One of the arguments for granting clemency is that these 16 people were not directly involved in any acts of violence. Well, I want to briefly review what they were convicted of.
Most of these people were convicted of things like seditious conspiracy and conspiracy to obstruct interstate commerce. Let's take a look at exactly what that means. Eight of these people were arrested together in Chicago. They were caught in a stolen van carrying illegal weapons. They were parked near the home of a wealthy businessman named Henry Crown. It is believed they were going to kidnap him. The only thing that stopped them was their arrest.
They were convicted in Federal court. As they were sentenced they shouted threats to the judge. Here is what they said according to the court transcript: ''You are lucky we cannot take you right now. Our people will continue to use righteous violence. Revolutionary justice can be fierce, mark my words. We are going to fight, revolutionary justice will take care of you and everybody else.'' That is what they said to the judge. Now these are the people who were just granted clemency.
Three other FALN members were planning to break one of their leaders out of Leavenworth Prison. They had two safe houses in Chicago where they had thousands of rounds of ammunition, blasting caps, detonating cord, dynamite and numerous weapons.
They had a schematic diagram of the prison hidden under the floorboards in the kitchen of the house. The only thing that stopped them was their arrest. The FBI has a videotape of two of these people in one of their safe houses actually making a bomb. And I think we ought to show that to everyone who is in attendance here today. These are two of the members making a bomb. This is an official FBI tape.
[Videotape.]
Mr. BURTON. Who are these people? These are the people who were just granted clemency. Four of the people who were granted clemency were arrested for their involvement in the armed robbery of an armored car in Connecticut. They are part of a splinter group called in Spanish the machete wielders. This group has claimed responsibility for the murder of a San Juan police officer, ambushing a Navy bus and killing two sailors and shooting a United States Army officer in Fort Buchanan in Puerto Rico. These are the people the President offered clemency to and released from prison.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The saddest part is that the Puerto Rican people don't even know what these people are fighting for. I know a little bit about this issue. I have been a strong supporter of self-determination for Puerto Rico. I am an original sponsor of legislation to give them a free and fair plebiscite to decide their fate. I have spoken in Puerto Rico about this issue.
The vast, vast majority of Puerto Ricans don't want independence. In the last plebiscite only 2.5 percent of the people voted for independence, the rest voted for commonwealth or statehood. Congressman Romero-Barceló of Puerto Rico is here today. He and I worked together on this issue. I hope he will tell us a little bit about the level of support for independence in Puerto Rico.
So I hope we won't have a lot of talk today about how these people were convicted of nonviolent crimes. The only reason some of them did not commit murders or bombings is because they were arrested before they got a chance to do it. Many of the murders remain unsolved to this day. We do not know who committed them. It may have been those that the President pardoned.
We need to know what was behind this decision to offer these people clemency. I think the American people deserve to know.
Was the President aware of the extent of their crimes? Did the President seek the opinion of the Justice Department or the FBI? Did he seek advice from other law enforcement groups? What were the arguments for releasing these people?
I sent a subpoena to the White House. I asked for all of the memos that had been prepared for the President as he made this decision. I sent a subpoena to the Justice Department asking them for all the material they sent to the White House on this case. Instead of complying with the subpoena, the President made a sweeping claim of executive privilege. No documents bearing on this decision can be turned over. Nobody who advised him can testify.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Well, the President has a right to do that. There is no disputing that but I think it is very unfortunate what the President is basically saying is that it is his decision and as far as the Congress and the American people are concerned, it is none of their business.
The President has taken members of a terrorist organization who committed very serious crimes and set them free. I think he has a moral obligation to explain to the American people why he did this. I think he has a moral obligation to explain to the American people why putting these people back on the streets is not a danger to them and their families.
Today I watched the President speaking at the United Nations and two of the things that he highlighted were dealing with terrorism severely and also making sure that nuclear proliferation stopped. And I thought it was kind of interesting that while he was talking about how we should deal severely with terrorism around the world, he was offering clemency to 16 terrorists, members of an organization that had bombed 130 sites and killed or maimed 84 people.
If the President made a good decision, then release the documents and the briefing papers and let them reflect that. If he made a good decision let his aides come up and testify. Mr. President, don't hide behind executive privilege. At the very least the President should go before the American people and give them a forceful explanation as to why these people deserve to be released from prison.
Unfortunately, none of that is going to happen today. We are not going to hear from anyone who can explain to us why the President did what he did. We are going to hear from some people who know a little bit about the FALN terrorists.
We are going to hear from two New York City police officers. They were working on the bomb squad on New Year's Eve in 1982. One of the FALN's bombs went off in their faces while they tried to diffuse it. Detective Senft and Detective Pastorella were permanently crippled. They will be introduced by Congressman Vito Fossella and I am glad he will be here in just a little bit. His plane was delayed because of the weather, but he is on his way.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are also going to hear from Thomas Connor of New York today. Mr. Connor's father was killed by an FALN bomb. It was set off at the historic Fraunces Tavern in New York in 1975. He was 11 years old the day his father died. We also have Diana Berger Ettenson here today. Her husband was sitting at the same table as Thomas Connor's father. She was 6 months pregnant the day that her husband died and her child never saw his father.
I want to thank all of you for being here. I am sorry for the losses that you have suffered. I know a lot of time has passed but time doesn't heal all of these wounds. I was watching TV a couple of weeks ago and I saw Tim Russert interview one of these FALN members who was released from prison, Ricardo Jiménez. I think what upset me the most was that he tried to blame the restaurant owners for the deaths. I am going to read what he said to Tim Russert: ''I think all precautions were taken, you know, to make sure that all human life was preserved. The measures were not taken that were necessary by the people who owned the establishments.''
He blamed the restaurant. Mr. Russert asked him again and again if he felt remorse for what he had done. He just danced around and around the issue and it became clear to me that these people do not regret what they did. They are defiant. In fact two of the people the President offered clemency refused to accept it. Oscar López is one of them. He decided he would rather sit in prison than renounce violence. In 1986, he masterminded a violent plan to break out of prison. They were going to use fragmentation grenades and C–4 explosives. I want to read to you what he was working to get with his compatriots outside prison to attack the prison, bomb it, bomb the guard towers, have helicopters firing into the compound killing the guards there. He asked these people on the outside to get fragmentation grenades, smoke grenades, phosphorus grenades, 8 M–16 rifles, 2 silencers, 50 pounds of plastic C–4 explosives, 8 bulletproof vests, 10 blasting caps to use with the plastic explosives and 100 30-shot clips to use with automatic weapons.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
He does not sound like a fellow who is going to renounce terrorism, does he? He also said that if the man who was going to sell them this equipment would not give them a fair price, they should murder him. He was convicted and received a new 15-year sentence. Did the President know about this man before he offered to let him out of prison? I want to read to you what his presentencing report said in 1986. This was by the court:
It was López who offered to obtain false identification, weapons and explosives. It was López who sent Jaime Delgado to Dallas to negotiate the purchase of weapons and explosives. It was López, moreover, who gave his approval for Cobb's return visit to Leavenworth and for the murder of Michael Neece. Even behind the bars of a Federal penitentiary, Oscar López continued to lead his Chicago supporters in violent plans.
He ordered a murder from behind bars. Fortunately the FBI prevented it from happening. He was offered clemency along with his compatriots.
What was it about Oscar López that moved the President to offer him clemency? The President had received more than 3,000 petitions for clemency. Was Oscar López the most compelling case out of the 3,000? The President only granted clemency to three people. And yet he offered it to Mr. López. I don't understand that, especially in view of the fact that the President only granted 3 out of 3,000.
I read an article in the New York Times where Mr. Ruff, former counsel to the President, stated that they did not make this decision for political reasons. But nowhere in the article did Mr. Ruff explain why the President did make this decision. If the President is going to do something this unprecedented there has got to be a good reason for it. I do not understand why the President will not level with the American people.
We have three witnesses from the Justice Department here today. I don't know if they are going to say anything or not. I asked Mr. Gallagher from the FBI to testify about their threat assessment of the FALN. I also asked him to testify about the crimes committed by these individuals. He has had an opening statement prepared for over 1 week. I was informed last night that the Attorney General will not allow him to read his opening statement. He cannot read it, he could not submit it. I do not understand that. The President is using executive privilege and he will not let the FBI even tell what their assessment was in an opening statement. Now maybe we can get something when we question them.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have run out of words to describe my frustrations with the political games played by Janet Reno and this Justice Department. I just do not know what to say anymore, so I guess what I will do is issue a subpoena for the FBI opening statement. I cannot believe it has come to this.
This has important foreign policy ramifications. We have a serious terrorism problem around the world, as well as events like Oklahoma City and the World Trade Center bombings. Think about that, the World Trade Center bombing. Think about that tragedy at Oklahoma City. I watched the President this morning making this speech at the U.N. As I said before, he said we have to deal severely with terrorism around the world. What kind of message does it send to other countries when we let known terrorists out of prison in our own country?
The President has also told the U.N. that we have to do more to fight nuclear proliferation, and I touched on that earlier. It reminded me of a hearing we had here a couple of months ago. A policy expert from the Defense Department named Jonathan Fox drafted a report for the Defense Department at the administration's request, I understand, stating that China was a nuclear arms proliferator. Someone higher up the food chain made him change his opinion 180 degrees and they told him that they would fire him if he didn't do it, this national security assessment the week before Jiang Zemin, the President of China, was going to Washington. If we are going to fight nuclear proliferation, we better start right here at home.
