Vito Fossella

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, for those Americans who have been following the debate the last several months over the release of the terrorists known as the FALN, a group that was probably the most efficient terrorist group to engage in a reign of terror across this country during the 1970s and 1980s and who were, rightfully, sentenced to long prison sentences and just recently were granted clemency by the White House, the other shoe dropped today. The FALN participated in about 130 bombings, proudly proclaiming themselves to be freedom-fighters when, in reality, all they were were killers. Police officers who lost their sight or their legs, children who lost their fathers who died as a result of FALN bombings. For months, we have been trying to understand exactly why the White House would grant clemency to these known terrorists, especially after they have failed to even acknowledge that they have done anything wrong, have demonstrated no remorse and offered no apologies. The FBI testified recently that these groups still pose a threat to the national security. The Bureau of Prisons testified under oath that these people still are a threat and they should not have been released. Now, in a report today, we learn that the Attorney General, Janet Reno, says that a nationalist group that had been aligned still poses an ongoing threat to national security. Quote: ``Factors which increase the present threat from these groups include the impending release from prisons of members of these groups jailed for prior violence.'' It is also reported today that the Justice Department formally urged President Clinton in December 1996 to deny clemency to imprisoned Puerto Rican nationalists, a recommendation that the White House never acknowledged in the furor over the President's decision last month to commute the sentences of the member militant group. So there we have it. We have the Bureau of Prisons, the FBI, the Justice Department, including the Office of the Attorney General, all recommending against clemency, and it was offered. Perhaps in the understatement of the century we have Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder who, in a hearing today said, quote: ``I think we could have done a better job getting in touch with the victims.'' Because in all of these years, the last several years, while the White House and the Attorney General's Office was meeting with advocates for terrorists and their spokespeople, the victims who suffered for so many years never even got a phone call, and they say they could have done a better job communicating with the victims. There are two more terrorists still in prison, and why do we bring this up today? God forbid they are offered clemency by this President or any other, for that matter. I think the American people have to know still to this day why we have decided to let terrorists free, especially to those who fail to offer any remorse. One of them, Mr. Adolfo Matos who was released was taped in April of 1999, just several months ago, and he said, ``I do not have to ask for forgiveness from anybody. I have nothing to be ashamed of or feel that I need to ask for forgiveness. My desire has gotten stronger.'' This is a man who participated in a terrorist organization many years ago and his ``desire has gotten stronger to the point where I want to continue, continue to fight and get involved with my people because I love them.''

Mr. FOSSELLA. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey.

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding time to me. I also thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), the sponsor of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this is the First Amendment: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'' Nowhere in the First Amendment does it say that the United States taxpayer has to subsidize so-called art that desecrates one's religion. This is the issue. There are others who want to say it is censorship, others who want to say that we are determining what art is. That is not true. The issue is, how do we appropriately use taxpayer money? What we are saying, and I think we have the vast majority of support of the American people, both Democrats and Republicans in this body already sponsoring this resolution, we are saying that unless the Brooklyn Museum takes this exhibit away that desecrates an image that is sacred to a lot of Christians across the country, that glorifies a child molester, that they should not receive taxpayer money. It is very simple. If they want to take this exhibit and put it somewhere else, in somebody's house, in somebody's apartment, or so many of the other private museums around the country, then so be it, and there will not be a problem. But this museum receives public money from both the city of New York, the State of New York, and from the Federal Government. Do we not think there are more appropriate uses for taxpayer money than to desecrate religion? Is that such a stretch, that the NEA itself imposes standards on its exhibits, but we cannot; that the average American sitting at home who believes strongly in his faith or her faith says, wait a minute, I am working every single day, and the government is taking a little bit of my money and is going to fund this, are they not entitled to their opinion? For those who say, this is democracy, now, we are a Republic. We are supposed to speak for those folks. But we are speaking for them. There were hundreds, if not thousands, of people there on Saturday with me and so many others saying this is wrong. It is not a question of gray. Let us move on. Is this not over? It is wrong. It is wrong to use taxpayer money to fund this. The Brooklyn Museum Board of Directors had every opportunity before the exhibit opened to take some of the more offensive works out. They decided not to. Incensed and in reflection upon their arrogance, I do not believe they deserve another dime of taxpayer money. They want to stick it to so many people across this country, so many New Yorkers, so be it. Let them do it on their own dime, not ours.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I am not recorded on rollcall No. 466 for the Conference Report accompanying H.R. 2084, making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000. I was unavoidably detained and therefore, could not vote for this conference report. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 466. Stated against:

