[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 11 (Friday, January 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S539]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           THE NEW DRUG CZAR

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, in his State of the Union Address, President 
Clinton announced his intention to reenlist his administration in the 
war against drugs.
  Those are welcome words to all of us who have looked to the White 
House for leadership in that war these past 3 years, only to be 
disappointed time and time again.
  From the gutting of the Drug Czar's Office to the appointment of a 
Surgeon General who spoke out in favor of legalizing drugs, the message 
from this administration has been one in stark contrast to the ``just 
say no'' message that was so successful in reducing drug use in the 
1980's.
  The President's words of Tuesday evening, however, give hope that he 
has recognized that the very disturbing increase in drug use among 
America's youth these past 3 years is proof that his policies have not 
worked.
  And I look forward to hearing from General McCaffrey, the new Drug 
Czar, and hope that he will work closely with the Congressional Task 
Force on National Drug Policy, which Speaker Gingrich and I appointed, 
and which is chaired by Senators Grassley and Hatch, and Congressmen 
Zeliff and Hyde.
  If we are to truly win the war on drugs, however, then President 
Clinton should appoint Federal judges who punish law breakers, and not 
law enforcement officers.
  And if a case that occurred in New York City this week is a sign of 
the type of judges that the President has appointed, then we might as 
well wave the white flag.
  Let me briefly describe this case: While stationed in an unmarked 
patrol car, a New York City police officer watched four men walk single 
file up to a trunk of a car parked in a known hub of drug activity, and 
place large duffel bags inside the trunk.
  The men then noticed the police officer and ran off in different 
directions.
  Upon searching the trunk of the car, the officers discovered that the 
duffel bags contained 75 pounds of cocaine, and 4 pounds of heroin--a 
discovery that had a street value of $4 million. The driver of the car 
gave the police a full videotaped confession, detailing her 4-year 
history in a drug-dealing ring.
  On Wednesday, however, Federal District Court Judge Harold Baer, Jr., 
ruled that the drugs and the videotaped confession could not be used as 
evidence.
  The reasoning? The judge said that running away from the police was 
not suspicious behavior, because--and I quote: ``The residents of the 
neighborhood tended to regard police officers as corrupt, abusive, and 
violent.'' Unless this ruling is overturned, a confessed drug dealer 
will go free.
  Let us hope that this is the only appointee of President Clinton who 
apparently believes that police officers are a bigger threat to the 
well-being of our communities than those who peddle drugs to our kids.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from today's 
Wall Street Journal discussing this very disturbing case be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 26, 1996]

                             The Drug Judge

       Winning the war on drugs won't be easy if the battles end 
     up in courtrooms like that of Harold Baer Jr. of the Federal 
     District Court in Manhattan. Judge Baer ruled Wednesday that 
     80 pounds of cocaine and heroin that police found in a car in 
     the drug-wracked neighborhood of Washington Heights could not 
     be used as evidence. The drugs, which have a street value of 
     $4 million, are ``tainted evidence,'' he said.
       He ruled that the police had no good reason for searching 
     the car, despite the fact that the four men putting duffel 
     bags into the trunk took off running when they saw the cops. 
     This, the judge ruled, was not suspicious behavior. Reason: 
     the ``residents of this neighborhood tended to regard police 
     officers as corrupt, abusive and violent.'' As a matter of 
     fact: ``Had the men not run when the cops began to stare at 
     them, it would have been unusual.''
       The woman who was driving the car gave the police a 
     videotaped confession. Carol Bayless, a 41-year-old Detroit 
     woman, told police that she expected to be paid $20,000 for 
     driving the drugs back home, and said that she had made a 
     total of about 20 trips to New York to buy drugs. Judge Baer 
     threw out the videotaped confession. Unless the ruling is 
     overturned by the appeals court, the prosecutors say they no 
     longer have a case; Ms. Bayless, who faced 10 years to life 
     in jail, will be free to go.
       The year's young, but we doubt Judge Baer will have any 
     competition for this year's Judge Sarokin Award, named in 
     honor of the federal judge in New Jersey who ruled for a 
     homeless man who used to lurk inside the Morristown library, 
     spreading his ``ambrosia.'' Liberalism manages to deliver us 
     these rulings on a regular basis, so it's appropriate to 
     raise a few concerns.
       The first has to do with community standards. Aren't the 
     mostly minority residents of Amsterdam Avenue and 176th 
     Street, where the incident took place, entitled to the same 
     level of protection as the mostly white residents 100 blocks 
     south on Amsterdam in the heart of New York's Yuppiedom? We 
     suspect the law-abiding residents of Washington Heights might 
     take a different view about whether the bigger threat to 
     their well-being is the police or fleeing drug runners.
       The other issue raised by the Baer ruling is the politics 
     of judicial appointments. Judge Baer is a Clinton appointee, 
     named to the federal bench in 1994 on the advice of the 
     Democratic Senator from New York, Patrick Moynihan. Now, 
     certainly it is the case that Democrats have appointed first-
     rate jurists to the federal bench. But it's also the case 
     that it is at the liberal end of the modern judiciary that 
     communities find their interests trampled by overly expansive 
     and even absurd legal claims for defendants.
       If Mr. Clinton is re-elected, by the end of his second term 
     he will have filled roughly half of the slots in the federal 
     judiciary, including majorities on the federal appeals 
     courts. And that he would get one, two or even three more 
     appointments to the Supreme Court. Mr. Clinton no doubt would 
     separate himself from decisions like Judge Baer's, but one 
     then has to somehow believe that he would actually separate 
     himself from the constituencies insisting that he pick from 
     the same candidate pool that produces such judges.
       As for the war on drugs, we commend Judge Baer's ruling to 
     the attention of drug czar-designate, General Barry 
     McCaffrey. In his State of the Union address Tuesday, Mr. 
     Clinton told Americans that ``every one of us have a role to 
     play on this team.'' But the best anti-drug legislation and 
     the best law enforcement won't work unless the judiciary is 
     willing to enforce the laws.

                          ____________________