Let me conclude by saying this. Mr. President, do not leave us sitting here reading the tea leaves trying to figure it out. Send us the documents we have asked for. Let your aides come up and testify. If nothing else, go on TV and tell the American people why letting these terrorists out is to their benefit. But do not tell the American people this is none of their business.
I want to again thank all of our witnesses for being here and I am sorry we had to reschedule this from last week but there is nothing we can do about hurricanes. For those of you who are allowed to speak from the various agencies, we look forward to it.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I now yield to my colleague from California, Mr. Waxman.
Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to say to the victims and family members of victims that are here to testify that our sympathy is with you and we understand the ordeal that you have all gone through. This is the third hearing in which these victims and family members of victims will testify. We have already had a hearing on this issue in two separate Senate committees last week and now we are holding a hearing in this committee on the same subject. And this is after the House has already voted to condemn the President's exercise of granting clemency and the Senate has already voted to condemn the President's action of extending clemency. And as I understand looking over the House schedule for this week, we are going to vote on it once more.
This is really quite extraordinary. The President has the unique constitutional prerogative to make this decision, and I could imagine it was a very difficult decision for him to make.
I received a letter from the President, and I want to ask unanimous consent the letter be made part of the record.
Mr. BURTON. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 1 TO 5 HERE
[The official committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. WAXMAN. And I think it is only fair to read the letter in its entirety at this point.
The President said:
As you know on August 11, 1999, I offered clemency to 16 Puerto Rican nationalists, conditioned on these individuals formally seeking it, renouncing violence and abiding by all parole requirements. This letter is in response to requests for information about my decision.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For the last 6 years various Members of Congress, religious and civic leaders as well as others have urged me to grant clemency to a group of Puerto Rican prisoners, most of whom have been in prison between 16 and 19 years as a result of convictions for offenses arising out of their participation in organizations supporting Puerto Rican independence.
The question of clemency for these prisoners was a very difficult one. I did what I believe equity and fairness dictated. I certainly understand, however, that other people could review the same facts I did and arrive at a different decision. In making my decision, I did not minimize the serious criminal conduct in which these men and women engaged. I recognize and appreciate that there are victims of FALN-related violence who feel strongly that these individuals, although not directly convicted of crimes involving bodily harm to anyone, should serve the full sentences imposed.
Before making my decision, I sought and considered the views of the Department of Justice. Press reports note that certain Federal Bureau of Investigation and Justice Department officials, including the U.S. Attorneys in Chicago and Connecticut, were opposed to clemency. I did not dismiss those concerns as some have implied. Rather, I carefully weighed them in making this difficult decision.
On the other hand, the prisoners were serving extremely lengthy sentences—in some cases, 90 years—which were out of proportion to their crimes. (In contrast, Jose Solis Jordan, who was prosecuted and convicted in July in Chicago of conspiring to place explosive devices at a Marine recruiting center received a sentence of 51 months.)
The petitioners received worldwide support on humanitarian grounds from numerous quarters. President Jimmy Carter wrote in 1997 that granting clemency to these men and women, quote, ''would be a significant humanitarian gesture and would be viewed as such by much of the international community, a concern that was relevant in 1979 and I believe is today.'' End quote.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
He noted that each individual had ''spent many years in prison and no legitimate deterrent or correctional purpose is served by continuing their incarceration.''
Finally, in explaining the close similarity between the current clemency petition and the clemency he granted in 1979 to people who had committed serious crimes in the name of Puerto Rico's independence, he said that then, as now, quote, ''to the extent that clemency might under other circumstances be viewed as evidence of leniency toward terrorists, no such conclusion could be drawn here in light of the length of the sentences served,'' end quote.
President Carter's support was particularly noteworthy because he commuted to time served the sentences of the Puerto Rican nationalists who were convicted for their 1954 attack on the House of Representatives which resulted in the wounding of 5 Congressmen. President Carter also commuted to time served the life sentence of Oscar Collazo, who attempted to assassinate President Truman, an attack that resulted in the death of a White House policeman.
Bishop Tutu and Coretta Scott King all wrote to seek clemency for the petitioners since they had received, quote, ''virtual life sentences'' and ''have spent over a decade in prison while their children have grown up without them,'' end quote.
In addition, various Members of Congress, a number of religious organizations, labor organizations, human rights groups and Hispanic civic and community groups supported clemency. The petitioners also received widespread support across the political spectrum within Puerto Rico.
We have recently provided Congress more than 14,000 pages of materials that the White House received in connection with this clemency matter, including thousands of letters seeking clemency for the prisoners. Many of those who supported unconditional clemency for the prisoners argued that they were political prisoners who acted out of sincere political beliefs. I rejected this argument. No form of violence is ever justified as a means of political expression in a democratic society based on the rule of law.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our society believes, however, that a punishment should fit the crime. Whatever the conduct of other FALN members may have been, these petitioners, while convicted of serious crimes, were not convicted of crimes involving the killing or maiming of any individuals. For me the question, therefore, was whether the prisoners' sentences were unduly severe and whether their continuing incarceration served any meaningful purpose. I considered clemency for each of them on an individual basis.
Nine of the petitioners were convicted in the Northern District of Illinois of seditious conspiracy, armed robbery and various firearms offenses. They did not appear at trial, refused defense counsel, and presented no defense to the charges against them.
They also did not assist the probation office in preparing the presentence reports. They received 20-year sentences for the seditious conspiracy and Hobbs Act counts, 10-year sentences for the weapons charges, and 5-year sentences for the vehicle charges. The sentences on most or all of these counts were imposed consecutively rather than concurrently, which would rarely occur today under the sentencing guidelines and resulted in sentences ranging from 55 to 90 years.
These nine prisoners have served 19 years in prison. I commuted the sentences of eight of these prisoners to between 23 and 26 years, thereby making them eligible for parole pursuant to the mandatory release standards applicable to all prisoners. I refused to commute the sentence of Carlos Alberto Torres, who had been indicted by a Federal grand jury in 1977 on explosive charges, was identified as the leader of the group, and had made statements that he was involved in a revolution against the United States and that his actions had been legitimate.
One of the petitioners, Oscar López-Rivera, was charged with the other nine petitioners but was not arrested until May 1981. He was convicted of the same offenses and received sentences totaling 55 years. He too did not present a defense at trial or assist the probation officer in preparing the presentencing report.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In 1984 he tried to escape and was sentenced to an additional 15 years for that attempt, to run consecutive to his earlier sentence. I proposed commuting his original conviction to 29 years but did not commute his sentence for the attempted escape. He declined the commutation offer.
Three of the petitioners were separately convicted in the Northern District of Illinois of seditious conspiracy, interstate transportation of stolen vehicles, and weapons offenses. At trial, they were represented by stand-by counsel and participated in parts of the trial, although they did not participate in the sentencing process. Each was sentenced to 35 years in prison, and had served 16 years.
I commuted their sentences to 26 years, making them eligible for parole.
The final four petitioners were members of the Los Macheteros and were convicted in the district of Connecticut in connection with the 1984 robbery of a Wells Fargo office. Juan Enrique Segarra-Palmer received a sentence of 55 years, and Antonio Camacho-Negrón received a sentence of 15 years, and Roberto Maldonado-Rivera and Norman Ramirez-Talavera received sentences of 5 years each. The last two have completed their sentences but I remitted their outstanding fines. Antonio Camacho-Negrón was released in 1998 on parole but was later rearrested for parole violation. I was informed that he would be eligible for release at any time if he agreed to abide by the parole requirements. In light of his refusal to comply with the conditions of his first release, I refused to commute his sentence, although I did offer to remit his outstanding fines. He rejected this offer.
Finally, I commuted the sentence of Juan Enrique Segarra-Palmer so that he would be eligible for parole after serving 19 years in prison, consistent with the time served by the Chicago petitioners.
The timing of my decision was dictated by the fact that my former counsel, Charles Ruff, committed to many of those interested in this issue that he would consult with the Department of Justice and make a recommendation to me before he left the counsel position. Pursuant to this commitment, I received his recommendation in early August. As he recently indicated to the New York Times, his recommendation and my decision were based on our view of the merits of the requests—political considerations played no role in the process.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As you know, last week, I asserted executive privilege in the face of Chairman Burton's subpoena seeking memoranda and testimony concerning the decision process. I did so after receiving the opinion of the Attorney General that such assertion was proper as the demand clearly intruded on areas reserved to the President under the Constitution.
Grants of clemency generate passionate views. In vesting the pardon power in the President alone, the framers of our Constitution ensured that clemency could be given even in cases that might be unpopular or controversial. The history of our country is full of examples of clemency with which many disagreed, sometimes fervently. When Theodore Roosevelt granted amnesty to Filipino nationals who attempted to overthrow U.S. control of the Philippines, when Harry Truman commuted the death sentence of Oscar Collazo and when Jimmy Carter commuted the sentence of Collazo and other Puerto Rican nationalists who had fired upon the House of Representatives, they exercised the power vested them by the Constitution to do what they believed was right even in the face of great controversy. I have done the same.
I hope this information is helpful in understanding my decision and that you will share it with members of your committee and others who might find it useful.
——Sincerely, Bill Clinton.
Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I can imagine a decision like this is a very difficult one for a President to make. He knows he alone must make it and that there are people telling him that it is a good idea and people telling him it is not a good idea. And I can particularly see how in light of the strong opposition of many people, including the head of the FBI and others with whom he had consulted, that he could have to take all of their views in consideration. And in our own committee files that have been sent to us by the administration, we have a letter which I will ask unanimous consent to make part of the record. That is a letter, one by Congressman Henry Hyde to Mr. Freeh and then his response to that letter, and I would like to put that in the record.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BURTON. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 6 TO 9 HERE
[The official committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. WAXMAN. This is a draft response by Mr. Freeh and there is no indication that it was actually sent, but this was part of the records that we have before us in our committee deliberations. And Mr. Freeh said:
As recently as June 28, 1999, the FBI in written correspondence advised DOJ that the FBI continued to oppose the release of these terrorists. Specifically the FBI pointed out to DOJ that as active members of Puerto Rican terrorist groups, these individuals sanctioned, supported and/or directly or indirectly participated in activities resulting in no fewer than nine fatalities, hundreds of injuries, millions of dollars in property damage, and armed attacks on U.S. Government facilities. DOJ was also advised the FBI had reason to expect the release of these individuals would, quote, ''psychologically and operationally enhance,'' end quote, the ongoing violent and criminal activities of Puerto Rican terrorist groups.
The FBI also pointed out that any such pardon of the, quote, ''currently incarcerated terrorists would likely return committed, experienced, sophisticated and hardened terrorists to the clandestine movement,'' end quote.
These strong views were sent to the President and he had to take them into consideration, as he said in his letter.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I don't know what I would have done——
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BURTON. Would the gentleman yield for a question on that? You said that was a draft letter. Was that sent to the President, that draft letter?
Mr. WAXMAN. No, it was a draft letter to Congressman Hyde by Mr. Freeh.
Mr. BURTON. And the President was aware of that?
Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I don't know if he was aware of this draft letter, but he was certainly aware of Mr. Freeh's views because as Mr. Freeh points out, he expressed those views in the past and as recently as June 28, 1999, of the FBI opposition to this offering of clemency to these prisoners.
I have to say that I don't know what I would have done if I were President of the United States. I also have to say in all honesty I would never want to be the President of the United States for many, many reasons and the chairman would probably want to agree with my conclusion. But a President has under the Constitution decisions over which we have checks and balances, over which we have a say. But he has one at least, maybe others, but one unique prerogative and that is to decide the fate of individuals who are in prison. He did not pardon these people, which would have been to forgive their crime. He in effect paroled them or granted clemency. And clemency means to moderate the severity of the punishment, and the President decided, as he pointed out in his letter, after hearing from people on both sides to reach that conclusion.
I hope this information that I am sharing with everybody today will answer many of the questions that the chairman raised in his opening statement. Very legitimate questions as to why the President made the decision he has.
Each of us can agree or disagree with his decision, but that decision was his and his alone to make. So, Mr. Chairman, I know this is the third hearing on this issue, I know we have witnesses who have their heartfelt pain to share with us, and I look forward to being here with you and the other members of the committee so that they can present their arguments and their case to all of us and to the American people.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Waxman. I think that I ought to clarify one thing that may not be actually correct in the President's letter. A Federal district judge found that Juan Segarra-Palmer had organized and taken part in the attack at Sabina Seca on a United States Navy bus that killed two sailors that were on their way to a radar station and wounded nine others. So he was directly involved in the murder of two American sailors and the wounding of nine others. I have not had a chance to look at the rest of the letter but that part I do not think is accurate.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Judy Biggert follows:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 10 TO 11 HERE
[The official committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. BURTON. We will now recognize Mr. Romero-Barceló, the Resident Commissioner from the great land of Puerto Rico.
STATEMENT OF HON. CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM PUERTO RICO
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you, Chairman Burton and Ranking Member Waxman, members of the Committee of Government Reform. For the record, I am Carlos Romero-Barceló and I am the sole elected Representative in Congress of the United States of the 3.8 million disenfranchised American citizens in Puerto Rico.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you this afternoon at this hearing where you will consider President Bill Clinton's clemency to 16 terrorists.
I would like to address this issue from the perspective of the vast majority of law-abiding patriotic citizens in Puerto Rico and I want to make it perfectly clear that this group of terrorists neither represent nor speak for us. We abhor violence. I find offensive any effort that attempts to categorize and judge all Puerto Rican-Americans by the actions of these extremists whose goal was to isolate and discredit their fellow Puerto Ricans before the eyes of their fellow citizens, for the purpose of having the Nation reject Puerto Rico and give us independence. Virtually every Puerto Rican-American repudiated their actions then as they repudiate them now. In fact, independence as a status option has been rejected by at least 95 percent of all Puerto Rican voters at each election during the past 50 years and by over 97 percent of the electorate in the status referendum held in December 1998.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Between 1974 and 1983, a small group of political extremists waged an armed campaign of terror and violence that shocked, horrified and even humiliated Puerto Rico. The group calling itself the Armed Forces of National Liberation or, in Spanish, FALN, principally operated from New York, Chicago, and Hartford. A smaller group that called themselves Los Macheteros, operated in Puerto Rico. Declaring themselves at war with the United States, they carried out over 100 major armed attacks in the mainland and in Puerto Rico with the purpose of imposing independence for the island by means of violence, threats and terror. I would like to stress that their aim was to obtain independence by force, by terror and by violence.
In New York, in an attack at the historic Fraunces Tavern, 4 people died and 55 people were injured. In Puerto Rico, a policeman was ambushed and killed. Another group attacked a Navy bus with people who were not armed. The attackers armed with submachine guns sprayed the bus with gunfire and killed two sailors and seriously injured nine others. Clearly, these are acts of terrorism. By 1983, after the members of FALN and Los Macheteros were apprehended, the decade-long campaign of terror stopped.
The horror of the actions of these terrorists has been brought once more to national attention by President Clinton's offer of conditional release to 16 of the terrorists who have served terms averaging over 15 years. The offer of clemency was contingent on specific conditions that required a written request for clemency, the repudiation of violence, intimidation and the use of violence to impose their political ideals. In a democracy of peace loving citizens nothing less than this can be accepted. The individuals involved were not tried or convicted in Federal court for any act of murder or act of violence against another person, because for one, those were not crimes at the times when they were convicted. They were not Federal crimes. The Antiterrorism Act was not enacted until 1990, and further amended in 1996. All of these terrorists were tried on or before 1983, so they could not have been indicted by the Federal Government for those crimes nor for being accessories or accomplices to those crimes. However, they have been members of a terrorist organization. They have never denied as having been part of the FALN or Los Macheteros, and if they didn't participate directly in any of the deaths or injuries, they remained as active members of the organizations and applauded, encouraged and supported those crimes both personally and financially.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Amnesty International, the leading human rights organization in the world, did not consider them prisoners of conscience because the acts they were accused of were violent in nature.
President Clinton's humane offer was accepted by 12 who individually asked for clemency; have renounced violence, and agreed to abide by parole conditions. In short, they met the conditions that seek to gradually incorporate them as productive members of civil society.
I did not oppose the conditional release of these criminals, but I did oppose their unconditional release. I opposed it because the unconditional release of these terrorists would have sent out a negative message throughout the world that our democracy accepts violence intimidation and terrorism to achieve political goals. We don't. I also opposed the unconditional release of these terrorists because it would have insulted their victims, the victims's families and all of us in Puerto Rico.
I believe that what the President has decided is not only the correct thing, it is the humane thing. One of the fundamental requirements for the parole of the criminals in our legal system is the public acknowledgment of responsibility and contrition. The conditions for their release required that each one of them signed a statement asking for clemency. Each one had to renounce violence as a means of obtaining their political purposes and they will be subject to parole conditions.
When criminals are incarcerated, they are placed in prison for three basic reasons. First of all, it is to punish them for the crime they have submitted; second, to protect society from the criminals; and third is to rehabilitate them and give them the opportunity to be rehabilitated. By granting them clemency under special conditions where they have renounced violence and allowing them to reintegrate themselves in civil society under controlled conditions, then we can see if they really meant it when they renounced violence for their purposes. If not, they can be imprisoned again without a new trial and they will have to serve the remainder of their sentences.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This is why I consider that the President's position is a responsible one, and one that we should all support. I was one of the few persons who raised his voice against an unconditional release in Puerto Rico. Those who supported the unconditional release were either misinformed, misled or showed no regard for the peace and security of their fellow citizens. Most of these terrorists were not born in Puerto Rico. Although their parents came from Puerto Rico, most of them were born and lived in Chicago or the New York area. From there they attempted to impose their political beliefs on the people of Puerto Rico.
You will be hearing today from the victims of the FALN terrorism and law enforcement officials. On behalf of their fellow citizens in Puerto Rico, I wish to convey to them our deepest sympathy.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to express the concerns of the vast majority of Puerto Rican Americans who, because of the acts of the terrorists, have been subjected to discrimination in their communities throughout the Nation. Puerto Rico has also been a victim of the terrorist violence.
Some have attempted to characterize the terrorists as freedom fighters. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact that we are disenfranchised and lack representation is as much our fault as it is the fault of Congress. This House tried to start a process to put an end to the colonial relationship by authorizing a referendum with a commitment to act on the results, but the Senate refused to act on it. The people of Puerto Rico unfortunately gave their consent to the colonial relationship and voted to accept it in 1952, calling the territory a commonwealth. Although this relationship called commonwealth has now been rejected by a majority of voters in 1993 and in 1998 referendums, there has been no majority for a definite solution. Regrettably this relationship of inequality and lack of participation in the democratic system, this disenfranchisement provides cover for terrorists in the rest of the world who see us as the last American colony with more than 1 million people.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I wish to leave you with a thought: that the real freedom fighters are the 197,000 Puerto Rican Americans who served the United States in the defense of democracy in times of war during this century. The real freedom fighters are the nearly 150,000 Puerto Rican Americans who have served and the thousands who continue to serve the Nation in times of peace.