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, last week, as some Members of the body know and many Americans know, a number of terrorists that engaged in a reign of terror across this Nation during the seventies and eighties were part of a group known as the FALN, that were responsible and proudly claimed responsibility for 130 bombings, if not more, killing innocent people and maiming innocent people. It became news in the last several weeks because they were offered clemency by the White House. Despite the fact that they rejected the initial offer of clemency because they thought conditions placed upon them were too humiliating, ultimately they agreed and now they are free, with the exception of two, who rejected the offer. At the time, those of us who opposed the offer of clemency objected, for a number of reasons. One, these are evil people. They sought to hurt, kill, and maim innocent people. They sought, in a way, the overthrow of the United States government because they did not get their way through a civilized, normal democratic process known as the rule of law, known as elections. They sought the independence of Puerto Rico. They did not get their way, so they resorted to bombs. They resorted to killing. They resorted to maiming. They were terrorists. At the time, we brought forward some of the victims: A police officer was blinded for life, another who was blind in one eye, another who lost his leg, another whose husband was killed in the tavern bombing in 1975, another family who lost their father and husband in 1975. We said, we are sending the absolutely wrong signal to terrorists, because we are emboldening people around the world who are going to contemplate terrorism on our soil. It did not take long, Mr. Speaker. Just a few days ago there was a statement put out by one Filiberto Ojeda Rios. He put out this statement: ``If they,'' the United States, ``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 advantage of ``this historic moment and battle against the revolutionary offenses being developed by the United States government, among others.'' Why is this important? Because this gentleman was the leader of Los Macheteros, a ruthless terrorist organization that claimed responsibility for bombings and other acts of violence, along with the FALN, throughout the seventies and eighties. He emerged from a decade of hiding this week with this statement that I just read that was broadcast over radio. One of the prisoners who has been released, who is now free, was a member of this organization. So here we have it, just several days after some of these terrorists were set free, after several days we sent the wrong signal that we are going to tolerate terrorists, negotiate with terrorists, coddle terrorists; just several days after, someone who has been in hiding for a decade rears his ugly head once again. Yesterday in the other body there was a hearing, and in an effort to try to get to the bottom of what happened here, why the White House would reach this mind-boggling conclusion to release people who were part of a network, who had no remorse, offered no apologies, no contrition for this act that innocent people could be killed, and it could have been anywhere in this country, it could have been any American family just having lunch who could have been killed, the White House office of deputy counsel to the President responded that the reason why they were granted clemency, among other things, they do not pose a danger to society. These are people who were videotaped making bombs. These are people who were proudly part of an organization that killed innocent people. These were people who were convicted of seditious conspiracy. Some of them at their trial said that they wanted to kill the sentencing judge. Some of them said that if they could, they would kill anybody. These are the people that this White House has chosen to send back into society. To this very day, we do not know why. I would think the American people and the victims, especially, deserve to know.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, last Friday culminated a very rough week, indeed a rough few weeks and a rough 24 years for some families across America, because some individuals associated with the FALN, the most notorious terrorist group to set foot on American soil, had engaged in a reign of terror across America in the 1970's and 1980's and claimed responsibility for 130 bombings that killed innocent people, that maimed innocent people, that in part had no remorse or offered no apologies for the damage that they created or for the victims that they made. They were set free on Friday, back into society because our White House offered these terrorists clemency, in other words, a get-out-of- jail-free card. So to those families who have had to endure, for example, like Ms. Diana Berger of Cherry Hill, New Jersey, whose husband was dining in Fraunces Tavern in 1975 like any other American would have been in any other bar or restaurant, Ms. Berger was 6 months pregnant with their first child when her husband was killed. Or Joseph Connor and Thomas Connor. Joseph was 9 years old; his brother was 11. Joseph was celebrating his ninth birthday. His father was in that same restaurant, again out for a business lunch. He never came home to celebrate Joseph's ninth birthday because he was killed by a FALN bomb. Or on December 31, 1982, when this same