[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 51 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3706-S3707]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ANTITERRORISM BILL

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the day before yesterday, this Senate 
completed a vitally important task. A part of that task, an 
antiterrorism bill, was brought into being as a consequence of the 
tragedy 1 year ago in Oklahoma City. Another part of that 
accomplishment is the result of the work of many Members on this side 
of the aisle, some on the other side of the aisle, extending over a 
period of well over a decade to reform and make more just our criminal 
justice system.
  There are those among our constituents, a number of whom have called 
my office, who oppose the antiterrorism bill simply because they did 
not wish any enhancement of the criminal justice powers of Federal 
agencies.
  I believe their apprehension to be misdirected. I am convinced that 
to face the possibility of terrorism, both foreign and domestic, a 
possibility which has clearly been a terrible reality both in Oklahoma 
City and in New York City, that some enhancement of Federal law 
enforcement was, in fact, necessary, and, as a consequence, I supported 
the antiterrorism elements in that bill.
  At the same time, Mr. President, I am convinced that the reform in 
what is known technically as habeas corpus will be of a more profound 
and a more positive nature in connection with our criminal justice 
system.
  It is a simple truism that justice delayed is justice denied, and 
with respect to myriad State court convictions for serious criminal 
violations, including the most serious criminal violations resulting in 
capital punishment sentences, we have a spectacle in the United States 
of America unseen anyplace else in the world.

  Here, of course, with our unique and uniquely valuable system of dual 
sovereignty, most criminal justice prosecutions take place in our State 
courts. Many here claim a sophistication by asserting some kind of 
second-rate justice at the State court system. Those observations do 
not accord with my own practice as attorney general of the State of 
Washington, but, nevertheless, they are reflected in the nature of our 
habeas corpus proceedings.
  A normal prosecution proceeds through a trial before a jury in a 
State court, a conviction, a sentence, at least one and usually two 
appeals to an intermediate appellate court and then to a State supreme 
court in connection with any serious violation. In most other 
jurisdictions in the world, including other countries as free as the 
United States, that would be the end of the process. But in the United 
States, any convicted person can say, ``No, I don't accept that 
proceeding,'' no matter how great the protections of the rights of the 
individual accused. ``I'm going to start all over again in the Federal 
court system and assert some violation of my constitutional rights.''
  We have the paradox California situation--I believe, again, Mr. 
President, unprecedented in the world--in which a single trial level 
Federal judge can say that everything that the State trial judge did, 
everything that the State appellate system, everything that the State 
supreme court did was wrong and violated the constitutional rights of 
this individual convicted person. And you have to start all over again 
or perhaps even dismiss the case entirely.