Mr. BURTON. Do any Members have any questions of Mr. Romero-Barceló? If not, do you have a question? Mr. Davis.
Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me also first of all express my empathy and concern for those whose families and they themselves have been directly affected by the actions and activities of the FALN. Representative Romero-Barceló, my question is do you think it is possible to separate the actions of individuals from the actions of a group that they may be a part of?
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. It depends on what kind of a group and what that group's policy is and whether the individuals are aware of the acts of the group or not. In this case, there is no doubt that the individuals were part of the group. They have acknowledged it themselves. They have also—there is no doubt that they knew of the facts that were being committed by those groups, because it was they themselves claimed to have committed the acts. So, therefore, they knew what was happening and they continued to be members of the group; so therefore, yes, we cannot disassociate them from the acts of the group because they are accomplices. The only thing is, as I explained, at this point in time they could not be charged as accomplices for murdering or hurting anyone by the Federal Government because those were not Federal crimes but they knew that was happening and they not only knew about it, they applauded it, they stole money for it, they prepared for it. They had the bombs stashed away and other munitions stashed away for other acts.
Some of these members were caught with a warehouse of bombs and other explosives. So I don't think that you can disassociate them from these acts. It is not the same as when somebody belongs to an organization and somebody else does something over which they have no control or they don't even know about.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. We continue to hear different representations in terms of those who suggest that the individuals in question were involved in some direct activity and others who suggest that there is no proof that the individuals were involved in any action or activity where violence was direct.
Do you, in terms of your understanding of them, were they, to the best of your knowledge, instances where they were involved or were they, as you indicated a moment ago, accomplices?
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. The accomplice is involved. The accomplice is as guilty as the individual, as the main person. When two or more people rob a bank, the one that is waiting for them to rob outside in the car on the lookout is as much—has as much guilt about the crime as the ones that are in there with the guns and holding the people up to hold up the bank.
I think this is what we learn in law, that in most jurisdictions the accomplices are as guilty of the crime as the principal.
Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And so your position is whether they were directly or not, they still were part and would have been just as guilty and, therefore, your position is that the sentencing was warranted in terms of the length of time that they were given?
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. I think even their attitude in the trial demonstrates that they were aware. Most of them refused to defend themselves and they allege that they were prisoners of war because they were in a state of war against the United States. So how much more of an acceptance of the facts, of acceptance of their violent acts can you have than that statement? When they say that they are in a state of war against the United States and that they refuse to defend themselves because they are not citizens, they are prisoners of war?
So some of them even threatened the judges and said that they did not kill the judge because they had their hands cuffed, otherwise they would get up and choke him right there.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much. I have no further questions. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say to Mr. Waxman that I really appreciated his reading the President's letter, because I think that the letter further revealed the careful consideration that this matter was given. And I happen to be one who agreed with the President in terms of viewing this as an opportunity to look at perhaps even some different approaches to the way that we look at democracy, and that rather than just thinking in terms of punishment, rather than just thinking in terms of how harsh we could be, but could we look at it as an opportunity to reconcile, to experience the act and movement toward the act of healing and being in agreement with former President Jimmy Carter, to be in agreement with Coretta Scott King, to be in agreement with Bishop Tutu, who obviously has seen much horror, much difficulty, but yet understands that democracy can be fellowship as well as punishment.
And so I thank you very much for your testimony and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURTON. I am going to yield to Mr. Horn. I am just going to take a minute of my 5 minutes, and then I will yield to Mr. Horn.
We live in a different age than I think any previous American has ever lived in. There have been killings, we have had Presidents assassinated and we have had a lot of problems like that but we have not had serious acts of terrorism take place like those we have seen in recent years. The Oklahoma City bombing hurt everybody in America. Everybody in this country felt for those kids that were carried out of that nursery there in pieces.
Everybody was concerned and felt terrible about the tragedy that occurred at the World Trade Center. People were killed. People who were granted clemency by the President, especially Juan Segarra-Palmer, who was involved in killing two sailors, shooting up a bus with machine guns on unarmed sailors, killed two of them and wounded nine, that is another act of terrorism. And I really and truly believe that the American people believe the time has come for us to put those people away and not let them back out on the streets.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Granted, the President has the right under the Constitution to grant clemency to these people. But when you see buildings being blown up in New York and Oklahoma City and you see all these little kids coming out maimed or killed, you say shouldn't they be kept off the streets, these people? And I ask the question today, should we start thinking about clemency for the people that did that horrible thing at Oklahoma City or the World Trade Center? Because if you follow the logic that I am hearing, you know, you probably ought to consider that. I mean, this Mr. Segarra-Palmer, who was pardoned was involved in murdering two American sailors. They are dead just like the people at the World Trade Center in Oklahoma City, and my question is, you know, when do you start keeping these people off the streets?
I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Horn.
Mr. HORN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think the President obviously could do that, we all know, under the Constitution. I think he made a mistake when he is delivering people out to society that have a violent record. I had contact with the Puerto Rican independence movement in the mid-1970's when I was vice chairman of the United States Commission on Civil Rights. We went to New York to look at the schooling for Puerto Ricans, black students, white students in New York. The independence movement was very active. They came, demonstrated, raised cain, and I have a picture in the archives of a chair coming right for us. That person should have been in the Olympics, and three of the six commissioners were university presidents so we were sort of used to that anyway. We just ducked.
This movement is frankly counterproductive. Personally I think Puerto Rico ought to be independent. I think we had common sense when we put into the Philippine compact that they would be free in 1946. We did not know about a world war or anything else. But when 1946 came, the Philippines was independent, and that should have happened to some of the other acquisitions of the Spanish American War. And I think their violence is just slowing down what makes sense, which is have Puerto Rico be its own country.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BURTON. Does anybody else have questions? I yield to the gentlewoman.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think that a grave concern that we have had is that the President's decision to grant clemency has really set a precedent. And we don't know where that's going to go and what kind of message we're sending to terrorists and criminals both here and abroad, and I think it calls into question the United States' resolve to wage an unyielding war on terrorism.
So my question to you is, is the FALN still active in Puerto Rico and will the release of these people cause a resurgence, whether it be by peaceful measures or by violent measures, even though they are supposed not to be involved in this at all? Since only 2.5 percent of the people, granted, or one in two voted for independence, is the FALN still active?
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. As far as we know, there have only been—there have been two acts that were committed this past year that were allegedly claimed to have been committed by the FALN Los Macheteros. One was, in an aqueduct under construction to bring water into the metropolitan area from one area of the island to the other, and there was something that blew up or something in the project; they claimed they had done it. And then there was another one that was, a bomb that exploded in front of some other building.
These are the only two incidents that have happened since 1983. One of those two incidents, the organization said that they did not—whoever claimed it on their behalf was lying because they didn't do that. But one of them has remained—is being claimed by them. Outside of that, there has been no other activity.
I guess the hope is that the people, the amount of time that they did serve is sufficient to make them reconsider and that they—their commitment to renounce violence is sincere. Whether it will be or not, I have no way of knowing. All we can do is hope that they're sincere when they signed the statement renouncing violence.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. BIGGERT. You don't think they will make other members want to get reinvolved, or kind of stoke up——
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. I'm sure there will be some persons who would like to get them reinvolved. There are still a couple of—one of the big leaders is in Cuba. He's being hunted. He hasn't been arrested. He escaped. He was in New York in a hospital; he escaped from a hospital and he went to Cuba.
Then there's another one that is still treated at large. I'm sure they would probably like to get them back involved, but whether they will or not, there's no way we can know until it happens. At least by being under probation, they are—they can be put back with the mere suspicion that, given their activities, they are involved. They don't have to have a trial to prove that they're guilty. They just have to pull them back in if there's any danger.
Mr. BURTON. My time has expired.
Mrs. Mink, did you have any questions?
Mrs. MINK. No. Thank you.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Ose.
Mr. OSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of questions if I might. Before I proceed, with great respect to my friend, Mr. Davis of Chicago, I want to completely disassociate myself from his remarks of a few moments ago relative to the consequence of this kind of behavior.
Mr. Romero-Barceló, do you know of anyone who requested that the President grant this clemency?
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Requested the President?
Mr. OSE. Yes.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. I think the whole movement was begun and put together by a Member of Congress.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. OSE. Who was that?
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Luis Gutierrez from Chicago.
Mr. OSE. Have there been other Members of Congress——
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Who supported that? Nydia Velázquez from New York has supported it, and I think Jose Serrano has supported their unconditional release. They have been supporters of the unconditional release.
Mr. OSE. The President's letter talks about an ongoing effort over the last 6 years from various Members of Congress, religious and civic leaders, as well as others, urging him to grant clemency. I understand the process prisoners have is to request clemency.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. That's what I thought. They told me that not necessarily—that the lawyers, for instance, can do it on their behalf and others can do it on their behalf as has been done in other cases. I don't know. That's what I've been told. I thought the same way as what you just said.
Let me tell you one thing. The people of Puerto Rico were totally misled by the information. In the first place, all of the press of Puerto Rico always refer to them as political prisoners. I was always careful to say, when they ask me about the political prisoners, I say, ''who are you talking about? They are not political prisoners. There are politicians in prisons, but I don't know of political prisoners in our system.'' I would also say that political prisoner implies that they're prisoners of conscience. And these are not prisoners of conscience. They're prisoners because they have committed felonies.