group of terrorists claimed responsibility proudly for several bombs in downtown New York. Officer Rocco Pascarella of upstate New York lost a leg in that explosion. Officer Richard Pastorella in an attempt to respond to officer Rocco Pascarella, got another call for a bomb threat. He responded to that bomb threat. He tried to diffuse the bomb. He is blinded for life. He has lost all his fingers on one hand. He has 22 screws in his head, has undergone 13 major surgeries. He will never be the same. His partner that night was Officer Anthony Semft from Long Island, New York, who was blinded in one eye and who is partially deaf. Those are just a few of the victims of this terrorist organization known as the FALN. They were serving rightly a long time in prison until the President offered them clemency, clemency that they initially rejected and finally accepted. I think this is absolutely the worst thing that we can be doing to send a signal to anybody contemplating terrorism on American soil to set these terrorists free. If anybody sitting at home or anybody in this chamber could imagine if in 10 or 15 years a man by the name of Terry Nichols who is affiliated or associated with the Oklahoma City bombing, who many argue was not actually at the bomb scene, but clearly involved in the conspiracy to kill innocent people, so many families left without children, left without fathers, left without mothers, left without grandmothers, if 10 or 15 years the then President steps forward and offers clemency, can you imagine the outrage across America? That is the outrage that we are experiencing right here today. That is why so many people cannot fathom how the President reached this decision. That is why a wide range of law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. attorney's offices in Illinois and Chicago, all recommended against granting clemency. Why? Because this is a wrong signal to be sending to terrorists but, above all, these people killed were part of a killing operation, and to this very day, while they are celebrating their release and while there are some who are calling them heroes, to this very day show no remorse, offer no apologies, offer no contrition for what they did. Indeed, what they suggest is that the Connor or the Berger family or the Pastarella family or the Pascarella family or the Semft family, they were casualties of war. I hope and pray that these people never get the opportunity to bomb and kill an innocent person ever again. My prayers and thoughts go out to all of the victims associated with the terror associated with the FALN and may we rue the day if they ever act as they did for 10, 15 and 20 years.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from beautiful upstate New York (Mr. Sweeney). (Mr. SWEENEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and the purpose of this resolution in part was because the offer of clemency was given just several weeks ago and it was rejected by the prisoner because it appeared that they did not want to agree to the terms and the conditions, and we thought we could at least bring enough public pressure upon the White House to change the mind and rescind the offer. That is why for those who think it is a partisan thing they have Senator Moynihan, Bill Bradley, Hillary Clinton, all of whom oppose this clemency as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority whip. Mr. DeLay. Mr. Speaker, I do think it is unfortunate that this debate has become what the definition of terrorism is. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to giving clemency to terrorists. This Nation cannot afford to give the world the impression that we are weak, but that is exactly what pardoning terrorists does. The act of pardoning criminals gives the impression that justice has already been done, but that is not the case. An old adage says that justice is truth in action. Well, the truth of the matter here is that justice is being perverted. The President does have the sole power to grant clemency, but this House has the responsibility of expressing itself on the actions of the President. Clemency should not simply be given at the irresponsible whim of one leader. It should rest on the perception of justice held by the people. Terrorism is an attack on the everyday sense of security of a people. Terrorists strike randomly and violently to break the will of governments and their citizens. Now, dealing harshly with terrorists sends the message that a nation is not willing to suffer attacks on its actual safety or its sense of security. If for no other reason, government exists to protect the people. Pardoning terrorists abandons the real necessity to deter others from these tactics. After all, what kind of message is sent by pardoning those who use violence against Americans to make political points? Though no one should be surprised by this action by this President, in fact, this clemency for terrorists should go down as a metaphor for Clinton policy, which has been an ongoing comedy of capitulations. Let us just look at his litany of failure in foreign policy: North Korea continues to flaunt international law by speeding ahead with their nuclear program, with no consequences whatsoever. Afghanistan and Sudan were bombed at the blink of an eye without any success at curtailing the terrorist bin Laden. Iraq is periodically bombed, without getting any closer to the supposed objective of removing Saddam Hussein from power. Russia, with its massive nuclear capability, is coming apart at the seams and selling weapons technology to scrape by, and we do nothing. China is walking all over us, pure and simple. Mr. Speaker, coddling terrorists shows the world that America is weak, but this simply reinforces the impression already constructed on 6 years of a foreign policy embarrassment. So, Mr. Speaker, clemency for those who attack America's sense of security is a mistake, and I urge an ``aye'' vote on this resolution.