  Even if that single Federal court judge says, no, everything was done 
in accordance with the Constitution, the accused person can then take 
that to a circuit court of appeals as a matter of right and try it in 
the Supreme Court of the United States to succeed in his or her claims.
  But, Mr. President, at the present time it does not stop there. You 
can go all the way up on one claim of a constitutional violation and 
then say, oh, by the way, I forgot, I have another claim of a different 
constitutional violation. And we will start all over again in another 
Federal district court and repeat the process.
  Mr. President, when I spoke here during the debate of one of the 
motions to recommit of the distinguished Senator from Delaware, [Mr. 
Biden], I talked about Charles Campbell.
  Charles Campbell, a released rapist, almost immediately after his 
release from a prison in Washington State went to the home of the 
person he raped and in cold blood murdered her, her child, and a 
neighbor who happened to be there at the time. This took place in 1982, 
Mr. President.
  By 1984 Mr. Campbell had been tried, convicted, sentenced to death, 
and had exhausted his appeals in the Washington court system. But, Mr. 
President, that was only the beginning. From 1984 to 1994 Charles 
Campbell cheated justice by endless appeals to the Federal courts of 
the United States. After literally millions of dollars had been used, 
his judgment was finally confirmed and he was executed in mid 1994.
  Mr. President, that was a misuse of the system. It taught disrespect 
of the law to the people of the State of Washington who had to follow 
this through the newspapers and over television for more than 10 years. 
And, Mr. President, fundamental respect for and obedience to our law 
requires a public opinion that believes that the legal system does 
work. This kind of misuse undercuts that trust and confidence. We 
simply cannot have it, Mr. President.
  Finally, as a result of this bill, and the intense decade-long work 
of the Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch, we do have reforms in this 
habeas corpus set of procedures. It is not an abolition, not a way to 
deny true constitutional violations, but a way that requires them to be 
asserted within a reasonable time and concluded within a reasonable 
time. And as a consequence, Mr. President, I believe that we have made 
a huge step forward in a campaign which has lasted for an extended 
period of time.
  Just going back in the Record to 1980--I find a bill 2 years after 
that by Senator East. It did not get out of committee. The next year 
there was one by Senator Thurmond that actually passed the Senate, but 
was killed in the House. The next year a similar bill by Senator Dole, 
without action. During that same year 1984, a proposition from 
Congressman Foley from my own State, before he was Speaker, that said 
we could not do anything in Congress about habeas corpus until there 
had been a study and recommendations from the U.S. Supreme Court, which 
study has been completed.
  Then again in 1992 another proposal by Senator Thurmond. In the 
various crime bills in the 4 years leading up to 1994, tiny little 
proposals, minor changes--major changes constantly defeated on the 
floor of the Senate or the floor of the House. And finally now in this 
Congress with appropriate leadership a reform in the system that really 
works. Mr. President, this is a real triumph.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All the time under the previous order has 
expired at this point.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent 
that our time be extended by 6 minutes. I have spoken to the Senator 
from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, upon the 
conclusion of that time period, that Senator Dodd be recognized for the 
purposes of making some remarks, and following that I be recognized for 
20 minutes in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.

[[Page S3707]]



              THE ADMINISTRATION AND DRUG USE BY OUR YOUTH

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I think what we have seen here this 
morning is that there are consequences from policies. This 
administration has presided over significant policy changes and 
decisions for which there have been extraordinary consequences.
  Mr. President, the interdiction effort of drugs on our borders, 
particularly between the United States and Mexico, have been reduced by 
40 percent. The drug czar's office under this administration until 
recently was reduced by 80 percent. This administration has presided 
over the appointment of such judicial figures as Judge Baer who is now 
a celebrity in his own right for an initial resistance to a drug case 
brought in a celebrated case in New York.
  These isolated incidences though need to be looked at and reviewed 
again in the context of what has resulted from these decisions. And 
what has resulted is an alarming epidemic of drug use among American 
citizens, particularly our youth.
  Drug use among teenagers has doubled in the last 36 months. From 1980 
to 1992 drug use among teenagers was cut in half. It has now 
skyrocketed and as I said has virtually doubled. Mr. President, drug 
use among our youth age 12 to 17 since 1992 has gone from 2.4 to 3.8 
million. That is all illicit drugs. It has gone from 1.6 to 2.9 million 
for marijuana. Drug use among 12th graders in that same 36 months is up 
60 percent. For 10th graders it is up 95 percent. For eighth graders, 
Mr. President--eighth graders--it is up 110 percent.
  The emergency room episodes of cocaine-related incidents has gone 
from 110,000 to 147,000. The role of substance abuse and violence has 
skyrocketed and is involved in 70 percent-plus of rapes in the United 
States. Every statistic, Mr. President, we can review is up and we are 
now presiding over a new drug epidemic in the United States. These 
statistics are a direct result of major changes in policy.
  That is where we need to revert to truth-in-sentencing, new 
interdiction and being tougher on the judges who sit on the bench to 
fulfill and honor the laws of our land.
  This is a war, Mr. President, that we cannot afford to lose, because 
to do so is to condemn millions, millions of Americans to devastation.

                          ____________________