But the press always calls them ''political prisoners,'' everybody calls them ''political prisoners.'' The information that they gave, that these people had never been involved in the commission of a serious act. And the people of Puerto Rico are very compassionate, very compassionate; and they felt that, well, they had been in long enough. They were always—everyone was told that these people have served more than anybody else for crimes similar or even for worse crimes than they had committed.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
People are very sympathetic. They joined the movement to ask for unconditional release. And there was no voice out there. No voice out there saying no. I was the only voice saying to the President, look, if you are going to consider any clemency, it has to be restricted. They have to ask for it. They have to at least renounce violence as a means for obtaining their release and they have to be under supervision. They have to be under probation.
There was no—everybody else was asking for unconditional release except the Governor, who said they should be treated individually.
Mr. OSE. If I understand correctly, at least on the surface, it appears perhaps some of these prisoners didn't even ask for clemency. The President, for whatever reason, may have gone and offered it.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. That's why the offer says that they must ask for it and they must sign a request for clemency.
Mr. OSE. So in effect, you can have clemency if you ask for it?
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. That's right.
Mr. OSE. Is that a negotiation?
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. I don't know if there were negotiations directly with the President or not. I think it was just requested.
Mr. OSE. Would you consider that approach to be a negotiating approach? If you say this, we'll do that? That reminds me of doing business. Negotiating.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. I don't think it's negotiation. The President said, here, you can be released provided you do this. I don't think there was any negotiation. There was just a condition imposed on the release.
Mr. OSE. The other question I want to come back to is, besides Members of Congress and the folks that you're familiar with in Puerto Rico, are there others that you—and the reason I ask this question is we can't get the information, for instance, from the administration. Are there others who have urged him to grant clemency, that you know of?
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. They have been mentioning it here today: President Carter; Bishop Desmond Tutu; Coretta Scott King; the Archbishop in Puerto Rico; a lot of the churches in Puerto Rico; all the Protestant churches; churches here in the mainland; civic groups here in the mainland and churches in Chicago area, the New York area. This was, at least in our press and some of the local press in New York and Chicago, this was there but nobody raised a voice or opposed it. Nobody was opposing the request for the unconditional release.
Mr. OSE. If that were the case, if all the information was proclemency, why wouldn't we be able to get that information out of the administration? Why wouldn't they release those documents to us?
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. I don't know.
Mr. OSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. WAXMAN. Would the gentleman just yield to me?
Mr. OSE. Certainly. I always yield to my good friend.
Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you.
Just to clarify for the record, I speak as someone who is not for or against what the President did; I'm still listening to the arguments. But the administration did submit 10,000 pages of documents, including a list—and I'll give it to the chairman to make part of the record—of Members of Congress and some others that requested clemency. As I pointed out—the release, as well—information about people who rejected clemency, like Mr. Freeh from the FBI. You asked the question and I just thought you ought to know we did get some of that information available to us.
Mr. OSE. I thank my friend.
Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you.
Mr. BURTON. I think we ought to clarify one thing. I went through those documents with my staff. Almost all of them were just postcards, notes, and form letters that were sent into the administration, asking for clemency, from a whole host of people in Puerto Rico, but there was not really much information there.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you, Mr. Romero-Barceló. I do not think anyone else has any questions.
Our next panel is our good friend and colleague, Vito Fossella of New York, who will be introducing Diana Berger Ettenson, Thomas Connor, Detective Richard Pastorella and Detective Anthony Senft. Would you all come forward, please.
If you all would remain standing. I know you are going to be very forthright, but as a matter of course, since we are going to have people from the executive branch here, we would like for you to stand and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Fossella, Congressman Fossella, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. VITO FOSSELLA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. FOSSELLA. Chairman Burton, Ranking Member Waxman and distinguished ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning and to testify at today's hearing, entitled, ''Clemency for the FALN: A Flawed Decision?''
For the past month, I along with others, especially the victims of FALN activities have been waging a battle to bring public pressure on the White House to rescind the President's offer of clemency to 16 terrorists, each of whom played an integral role in the FALN terrorist organization. Despite an overwhelming outpouring of support against the White House sweetheart deal and despite the unanimous and staunch opposition as so reported of virtually every Federal law enforcement organization, this clemency offer unilaterally reversed America's long-standing policy of neither negotiating nor sympathizing with terrorists.
There are many reasons why we undertook this uphill battle, not the least of which was that I feared the release of these individuals would send the wrong message to terrorists who have a bull's-eye on American cities. Today, sadly, I must report that the message has been heard loud and clear. It appears that terrorists who have long been asleep have recently been awakened.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Last week—I don't think this has been reported here—the leader of Los Macheteros—Congressman Romero-Barceló alluded to them—a ruthless terrorist organization that claimed responsibility for bombings and other acts of violence, along with the FALN, throughout the 1970's and 1980's emerged from a decade of hiding to issue a new threat against the United States, a potential terrorist plot aimed squarely at our Nation and our people.
In his statement, Filiberto Ojeda Rios told WPAB, a Puerto Rican radio station, ''If they, the United States Navy, start bombing Vieques again and they threaten the island's population or those carrying out acts of civil disobedience, they will have to face the consequences because Los Macheteros will not remain with their arms crossed, you can be sure of that.''
He added that Puerto Rico should take full advantage of ''this historic moment'' and battle against the ''revolutionary offenses'' being developed by the U.S. Government, the FBI, Resident Commissioner Carlos Romero-Barceló and others.
Is it any surprise that just days after these terrorists have been released that America's received this new threat of violence? Is it any surprise that the terrorist issuing the threat was associated with members of the FALN, four of whom, by the way, are also affiliated with the Los Macheteros group?
I'm deeply concerned that the release of these terrorists has reignited the flame that burns in the hearts of terrorists who kill without conscience and describe men, women, and little children as casualties of their twisted war. Our Nation cannot have a zero tolerance policy toward terrorism when we are willing to allow terrorists to walk out of jail free.
The White House defends this sweetheart deal by claiming the terrorists let back onto America's streets were not the same terrorists who proudly claim responsibility for more than 130 bombings during the 1970's and 1980's. Never mind that several of the terrorists released were captured on videotape making bombs, as you pointed out. Never mind that the self-proclaimed ringleader of this terrorist circus, who is now in exile in Cuba, declared that the FALN operated under a collective form of leadership. Never mind, since these terrorists have been locked behind bars, not one bomb has exploded nor has one single American has been killed by the FALN, at least as far as I know—and that addresses, I believe, Mrs. Biggert's comment before about, have there been any terrorist activities? No, because they've been behind bars.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The fact is that these individuals knowingly stepped aboard a train of terrorism, and as a result, should take full responsibility and be held accountable for all FALN violence, at least to the full extent of the law.
The nightmare of this notorious terrorist network goes back many years. On January 24, 1975, the FALN bombed the historic Fraunces Tavern in downtown Manhattan. This cowardly attack killed 4 and wounded over 40, all of them innocent people who were just enjoying a Friday afternoon lunch at one of New York City's most famous and popular restaurants. In a note found near the scene of the crime, the FALN took responsibility for the bombing and stated in part,
We, the FALN armed forces of the Puerto Rican nation take full responsibility for the especially detonated bomb that exploded at Fraunces Tavern with reactionary corporate executives inside. In our communique number 2, we warned the North American government that to terrorize and kill our people would mean retaliation by us. This was by no means an empty warning.
I underscore and let me emphasize the word ''we'' in that communique; ''they'' took full responsibility for the bombing, not ''I.'' I believe that underscores the collective responsibility of the FALN.
Over the next 9 years, the FALN systematically sought to spread fear and terror throughout our Nation. They planned and executed one devastating bomb after another, peaking with their most symbolic and vicious attack on New Year's Eve in 1982 by striking at the heart of the rule of law, New York City Police Headquarters and the Federal building which houses the New York City headquarters of the FBI.
On that night, the lives of many people were changed forever, none more so than the three men who, over the past 4 weeks, I've come to regard as true heroes, not the so-called heroes that will be celebrating elsewhere, and his good friends. Detective Richard Pastorella lost sight in both eyes, all his fingers on his right hand, has 20 titanium screws holding his face together, and has undergone 13 major painful operations on his face alone.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
His partner, Detective Anthony Senft, lost an eye, is partially deaf and has endured several separations on his hip and other areas of his body.
Their fellow police officer, Rocco Pascarella, lost his right leg and sustained a host of other injuries, including the partial loss of hearing.
On behalf of these brave men and so many others like those with me here today, Thomas Connor and Diana Berger, who both lost loved ones in the Fraunces Tavern bombing, we took on this cause in the hope the White House would rescind the offer of clemency after, and I repeat ''after,'' the terrorists rejected the original offer.
We also thought that the U.S. Congress could speak for those who could not. The innocent people who died at the hands of the FALN, the dozens who were injured and maimed, and all those who were ignored and brushed aside by this administration. We have given a voice to every American who is horrified and disgusted.
I believe that these terrorists have been granted life's most precious commodities—freedom, liberty, and independence—despite the fact that they took those same commodities away from innocent people. We took on this cause to try and prevent the travesty of justice from occurring and to avoid sending a signal of weakness to terrorists.
By reviewing a request for clemency reportedly outside normal Department of Justice guidelines and granting clemency to dangerous terrorists, and then to place seemingly lenient conditions on their release is to undermine U.S. policy and the very foundation upon which this great Nation was built. To undermine that policy is to make the United States vulnerable to future terrorist attacks.
