On January 24, 1975, during a busy lunch hour, an explosion ripped through the historic Fraunces Tavern in New York City, killing four people and injuring 55 others. On August 3, 1977, during the morning rush hour, a powerful bomb was detonated in a busy New York office building, killing one man and injuring several others. In March of 1980, armed members of the FALN entered the Carter-Mondale campaign head quarters, bound and gagged women and men inside, and held them at gunpoint as they ransacked the offices.

Credit for these and other criminal acts was proudly taken by a terrorist organization calling themselves the “FALN,” an acronym from a Spanish title meaning “the Armed Forces for Puerto Rican National Liberation.” In all, the FALN has been linked to over 150 bombings, attempted bombings, incendiary attacks, kidnaps, and bomb threats, which have resulted in the death of at least 6 people and the injury of at least 70 others.

On August 11, 1999, President Clinton, who up to this point had only commuted 3 sentences since becoming President, offered clemency to 16 members of the FALN. This to me, was shocking. And quite frankly, I think I am joined by a vast majority of Americans in my failure to understand why the President, who has spoken out so boldly in opposition to domestic terrorism in recent years, has taken this action.

After much public criticism of the offered clemency, the White House spin doctors went to work. They alleged that the 16 offered clemency were not “directly” involved with activities that hurt people because they were not convicted of the actual attacks that killed or maimed people. But this is a poor excuse for clemency. These people were convicted of conspiring to commit acts of terrorism which led to bloodshed. Many of these 16 were involved in building bombs, and in storing and transporting explosives, incendiary materials, and weapons. In one raid alone involving the terrorists President Clinton has released, law enforcement recovered 24 pounds of dynamite, 24 blasting caps, weapons, and thousands of rounds of ammunition, as well as disguises and false identifications. Some were actually videotaped building bombs; others were arrested driving a van full of weapons.

This whole episode raises a number of questions about this Administration’s approach to law enforcement and the rule of law in general. Were the normal procedures followed in the processing of clemency opinions? What set these sixteen prisoners apart from the more than 4000 who have petitioned this President for clemency, or the other tens of thousands serving time across the country? What prompted the President to make this offer of clemency? Who recommended it? On what basis was it granted? Why were the views of the law enforcement community seemingly ignored?

More importantly, this deal-with-terrorists episode could serve to undermine future law enforcement investigations and encourage future acts of domestic terrorism. To quote New York City Police Commissioner Howard Safir, “President Clinton has committed an ill-advised and egregious error. He has broken the fundamental rule in addressing terrorism: Never negotiate deals with terrorists.” [OP-ed by Howard Safir, Wall Street Journal, 9/14/99].

Two weeks have passed since I requested that the Department of Justice provide this Committee with relevant documents. The call for a review of some of these items has been bipartisan. Yet, the Department tells us the White House is still studying the matter. In fairness, there may be a legitimate argument that executive privilege applies to some materials, but executive privilege has not been asserted. Nor does the privilege apply - were it to be asserted - to every document or testimony associated with the FALN. Nor is there any legitimate reason to refuse to allow the Pardon Attorney to testify today about how the clemency process works. Let me assure the Administration, this Committee will perform its oversight responsibilities.

In closing, this clemency deal is yet another example of this Administration sending the wrong message to criminals -- be they foreign spies, gun offenders, or, in this case, terrorists. At the very least, I hope that through our efforts these last several days, Congress can do its part to help restore the principle - and send the message - that the United States does not make deals with terrorists.

I want to welcome our distinguished witnesses and I am sure that they will shed light on this matter.

####