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, for those who have a problem with the word ``terrorism'' or ``terrorist,'' terrorism is defined as the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. I would suggest anybody who has a problem with that language to read all of the public documents to demonstrate exactly what these people are. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the people were not convicted of terrorism, because there was no federal statute dealing with terrorism when they were convicted. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema.) (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, let us remind everybody why we are here. We are here again to send a signal to anybody contemplating terrorism on American soil that we will not tolerate it because we regard the value of innocent human life. When our society begins to devalue innocent human life, we begin to head in the wrong direction. We just heard the distinguished gentleman from Puerto Rico who admits that these people are terrorists. I hope that puts to rest those who still believe that these people are not terrorists. The FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Attorneys office who found these people making bombs oppose clemency. Anybody with an ounce of common sense will tell us that it takes a network of individuals to perpetrate these crimes against humanity, that kill innocent people, that maim innocent people. Let us put a face on it. Diana Berger is at home right now. She was 6 months pregnant when her husband was killed. Joseph and Thomas Conner grew up without a father. These are the people we want to release, Carmen Valentine who accepted the President's offer of clemency, threatened the judge who sentenced her, ``You are lucky that we cannot take you right now.'' She then proceeded to call the judge a terrorist and then said only the chains around her waist and wrists prevented her from doing what she would like to do, to kill him. Is that the people we want back in society? People who have demonstrated no remorse, have offered no apologies, no contrition for the fact that innocent people have gone? They consider these people who lost fathers, who lost family members casualties of war. God forbid it is anybody here. God forbid it is anybody at home right now. Anthony Semft who was blinded when he responded to a bomb, we were asking Anthony, ``Why are you so upset?'' He said, ``I did not think I had a voice. Nobody was speaking for me when the President offered clemency to these people.'' We are his voice. Now we can send and use that voice for the good of the people, the good of the innocent law- abiding people of this country, or we can take a stand and say, do you know what? We can set these terrorists free. It is up to the Members of this House. Do we speak for Diana Berger? Do we speak for Officer Richard Pastorella who will never see again? Do we speak for Anthony Semft who believes that he does not have a voice? Or do we say that, do you know what, if you renounce violence, and by the way, some of the people who have offered clemency have not renounced violence or agreed to the terms and conditions, do we want somebody set free who will not even do those things? Let us remember the power of clemency that we are talking about here exercised three times in 7 years which more than 3,000 people have requested and God knows how many others who want to be set free. If my colleagues are willing, if they are willing to say that anybody in prison who renounces violence should be set free, then come down here and say it. But if we want to speak for the law-abiding citizens, we should keep these people behind bars where they belong.

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again, the name of the Cardinal O'Conner has been invoked. Of course, we wish him well. He is convalescing. But his statement from Mr. Joe Swilling is that he has not taken a position on this. ``I don't expect that he will.'' For those who have a problem, I guess it comes down to do you believe the Cardinal or do you believe the President. It is ultimately up to the Members here to decide. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about the time?

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this House is about to vote on a resolution that I believe will simply allow Members in this House to send a clear and convincing signal to terrorists around this Nation, around this world contemplating acts of terrorism, that the United States has a zero tolerance policy towards terrorists. The background for this is the group known as the FALN, a terrorist organization that wreaked havoc across this country in the 1970s and 1980s, and claimed responsibility for 130 bombings, killing innocent people, maiming innocent people across this country from New York to Chicago. Too many families were left without fathers. Too many families were left without husbands. Too many communities were left without, innocent people who died as a result of FALN activities. Mr. Speaker, those people are rightfully convicted and sentenced to prison, and now the White House wants to release some of these people back into society. This is the absolutely wrong signal we could be sending to the American people, absolutely wrong to terrorists contemplating acts of violence. And in the goodness of the Members here, can we at least vindicate the memory of the Berger family, of Officers Richard Pascarella who lost his eye, or Rocco Pastorella who lost a leg as a result of FALN activities? We should be sending a convincing signal that there is no place in American society for all of this. That is why the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Attorneys Office in Connecticut and Illinois that prosecuted these criminals recommended against clemency, and it has also been stated by someone that the supporters of this clemency included John Cardinal O'Connor from New York. In the New York Post, the top aid to John Cardinal O'Connor said yesterday the Archbishop of New York never backed clemency for FALN terrorists despite White House claims that he did. So just to correct the Record, I know some who are under the misimpression that he did. Mr. Speaker, I encourage every Member of this body to understand who we are talking about. We are talking about people who believe themselves to be freedom fighters; but at the root of it, they believe that we can replace the rule of law if they do not get their way and bomb buildings, bomb restaurants, bomb office buildings in order to achieve their goals, and as a result we have experienced what that means. Innocent people loose their lives. Think about Oklahoma City bombing, think about the World Trade Center bombing, think about 10 or 15 years if we were to let Terry Nichols free because he was nowhere near the bomb scene. I think the American people would be outraged, and well they should. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, this is a defining moment for the United States of America as far as I am concerned. The question before us today is going to be what type of signal do we send to terrorists contemplating acts of terrorism against this Nation? This was the President's spokesperson yesterday, Mr. Lockhart, saying, ``You know, I think our efforts to bring terrorists to justice are one of the highest priorities of the President's national security agenda.'' Several weeks ago this White House offered clemency to 16 known terrorists, individuals who were part of a group known as the FALN that engaged in a reign of terror across this country, but primarily from New York to Chicago, a group that claims responsibility for 130 bombings, a group that killed innocent people and maimed innocent people during the seventies and eighties, and, if they were not caught, who knows how many more innocent people would have died? Now, there are those who have advocated for the release of these terrorists for years. That does not make it right. Let us put a human face on what this group claims responsibility for. A man by the name of Frank Connor, who in 1975 was having lunch in downtown Manhattan in Fraunces Tavern. Just because he was having lunch, an FALN bomb went off and killed him. His sons, Joseph Connor and Thomas Connor, were 9 and 11 years old at the time. Joseph Connor was celebrating his ninth birthday that day. His father never made it home. His wife was made a widow. Or Diana Berger, whose husband was having lunch that very same day in Fraunces Tavern, who was 6 months pregnant with their first child. Her husband never made it home. Or fast forward several years later to December 31, 1982, New Year's Eve in downtown New York once again, when an FALN bomb exploded, leaving Officer Rocco Pascarella without a leg. And when two of his colleagues, Officers Richard Pastorella and Anthony Semft responded to that bomb threat, they were called to another scene, another FALN bomb. And when Richard Pastorella was 18 inches from that bomb, it detonated. Today, Officer Pastorella is blind in both eyes. He has no fingers on his right hand. He has 20 screws in his head to keep his face together. He has undergone 13 operations. His partner, Anthony Semft, is blind in one eye. He has had reconstructive surgery. He is partially deaf. And those are just some of the victims of this FALN organization. Now we are about to set these people free, who call themselves freedom fighters? Now we are about to set these people free. This group, they are not a bunch of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. They are a terrible, terrible group. These people had no regard for human life. They participated in this network that would rob and steal, that would videotape making bombs. What were they going to do with those bombs? They were going to be used against innocent people. And the President has offered clemency to these individuals. Two of them have renounced it because they believe what they did was justified, that they are political prisoners. Well, tell that to the Berger family, tell this to the Pastorellas, tell that to the Pascarellas, tell that to every innocent person across this Nation who feels the best and most important priority we can do as public officials is to protect them. In Oklahoma City several years ago, Terry Nichols was nowhere near the bomb scene, but he was sentenced to life. Can you imagine the outrage of the American people if in 10 or 15 years the then President offers clemency to Terry Nichols because he was nowhere near the bomb scene? We have called upon the President to rescind that offer of clemency. I am afraid it may be too late.

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, just for the purposes of debate, let me remind folks what we are talking about here. The power of clemency is an awesome power that is granted to the President under Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, that says, ``The President shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.'' The party in power gives the President unlimited authority to grant full and committee pardons, conditional pardons, clemency, such as commuting sentences, reversing conditions, or nullifying conditions of release. This President has exercised this awesome power only three times since he has been President. President Bush, to my understanding, did it three times. There have been more than 3,000 applications for clemency, and Lord knows how many other people sitting in prison would want this power of clemency granted to them, as well. Of the three who have been released or granted clemency in the last 7 years, one was subsequently convicted and sent back to prison. So this is not something that is done every day. Now, all at once, 16 terrorists are being offered this power of clemency. Most of the 16 terrorists were charged with seditious conspiracy and weapons possession connected to 28 bombings that occurred, as I say, in northern Illinois in the late 1970s. There are those who are going to come forward today and say they had nothing to do with the bombings. Again, let us reinforce what this is all about. These people were part of a network of individuals who terrorized. They were a terrorist organization. They proudly proclaimed themselves to be part of a terrorist organization. Ask any American with common sense. Ask any law enforcement agency. They will tell us that it takes more than one person to plant the bomb. It takes more than one person to detonate a bomb. It takes people who steal money to buy explosives and weapons. It takes others to do the planning and activities. To coin a phrase, it takes a village to pull off these operations. Do we want to set these people free? I think not. If we do, and it seems it is likely, the American people are losers. The victims of these tragedies are losers. The terrorists are the winners.