That's not just my opinion, Mr. Chairman; an overwhelming majority in the House and 95 U.S. Senators, Democrats and Republicans, consider ''making concessions to terrorists is a deplorable act'' and that ''the President should not have granted clemency to the FALN terrorists.''
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One of the more egregious aspects of this clemency offer is that for years the victims of FALN violence have been trying to sit down with the Justice Department staff to present their side of the story. Some victims did not even get the courtesy of a phone call that the terrorists were going to be released. Meanwhile, advocates for the terrorists have had the opportunity to meet with the Department of Justice officials, along with folks from the White House, regularly. It would have been nice and appropriate and the right thing to do to extend the same level of courtesy to these victims. They are the individuals who have been suffering all these years.
Some now argue, let's get this clemency behind us. I say, not so fast. Someone at the Justice Department or the White House still owes these victims and the United States, I believe, a public explanation as to why these terrorists were set free. In effect, the victims have been told to live with it, and it's none of their business.
We have an obligation to demonstrate whether there was a new threat posed by these terrorists. It has been reported that the Bureau of Prisons tapes exist, proving that the terrorists will engage in violence once they are released from prison. Is this the case? Is this true? Do these tapes exist?
The FBI has threat assessments on various terrorist organizations, and should we now be concerned about the threat of the FALN terrorists to our Nation? Should law enforcement agencies, which thought the FALN was a dead issue and was put to bed, now have to track these individuals, depleting valuable resources to combat crime and terrorism?
What are the conditions of the clemency? Are they allowed to meet with one another? According to the Parole Commission, these individuals are not permitted to associate with each other. There are reports, however, that these terrorists will be participating in a rally in Puerto Rico this week. Were we lied to? Will they be monitored? Will they be allowed to speak to one another? Is the administration willing to enforce the conditions of clemency? Will the terrorists be sent back to prison if they violate the terms of clemency?
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We cannot turn back the clock and undo the damage that's been done here, Mr. Chairman. But we can and we must investigate this matter deeply to learn why the White House chose again, as has been reported, to ignore the unanimous recommendation of law enforcement agencies, to keep these terrorists where they belong, behind bars in Federal prison.
The 16 terrorists demonstrated no contrition for their actions, nor remorse for their reign of terror. They belong in prison and they should serve every last day of their jail sentence. America must show no sympathy for those who commit acts of terrorism on American soil.
As I pointed to in the past, there is this argument they were nowhere near the bomb scene. Well, let's just turn the clock back several years and think of the Oklahoma City bombing tragedy. Terry Nichols was nowhere near the bomb scene, and he was rightly sentenced to suffer in prison because he allowed so many other people to suffer. Could you imagine the outrage across this country if in 10 or 15 years the then-President of the United States steps forward and gives Terry Nichols clemency because he was nowhere near the bomb scene? There would be justified outrage.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your indulgence in allowing me to go beyond the normal 5 minutes, and I would like to introduce some of the human faces affected by the FALN violence, and I trust their experiences and views will demonstrate how grave an issue this truly is.
I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fossella follows:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 18 TO 22 HERE
[The official committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Fossella. If you would like, you can introduce Ms. Berger first and then we will go right down the line with the others.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, it's my honor to introduce Mrs. Diana Berger Ettenson, whose husband again suffered what is probably the most fearful thing any family can suffer. Her husband left work one morning, attended a lunch, and never returned. He was killed in the Fraunces Tavern bombing.
STATEMENTS OF DIANA BERGER ETTENSON; THOMAS CONNOR; DETECTIVE RICHARD PASTORELLA, RETIRED, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; AND DETECTIVE ANTHONY SENFT, RETIRED, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
Ms. ETTENSON. My name is Diana Berger Ettenson. On January 24, 1975, the FALN, a Puerto Rican terrorist group, placed a bomb in Fraunces Tavern, a historic site in New York City. That bomb exploded at the height of the lunch hour. Four people were killed and over 60 were injured in the blast. One of those killed was my husband, Alejandro, A-L-E-J-A-N-D-R-O, Alex Berger, who was attending a business lunch. I was 6 months pregnant at the time. Alex was an only child, whose parents had just moved to the United States to be close to us.
On the day of the bombing, I was driving to New York to meet Alex and his parents. I heard the news of the blast on my car radio. The news reported that a group known as the FALN had claimed responsibility for the bombing. I had never heard of this group before. However, this group has haunted me to this day. I had to tell Cecelia and Joseph Berger that their only child had been murdered. I do not think I have to tell you in detail what this act of terror did to my family and friends.
I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not here today for any political reasons. I am here to express my outrage over President Clinton's release of the FALN terrorists.
Let us make no mistake about the criminals who were released. Contrary to what their supporters and the White House have suggested, they were not in prison merely because of guilt by association. They were proud and fervent members of a group which sought independence for Puerto Rico by carrying on a reign of terror in the United States. The people that the President released were fully cognizant of all aspects of the FALN's goals and means of achieving them. They were convicted of crimes that helped facilitate the terror of the FALN and some were actually involved in bombmaking. They have never denied their participation and responsibility.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I refuse to be insulted by those who say that these people were never proven to have caused bodily harm. They were captured before more innocent lives were lost. Acts of random terrorism ceased after these people were imprisoned. The FALN, including those just released, were responsible for the killing and maiming of innocent people whom they conveniently describe as ''victims of war.'' The prison sentences they received were commensurate with their deeds.
Mr. Chairman, I have heard that the terrorists have renounced violence. I have heard that we should have peace and reconciliation. What I have not heard, however, is one ounce of remorse from any of those released. They have no remorse. One terrorist even proudly proclaimed that he is not sorry for anything that he did in the past. Two members of the FALN refused to renounce violence and, fortunately, still remain in prison. Are these the people who deserve clemency from the President?
Upon their release, their supporters have hailed them as political prisoners and freedom fighters. Mr. Chairman, how do you think I and other victims feel when we have to listen to this?
Mr. Chairman, the victims of this outrageous act of clemency need the help of you and your committee, Democrats and Republicans. President Clinton must provide a comprehensive explanation for his actions and not merely say that it was the just thing to do and that they were punished enough. The victims continue to be punished each and every day.
Why was clemency granted to 16 violent criminals who show no remorse for their conduct when the President has utilized his extraordinary power on only three prior occasions, each involving minor infractions, despite over 3,000 requests? Where is the sense of proportion? What documents did the President analyze in making his decision? Why does the White House refuse to release these documents? What is being hidden?
Why was this decision made in the face of opposition from the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons and U.S. attorneys? Why was the Department of Justice silent on the matter? What was the role of Charles Ruff and what promises did he make? Why couldn't the White House notify the victims and their families?
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It has recently come to my attention that the freed prisoners are reuniting with the consent of their probation officer. Has this consent been given, and if so, why?
The American people and the victims of FALN violence demand answers to these questions.
Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank you for your time and attention to this important matter.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ettenson follows:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 23 TO 25 HERE
[The official committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Ms. Berger, for that very eloquent testimony.
Mr. Fossella.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, in 1975—I mentioned the Fraunces Tavern bombing—there were two boys home with their mother, Thomas Connor, who was 11, and his brother, Joseph, who were about to celebrate Joseph's 19th birthday when they got the call that their father would not be returning home. He was in the restaurant with Mrs. Berger's husband.
Mr. CONNOR. I'm Tom Connor. We all live in the United States, the greatest country on Earth, a Nation of laws. And we live in an age following the fall of communism when the country is at peace. It's a time when American-style democracy is flourishing across the world and our enemies are few. Therefore, right here and right now, Americans should feel as safe from the horrors of world war as we ever have in the past 100 years. Americans should be able to go about their daily lives feeling safe and secure. But we can't, and we can't because on the eve of the next century, the threat of global terrorism is greater than it has ever been.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the United States, a country that has never really suffered from terrorism up until 25 years ago, that threat is tremendous. The World Trade Center bombing and the Oklahoma City catastrophe are just the latest examples, but more are sure to follow. And right now when the United States should be leading the world in fighting terrorism, the President decides to offer clemency to 16 members of one of the most violent organizations ever to wage war against the U.S. Government from within our own borders.
He claims these people are nonviolent, but three of them were arrested while building bombs and another eight were arrested in a van full of weapons on their way to commit armed robbery. Does that sound nonviolent to you?
After being captured, they spoke proudly of their actions and during their trials, they threatened the judge and prosecutors. Does that sound nonviolent to you?
There never was a pacifist wing of FALN and not one member has ever expressed remorse. The 14 who eventually accepted the President's offer took over 3 weeks to formally renounce violence. Do these sound like people who deserve clemency to you?
Their release was unanimously opposed by the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, and the U.S. Attorneys office. They were taped in prison discussing a return to violence after their release. Again, do these sound like the people who deserve clemency to you?
The Founding Fathers gave the President the power to pardon, not subject to congressional approval. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton stated that this power would not be abused lest the President be thought conniving. Mr. Hamilton obviously never envisioned President Clinton.
By offering this clemency, the President has endangered America. His action renders void the judgment of the juries and Federal judges who impose long prison sentences on these violent felons because they knew the facts and they understood the terrorists' motives. His explanation of why this action was taken is not only weak, but it insults the intelligence of the American people who obviously know it was done for political purposes. His action is an affront to me, to my family, and all those whose lives were forever harmed by the FALN's indiscriminate violence. Finally, he, perhaps in violation of the law, didn't even have the decency to inform the victims of these terrorists' release. We found out by reading about it in the newspaper.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But now they're free; they've been released onto our streets and into our cities. I pray that their violent ways have ended, but Americans should not have to be reliant upon my prayers. Terrorists of any nationality should never be granted clemency if this country is to be serious in their thoughts about opposing terrorism.
