The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“NO PARDON FOR POLLARD” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H278 on Feb. 2, 1999.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
NO PARDON FOR POLLARD
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, on January 19, I introduced House Concurrent Resolution No. 16, expressing the sense of Congress that Jonathan J. Pollard should serve his full sentence and not receive any presidential pardon for his crime of espionage.
Jonathan Pollard was a civilian employee at the Department of the Navy from September 1979 until November 1985. He had access to classified documents and information and began making those documents available to Israeli intelligence officers in 1984. When he was arrested, by his own estimate, Pollard had given the Israelis enough documents to fill some 360 cubic feet. In 1987, he pled guilty and was sentenced to life in prison.
The President has twice rejected release for Pollard, in 1994 and again in 1996. In fact, the White House press statement in 1996 found that, ``The enormity of Mr. Pollard's offenses, his lack of remorse, the damage done to our national security and the need for general deterrence in the continuing threat to national security that he posed made the original sentence imposed by the court warranted.''
Of course, nothing has changed. Pollard remains unrepentant, and the damage to national security has not paled with the passage of time. But something must have changed, at least in the mind of the Clinton White House.
In October 1998 President Clinton acceded to the request of the Israeli prime minister to review Pollard's sentence. The answer should have been a polite but a firm ``no.'' But, instead, the President agreed to a review.
On January 11, the relevant executive agencies were to report back on the virtues of releasing Pollard. Not surprisingly, the director of the CIA, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense and the director of the FBI were unanimous in opposing any pardon for Pollard.
The position of the Department of Justice has been less clear. Attorney General Janet Reno has delayed in offering an opinion to the President in the case pending a meeting with the prominent Jewish figures who support Pollard's release. The AG's office could not confirm for me yesterday whether such a meeting had taken place, nor could they offer any date when any legal opinion on Pollard's release may be offered.
To me, this seems like a clear case for the Department of Justice. But apparently they require more extensive deliberations than our national security agencies are capable of providing.
But what deliberation is really needed? Press accounts have given us some indication of how damaging Pollard's betrayal really was. He didn't just give away intelligence estimates, he also betrayed sources and methods, the very capabilities that make sound intelligence estimates possible.
Revealing how our intelligence services learn secrets is extremely damaging, because it provides opportunities for our targets to hide assets and plant misinformation, negating the very capabilities we spend billions of taxpayer dollars over the years to develop and maintain.
Of course, Pollard is now claiming that he never intended to spy against the United States. He claims that his espionage efforts were motivated by a noble concern for the State of Israel and a desire to avoid a return of the Yom Kippur War.
He says, very charitably, that the money he was paid, more than
$50,000, did not motivate his spying, and that he intended to repay it all, and he suggests that because Israel is an ally of the United States, his sentence should be reduced, as if spying for a friend is a lesser evil than spying for an enemy.
{time} 1300
Of course, this logic also ignores the suggestions in the public record that much of what Pollard provided to Israel may have ended up in the hands of the Soviet Union. Then there is the issue of his willingness to provide information to countries in addition to Israel.
It is important to point out that even though Pollard is now eligible for parole, he has not chosen to apply. All of the public deliberations on Pollard are occurring without his having even sought release.
The granting of pardons is a constitutional power reserved for the President of the United States, but that does not mean that Congress is obliged to sit by quietly as this decision is made. Two weeks ago, 60 Senators from the United States Senate sent a letter to the President urging that Pollard not be set free. House Concurrent Resolution 16 similarly will allow the House of Representatives to go on record opposing any pardon, reprieve, or any other form of executive clemency for Mr. Pollard. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) has also introduced a resolution opposing a pardon, and I encourage all Members to join us as cosponsors of both resolutions. This betrayal of U.S. national security must not be rewarded with a presidential pardon.
Last week, two Americans were convicted of spying for East Germany throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Releasing Pollard now suggests that when the political price is right, we are willing to look the other way on espionage. Pollard's betrayal of U.S. national security must not be rewarded with a Presidential pardon and I hope Members will join as cosponsors to H. Con. Res. 16.
____________________