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Let me again try to shift the focus back to what this is all about. It is sending a clear and convincing signal to terrorists around the world or right here on American soil that there is no place for terrorism in an American democracy to protect the innocent and the law abiding because too many people have died already. There are those who have brought up that this is an issue of Puerto Rican political status. Well, for those who do not know, the people of Puerto Rico have had an opportunity to express themselves through plebiscites. In the most recent plebiscite, the people of Puerto Rico have had three options: to maintain the commonwealth status, to seek statehood, or to seek independence for a free and independent Puerto Rico. Less than three percent of the people of Puerto Rico chose independence. And that is exactly what the FALN espouses and continues to espouse and those who support release of the FALN prisoners seek to espouse. So in a democracy, what we do is we vote; and if we do not get our way, we move on and we live under the rules of law. We do not go out and bomb innocent people. To draw an analogy, Staten Island voted to secede several years ago from New York City. The people of Staten Island, 65 percent overwhelmingly, to secede New York City. Well, through some maneuverings, we were unable to do that. Does that mean we go out and bomb Fraunces Tavern in downtown Manhattan or bomb the Federal building or bomb Police Plaza? No. We move on. The U.S. Attorneys Office, the woman who prosecuted these individuals in Illinois, was quoted recently in a letter to the editor in the Wall Street Journal. She wrote strongly opposing the clemency petition. She recently said that in the first prosecution, some of these petitioners were caught in the back of a van stocked with weapons to be used to commit armed robberies to fund the FALN operations. In a second prosecution, three of the terrorists were caught on videotape in safe-houses making bombs that they were planning to plant in military installations. This is not violent behavior? This is not terrorism? In this House there are bullet holes, evidence of FALN activities. Those people convicted were released. The FALN prisoners were released and granted clemency. After they were released, the FALN continued on a barrage of terrorism, 139 bombs. What type of signal do we send releasing those prisoners and then be forced to watch innocent people die by the same group or part of the same group of FALN? Have we not gotten the message? Have we not learned? Let us talk about some of the people we are talking about here. In 1981, Ricardo Jiminez, who was released, had the following exchange with the judge in his sentencing proceeding: ``If it could be a death penalty, I'd impose the death penalty without any hesitation,'' the judge told Jiminez, who replied, ``You can give me the death penalty. You can kill me.'' Carmen Valentine, who accepted the President's offer of clemency, threatened the same judge: ``You are lucky that we cannot take you right now.'' She then proceeded to call the judge a terrorist and said that only the chains around her waist and wrists prevented her from doing what she would like to do, to kill him. That is in the UPI, 1981. Alicia Rodriguez, Luis Rosa and Carlos Torres say they have nothing to be sorry for and have no intentions of an armed revolution. That was in 1995, 4 years ago. Luis Rosa, in response to why the FALN bombed a suburban shopping mall, retail stores, banks, and the headquarters of a large U.S. corporation, where anybody's children could be, where anybody's parents could be, where anybody's grandparents could be, this was his exchange: ``They all had interests in Puerto Rico. We were attacking them in their pocketbooks. Capitalists understand it more when they feel it in their pocketbooks. We were retaliating for their dealings on the island and, hopefully, getting them to leave the island.'' Remember the words, ``we were attacking.'' This was a group. This was a disgrace. Support this rule. Support this resolution. Let us not tolerate terrorists here on our soil.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment introduced by Mr. Tauzin to start the process of getting rid of the FCC's so-called ``Uniform System of Accounts.'' It's become clear to me that what we have on our hands here is a 64- year-old dinosaur, a creature of the FCC, designed for an arcane accounting purpose, which has been rendered totally useless by time and progress but the price tag on American consumers continues. This has to end. It has been estimated that allowing this accounting dinosaur to exist, and allowing the FCC to require telephone companies to follow it, is now costing American consumers and our economy as much as $300 million every year, that's more than a million dollars every working day. The good news, Mr. Chairman, is this is a situation we can banish to the business trivia history books today by supporting Mr. Tauzin's amendment. The truth is, Mr. Chairman, the FCC does not need to use this second, artificial system of accounting and it already uses the business world's so-called ``GAAP'' method of accounting, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, throughout its operations. And Mr. Tauzin's amendment will in no way endanger the availability of low-cost ``universal'' telephone service. It also will not change the FCC's oversight role, it will only make FCC operations more cost effective. Mr. Chairman, the only purpose the Uniform System of Accounts serves today is to uniformly penalize the American consumer and the rest of us all. Let's put this dinosaur out of it's misery, right now. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' in support of the Tauzin amendment.