The next indiscriminate bombing in this country will probably not kill me or anyone else in my family, but it may harm someone that you all know or love. And whenever that happens and whoever is the bombmaker, I, unlike the President, will feel the pain of the victims, and he will be partially responsible for it.
I ask you to continue to investigate this clemency matter to determine why it was done over the objections of the Nation's leading law enforcement agencies, to ascertain how the process even began without the formal request of the terrorists themselves, to understand how it is that representatives of a terrorist group can be given time with Attorney General Janet Reno while the victims are ignored and slighted, in possible violation of the law.
Also, how is it that the President can write to Mr. Waxman, but not have the decency to address anyone sitting at this table? Gaining the answers to these questions cannot bring back my father or repair 24 years of pain, but it can help to keep other victims from having to suffer at the hands of terrorists, as mine has.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Connor follows:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 26 TO 39 HERE
[The official committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Fossella.
Mr. FOSSELLA. I just want to reference the letter addressed to Congressman Waxman.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One paragraph says that President Carter's support was particularly noteworthy because he commuted to time served the sentences of Puerto Rican nationalists who were convicted for the 1954 attack. Several years later, another group of Puerto Rican nationalists blew up buildings in downtown Manhattan, and two of the victims are here today.
Detective Richard Pastorella, who was responding to a bomb threat December 31, 1982.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Pastorella.
Mr. PASTORELLA. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, I am Detective Richard Pastorella, retired, from the New York City Police Department bomb squad. I do not have a prepared speech for you this morning; I speak only from my heart.
I also take issue with the President's decision to grant clemency to this terrorist organization and group. Each of these people, when they joined the FALN, knew full well what the manifesto of that organization was, namely, the violent overthrow of the American Government.
These terrorists claim that they speak for the Puerto Rican people; I say here and now, they do not. My argument is not with the Puerto Rican people as a whole. They are fine, decent, law-abiding people that have contributed to the fabric of this Nation and made it and continue to make it the great Nation that it is today. I take issue also when I hear that Coretta Scott King, Bishop Tutu and others have asked for the release of this terrible group of people. I take issue because I'm not certain exactly what their comments and statements were.
Not very long ago I was told that Cardinal O'Connor of the Archdiocese of New York City also asked for the unconditional release of these terrorists. That was not true and is not true. Cardinal O'Connor has just in the past few days renounced that statement and said that he had only asked for a review of their release.
I remind Bishop Tutu that not very long ago on his shores in Kenya and Nairobi, the American embassies that were blown up by other terrorists where 12 American lives were lost and hundreds of African nationals sacrificed their lives. Are they to be forgotten?
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I decided to come here this morning to speak to this committee and to you, Mr. Chairman, to give a human face to what terrorism truly is. Who, I ask you, is going to commute my sentence? My body has healed, but my emotions will never heal. I bear this cross for 17 years, and I will never be free of it. My daughter-in-law is Puerto Rican. I have two granddaughters that have Puerto Rican heritage, and I am proud of them, but I have never seen them. Please excuse me.
When my granddaughters present me with crayon drawings and are pleased to show them to me, I have to pretend that I can see them and enjoy their effort. When they ask me to go outside and play ball with them, I cannot. I don't have the fingers to hold the ball. I can't even see it coming. I have sacrificed my pride, my dignity, and will never be free. Yet these terrorists are free to roam our streets here in America.
I've been told also that they have served an inordinate number of years behind bars unjustly. Congressman Fossella, Mrs. Berger, Tom Connor have mentioned Terry Nichols. He wasn't there at the bombing in Oklahoma City at the Alfred P. Murrah Building, but he was complicit. He did plan that destruction. He did assist in the manufacture of that weapon.
Let us take this a step further to total absurdity. Should we consider the freedom of Charles Manson? He's been in prison for 28 years and is now over 64 years old. He wasn't there at the time when the LoBiancos were stabbed to death or when Sharon Tate was killed. Should we consider his freedom, his human rights? What of our human rights?
We here today speak for those that have been killed and injured in the past, who cannot speak for themselves. Have we forgotten the 168 lives lost in Oklahoma City—men, women, and innocent children? I ask those of you here present in this committee and in this room to look at us carefully. You should be seeing the mirror image of members of your own families. I wonder—I wonder how readily would you step forward to defend this President and his hypocrisy if your family members were seated at this table, if your grandchildren were blinded and had their limbs blown from their bodies. I wonder, Mr. Waxman, if you'd be there to defend the President and his choice of clemency. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If I have made you uncomfortable this morning, so be it. You should be uncomfortable. I will never be free. My partner and his family will never be free. Rocco Pastorella and his family will never be free till our Heavenly Father takes us home; then and only then will we be free.
Don't let our suffering and pain be for naught. Don't let the lives sacrificed at Oklahoma City and the World Trade Center in New York be forgotten. Why were those lives sacrificed? To what purpose? For a headline? To bring notice to a political cause? Have any of those lives sacrificed and maimed furthered any of those causes one iota, one inch? No, not at all, and yet we continue to suffer daily. Who thinks of us, who here remembers? Very few. Certainly not Mr. Clinton.
What part did Charlie Ruff play in this? I wonder. Was this a quid pro quo for his legal services in defending the President with the Monica Lewinsky debacle where America yawned, where everyone just nudged—nudged, wink, wink, say no more?
Well, this is a totally different issue. This is where American lives and American blood has been shed here on our shores. I urge every one of you, I urge you, Mr. Chairman, don't let us down. Investigate this to the full. What is William Jefferson Clinton hiding and why?
I thank you, each and every one. My apologies if I have made you uncomfortable, but I have to make my point the only way I can. I am privileged to speak here to exercise my right under the first amendment. The members of the FALN had that very same right and I don't disagree with that as long as it doesn't impinge on the rights and safety of others. Why, why have they chosen the bomb and the bullet when they had the civilized choice and more traditional choice of the power of the pen.
Here, here in this wonderful government of ours we exercise freedoms daily. We live in safety, yet we take that safety in total complacency. No, there is a true danger lurking very close to us all every minute of every day, and when the next terrorist act occurs here at home upon us, Mr. Clinton will have to assume some of that responsibility because he has now set a new judicial standard. We can negotiate with terrorists even though he stands up before the American public and says we will never do so, we will pursue them to the ends of the Earth.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, says we will never forget the people who have lost their lives in Africa and in our embassies throughout the world. Innocent children killed and maimed on buses that were going by the building had nothing to do with any political statement, yet their lives were drawn into it as ours have been and to what purpose? For a 1-day headline in the paper?
Is that all our lives mean? Are we expendable? I leave these questions for you to have answered. We have voted you into office to speak for us. Please do so.
Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Pastorella. That was a very eloquent statement. We appreciate the heartache you have had to endure.
Mr. Fossella.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. His partner that night, responding to a bomb threat, upon which they found Rocco Pascarella, who had lost his leg.
It's my pleasure to introduce Detective Anthony Senft.
Mr. SENFT. I wanted to address this directly to Mr. Waxman. I just want to make a brief statement and read my formal statement as quickly as I possibly can. But please bear with me because I have one eye, but it's becoming more and more impaired as I get older.
Contrary to his statement, Mr. Clinton's letter, both sides were not heard. Since 1997, my wife and I have been writing letters to our President. We've written four letters and one to Janet Reno. We have never received a response. I was on a talk show about 3 weeks ago with an activist called—her name is Alice Cordova. We got into the elevator. She is a very articulate lady. Like Rich's daughter-in-law, my daughter-in-law is also Puerto Rican. I have a proud grandson and my son's in-laws live in Puerto Rico and have no recollection of what the FALN is doing in the United States or in their country.
When I got into this elevator and I spoke to this articulate lady, she told me she had a sit-down interview with Mrs. Reno, and I cannot get a letter answered by sending one to her and four to my President. I am disgusted over that. I'm appalled as I think back; I still think it's America, and I still think that someone should have sent me some kind of correspondence.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Members of the House, good afternoon. My name is Detective Anthony Senft, and I thank you for letting me address you today. I stand before you today not only as an American citizen, but also as a victim of terrorism, like my partner, a victim at the hands of the FALN. On December 31, 1982, while working for the New York City Police Department as a detective on the bomb squad, I was severely injured by one of five bombs placed by the FALN while my partner and I attempted to render it safe.
On that day I received a lifelong sentence without the opportunity for parole, time off for good behavior, and no chance of clemency. My sentence includes five reconstructive operations on my face, the loss of my right eye—my left eye is deteriorating as we speak—and a 60 percent hearing loss in both ears, a fractured hip, severe vertigo, and the hell of a post-traumatic stress disorder. My only solace was the fact that 16 members of the FALN were serving prison sentences for crimes committed against American citizens.
Now, 16 years later, American citizens and I are victims, once again, as the result of the terrorist acts of the FALN and the pandering of our President.
President Clinton by his clemency decision makes a mockery of our Nation's policy of zero tolerance for terrorism. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth as he denounces terrorist McVeigh for his terrorist acts in Oklahoma and says publicly immediately following the horrible terrorist act against children in the Jewish Community Center in L.A. that America will not accept terrorism. Yet he released 16 convicted terrorists on that same day.
Was it because of political pressure from special interest groups? We don't know.
Clinton's actions tell would-be terrorists around the world that terrorism against the United States and its people is an acceptable form of demonstrating their political ideology. Terrorists need not fear the wrath of the American justice system any longer, for all they need do after destroying American property and lives is give a halfhearted, almost forced, apology and all will be forgiven.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Congressmen, all is not forgiven. Terrorism against the United States can never be an acceptable form of political protest. President Clinton, by his clemency offer, released 16 terrorists back onto the streets of America to commit more acts of terrorism against our families, your children, and my children. Some of the released, convicted terrorists are the same people who, while doctors worked feverishly to save my life and while family members rushed to my bedside, went to the radio and called the stations to claim responsibility for all five bombs. This same terrorist group has proudly taken responsibility for over 130 bombs in the United States and has killed 6 innocent people, as you previously heard, and maimed over 100 innocent victims; and now, again, they have put fear into America across this country.
If this band of violent terrorists was so remorseful for their horrific acts, then why did it take 3 1/2 weeks for them to agree not to—to admit any acts of terrorism on American soil and sign a statement attesting to that? And how do we trust convicted terrorists at this point?
This committee must ask itself why the President would grant this clemency against the advice of law enforcement organizations whose job it is to give recommendations on the appropriateness of this clemency. Was it to gain favor for the Puerto Rican vote in New York for Mrs. Clinton's senatorial bid? Or was it simply another example of President Clinton's lack of moral character?
What I'm concerned about is William Morales, the FALN self-professed leader and convicted terrorist, seeking amnesty from our President. We must take a strong stand and affirmative stand against any amnesty for William Morales. Our duty as police officers and elected officials is to protect our fellow citizens against terrorists like Morales and the 16 terrorists granted clemency. I have done my best to protect the lives of my fellow New Yorkers and I have paid the price for that with no regrets.
Now I ask that the Members of the House take a stand and enforce our Nation's policy of zero tolerance for terrorists. Our President has chosen to ignore that policy and the recommendations of the bureaus that oversee clemency requests. It is time for our Senate and our country to protect American citizens against terrorists and to punish those convicted of terrorizing our families and our Nation.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Congressmen, I thank you this afternoon and I just want to say God bless America.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Senft follows:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 40 TO 49 HERE
[The official committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. BURTON. Thank you.
I think now we will go to questioning. I will reserve my questions until later.
Mr. Barr, would you like to start the questioning off?
Mr. BARR. I don't have any questions, Mr. Chairman.
I was very moved by both the eloquence and the heartfelt sincerity of the witnesses today. I appreciate their service to this country, their courage in coming forward and a special thanks to our colleague, Mr. Fossella, for his tireless efforts on this matter.
You serve your constituents and this entire country with tremendous pride, Mr. Fossella. Thank you.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Waxman, do you have any comments or questions?
Mr. WAXMAN. I'll reserve my time.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Davis.
Mr. DAVIS. No questions.
Mr. BURTON. Mrs. Morella, do you have any questions or comments?
Mrs. MORELLA. I certainly want to offer my condolences and my prayers, my feeling for your courageous acts of patriotism and what you have been through, the anguish to your families.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I don't really have any questions, but I wondered, did the White House inform you of the clemency that was being offered by President Clinton?
Mr. SENFT. No, ma'am.
Mrs. MORELLA. You found out about it when you read it in the paper?
Ms. ETTENSON. I'd like to say, I have tried to keep in touch with the New York Police Department for the past 24 1/2 years to find out if there had been any changes in the case regarding Fraunces Tavern. I was always told that it was in an inactive file, so you can imagine my shock upon receiving a phone call on Monday, August 23, to be told about an article in the newspaper which was an interview in the New York Times of Joe and Tom Connor, who had heard about the clemency or had seen it in the paper.
I had been on vacation August 11 or 12 when it was, I guess, slid through the papers. I was totally unaware that anyone connected with the FALN had ever been arrested.
Mrs. MORELLA. Did the rest of you have the same kind of experience?
Mr. CONNOR. I was well aware that there were several of them in jail and under long prison terms. But last year on the 100th anniversary of Puerto Rico becoming a U.S. territory, there was some discussion of this clemency becoming—it became popular in Puerto Rico to discuss it as a gesture. But when it didn't happen last year, we figured then that was the end of it. So my family was shocked to read in the newspaper on the 11th, or I suppose the 12th, that the 16 had been offered the clemency.
Mr. SENFT. My position is, I just don't understand why I can't get my White House and my Attorney General to answer any letters—I've—I started this campaign in 1997 with my wife, and they refuse to respond to it—when the activists can get a sit-down meeting with Janet Reno.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FOSSELLA. If I may, Congresswoman Morella, as I mentioned, the testimony, I think reinforced by folks here, is that some of the advocates for the release of these terrorists have been meeting regularly with—I'm not sure about the Attorney General herself, but I know at least the Deputy Attorney General, and also with Mr. Quinn, who is the former White House counsel. So advocates have had the opportunity over the last several years to meet, I guess at a minimum, twice, and who knows how many; and I know what I'm saying is, these people have been asking for the same level of courtesy without even a phone call or a letter back.
Mrs. MORELLA. I want to thank you for appearing before us. I'm saddened at what you have experienced. I thank you for it, for your courage. I'm sorry you have to go through it again at this particular time.
And thank you, Congressman Fossella, for being there and following so closely and for being close to these poor people who have been victimized.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mrs. Morella.
Mr. Waxman.
Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank each and every one of you for being here today, and I wish you'd had an opportunity to say what you said to us today to the President. But I've always strongly felt, and I understood the law was, that before a parole board would parole anybody from prison that the victims had a right to come in and testify.
I don't know why—and I asked my staff, and they don't know the answer to this—why—after the President made his decision to reduce the sentence, why the parole board didn't ask you to come in and have a hearing on the matter. I think you've gone through—all of you, through a great deal. Even to testify here today had to be a hardship. You were scheduled last Thursday; we were called off because of the hurricane. I think all of you testified in the Senate.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
By what you said today and the intensity of the feelings that you have about this matter—I am moved by your intensity. And I don't know all the arguments that the President had heard, and he has not shared them all with us, but he indicated to us today in this long letter, which I read, his thinking about the matter; and I was struck by the argument that this action would be a sign to the world of a humanitarian gesture. And I was so offended.
This was something that he said former President Jimmy Carter suggested.
I remember the days when I went to the Soviet Union to plead for prisoners of conscience, and the Soviets would come back and use these people from the FALN as political prisoners. Each one of these individuals was convicted of serious crimes. They were not political prisoners, even though they thought they could break the law for their political point of view.
Mr. Pastorella was very eloquent in saying we have an amendment to the Constitution that gives people the right to petition their citizens and their government if they want to change things, and we also heard from the delegate of Puerto Rico that their views are not the majority views of their fellow Puerto Ricans for independence.
In my mind they are in no way political prisoners. They shouldn't have been thought of as political prisoners. They were terrorists and criminals and convicted of it and sentenced to prison appropriately.
The question the President had to decide was, on each individual case, whether he would commute or lessen the severity of the sentence for whatever reasons; and he argued that the sentencing guidelines wouldn't provide for the length of time that they were given consecutively to serve.
That decision and any decision about a person has to be on an individual basis. Does the punishment fit the crime for that individual? If we are talking about if people who participated in the FALN and engaged in terrorist activities should be treated alike, well, if they are going to be treated alike they definitely should be locked up and kept locked up. There should be no negotiations with terrorists, and it galls me when they are talked about as political prisoners or anything in that general category.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I was as appalled when I heard about the negotiation that we had with the Iranians by the Reagan White House where we exchanged weapons for hostages, and I had serious misgivings when I heard about the negotiations where members of the so-called Palestinian Liberation Organization were supposed to be freed as political prisoners when many of them participated in killings. And I am moved when I hear Mr. Fossella and others say are we going to look back in a couple of years and say the people from Oklahoma ought to be looked at with the idea of giving them clemency. I don't care who in the world might want to say that the people who bombed Oklahoma City may be viewed as political terrorists—they were murderers. So I do not think that we ought to view it in that general way.
What the President said he did was look at each case and make his decision. I don't know that I would have come up with the decision that he made. I probably would not have. But I did not get the benefit of all that he heard.
And I was pleased in his letter that he made it very clear that many who supported unconditional clemency argued that they were political prisoners who acted out of sincere political beliefs and he rejected that argument. That argument should clearly be rejected and should never be given legitimacy as far as I'm concerned.
I just wanted to say these few words. I don't have any questions to ask of any of you. There is nothing that I can ask you that you haven't said, and you said it very movingly, and I thank you for being here. The President's decision was, as he said, on each one individually. Whether he is right or wrong, we will have to try to get as much information as we can to make a judgment. So far, the judgment of my colleagues in the Congress is that he is wrong and that his actions have been condemned.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Horn.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Each of you has made a very eloquent statement, and I think all of us are moved by that. And I have often been moved when the victims come out because, unfortunately, in our system we do not yet have a requirement that, before people are sentenced, the victims and their representatives—because usually they are dead—the victims should have a right to say something. And you have said it, and you have said it well.
One of you said hypocrisy. Others said questions need to be asked. You are absolutely correct on both counts, and the reason we have several committees looking at this is because we never easily get an answer to a question, just a simple question. And the only way you get it on Capitol Hill today is to issue subpoenas and, if they continue to act in contempt of Congress, to make a contempt of Congress citation.