[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 80 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5706-S5707]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        PRESIDENT CLINTON'S CODDLE-A-CONVICTED-CRIMINAL CAMPAIGN

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, an administration's law enforcement 
philosophy manifests itself in many ways. I have spoken several times 
about soft-on-crime Clinton administration judges. President Clinton 
has been AWOL--absent without leadership--in the war on drugs. After 
years of declining use the drug problem is on the rise--on President 
Clinton's watch. Today, I want to speak about the Clinton coddle-a-
convicted-criminal program.
  The President is responsible for protecting the constitutional rights 
of convicted criminals incarcerated in State prisons. This is pursuant 
to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, sometimes called 
CRIPA, an act that I cast the deciding vote on and was prime cosponsor 
of, along with Senator Birch Bayh, many years ago, in the 1970's.
  Convicted criminals do have some constitutional rights; but, 
understandably, those rights are very sharply circumscribed. And, to my 
mind, the Clinton administration, takes a very liberal view of these 
rights, and reads the rights of the accused and of convicted criminals 
more favorably than many of the rest of us.
  Mr. President, the Clinton administration has asserted a number of 
instances where the constitutional rights of some of the most vicious 
criminals at the Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center, known as 
Supermax, are allegedly being violated. I cite a letter of Assistant 
Attorney General for Civil Rights Deval L. Patrick, to Gov. Parris N. 
Glendening, May 1, 1996. I want to focus on some of these alleged 
constitutional deprivations, or at least what the Clinton 
administration calls alleged deprivations of prisoners' rights.
  I remind colleagues that Supermax was constructed to house inmates 
who by their own conduct create public safety justification for removal 
from traditional correctional facilities. Supermax inmates require 
close custody and a high level of supervision. Among the inmates at 
Supermax are 105 murderers, 19 rapists, and those who have histories of 
escape or attempted escape.
  Mr. President, I hope my colleagues and others who are listening 
pause and brace themselves for the unconstitutional deprivations to 
which Maryland is allegedly subjecting these murderers, rapists, and 
other hardened criminals.
  Now, is the Clinton administration citing the State of Maryland 
because it beats the convicts at Supermax? No. Is the Clinton 
administration citing Maryland because it tortures or starves these 
vicious criminals? No.
  Mr. President, the Clinton administration is citing the State of 
Maryland, in part, because ``food is served lukewarm or cold'' to these 
murderers and rapists. Doesn't your heart just bleed for these 
murderers and rapists and other criminals? They are getting their food 
served lukewarm or cold. The Clinton administration makes a Federal 
case out of it. President Clinton is forcing Maryland taxpayers 
to defend against this ridiculous constitutional claim. This is the 
evolving standard of decency in the hands of liberals wielding the vast 
power of the all-mighty Federal Government. It is an abuse of Federal 
power on behalf of murderers and rapists; that is, the administration's 
position in this matter.

  If you do not believe me, Mr. President, let me read you the relevant 
paragraph from page 5 of the Clinton administration's May 1 letter:

       Food served to the prisoners at Supermax is prepared at the 
     penitentiary across the street and brought to Supermax in 
     bulk. At Supermax, the food is placed into individual 
     compartmentalized thermal trays for distribution to the 
     prisoners in their cells. Food placed in the trays is not 
     promptly covered; trays brought to the housing units are not 
     promptly served. As a result, food is served lukewarm or 
     cold. Food must be served at temperatures that conform to 
     accepted health standards.

  CRIPA, or the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, requires 
only enforcing the constitutional minimum. Instead, the Clinton 
administration makes a Federal case out of it, advancing a 
constitutional right for hardened, convicted murderers and rapists, so 
vicious and dangerous as to need special supervision, to have their hot 
food served hot, not lukewarm or cold.
  This is nothing but a Clinton coddle-a-convicted-criminal approach. I 
might say a convicted-vicious-criminal approach. The Clinton 
administration is forcing the taxpayers of Maryland to pay the cost of 
responding to its ridiculous demand.
  That is not all. The Clinton administration insists that Maryland 
provide these killers and rapists 1 hour of out-of-cell time daily. At 
least five times per week, this out-of-cell activity should occur 
outdoors, weather permitting. Again, from the letter of Mr. Patrick. 
That is right Mr. President, the hardened criminals who are the worst 
of the worst, who require special supervision, have a constitutional 
right to fresh air, to go outdoors. This does not represent law and 
order. This is the coddling of vicious criminals.
  Here is how the Clinton administration describes general conditions 
at Supermax:

       Inmates at Supermax are subjected to extreme social 
     isolation. Inmates are confined to single person cells 24 
     hours a day, except for a brief period (less than an hour) 
     every 2 to 3 days when they are permitted, one at a time, 
     out of their cells to shower and walk around a dayroom 
     area. Inmates are not permitted outdoors due to staff 
     shortages. Inmates eat all of their meals in their cells. 
     Food trays are passed through a narrow food port in a cell 
     door, solid except for a vision window. Inmates are not 
     allowed to participate in any prison job opportunities or 
     any other prison recreational or educational programs. No 
     recreational equipment is provided. Inmates in adjoining 
     cells can hear but not see each other. The sole 
     opportunity for socialization occurs during the out-of-
     cell time, when the inmate released from his cell may 
     socialize with other inmates on his block, who are locked 
     behind their cell doors.

  They go on to say:

       Supermax' failure to provide sufficient out-of-cell time on 
     a daily basis as well as its failure to provide any 
     opportunity to go outdoors is unconstitutional, especially 
     given the highly restrictive regimen of daily life at 
     Maryland Supermax.

  Is it any wonder Supermax inmates are isolated? These prisoners have 
been removed from traditional maximum security prisons as a result of 
their own conduct.
  But the Clinton administration's heart just bleeds for these 
hardened, convicted criminals. Pity the inmates at Supermax. Joe the 
murderer does not have enough time to socialize, schmooz, and compare 
notes with Harry the murderer and rapists Ben and John. Does your heart 
not just bleed for these criminals, Mr. President? These model citizens 
do not get to jump on an exercise bike. So let us sue Maryland. Let us 
establish a constitutional right for convicted murderers and rapists to 
socialize with one another. Again, I stress, these are not merely 
maximum security prisoners. These prisoners at Supermax are the worst 
people in the Maryland prison system.

  It is true that some courts, including the fourth circuit decision 
the Clinton administration relies upon, have ruled that ``generally a 
prisoner must be provided some opportunity to exercise'' under the 
eighth amendment, but that is in general. Mitchell v. Rice, 954 F.2d 
187, 192]. Even the total deprivation of

[[Page S5707]]

all exercise does not always violate the cruel and unusual punishment 
clause. According to the cited fourth circuit precedent, there is no 
per se rule requiring a minimum of exercise time in all cases. The 
issue turns on the particular circumstances.
  Moreover, the Clinton administration's misleading reading of fourth 
circuit precedent favorable to the murderers and rapists of Supermax 
notwithstanding, the Mitchell versus Rice case does not suggest that 
there is a constitutional right for these prisoners to go out of doors.
  Under the circumstances at Supermax; namely, the nature of the 
dangerous criminals locked up there, and their need for close 
supervision, the Clinton administration should let Supermax afford 
these inmates the brief time out of their cells every second or third 
day that the administration finds constitutionally objectionable. If 
Maryland correctional authorities want to provide more out of cell 
time, that should be in their discretion.
  And I certainly believe the Clinton administration ought to drop its 
position that these particular murderers, rapists, and other closely 
supervised criminals, have a constitutional right to fresh air. Many, 
if not all, of the murderers in this group are lucky to be breathing 
indoor air at all, which is more than their victims are doing right 
now, I might add.
  With respect to hot food, out-of-cell exercise time, and access to 
fresh air, the Clinton administration is seeking extraconstitutional 
conveniences and comforts for convicted criminals who do not deserve 
them.
  The lesson is this: an administration's crime policies are a web of 
many factors. They include, for example, the kind of judges a President 
will appoint. They include the prosecutorial policies of an 
administration, its outlook on the drug problem and how to combat it. 
And they include the manner in which the constitutional rights of the 
accused and of convicted criminals are assessed.
  A more liberal administration such as the incumbent administration 
will wind up, on balance, softer on crime. A conservative 
administration will be tougher on crime. And a conservative 
administration will not abuse its power by trying to coerce States into 
coddling convicted murderers and rapists.
  Mr. President, the criminal justice system in this country has not 
been run very well. We should do everything in our power--the first 
time people are convicted--for people we really can rehabilitate, whose 
lives we can change. Rehabilitation is a very important part of this.
  But, by gosh, we have no room for coddling these convicted murderers 
and rapists. We have no room for that. And to have this administration 
start to demand that they coddle these criminals and file lawsuits 
against States and have the taxpayers pay for the coddling of 
criminals--I am not just talking about criminals, but the most hardened 
criminals in America--I think is not only highly unusual with regard to 
the way I look at things, and I think most people in this country look 
at things, but it is typical for some of these more liberal thinkers 
who basically never blame the criminals for what they do, always blame 
society for not having helped them enough in these formative years.
  The fact of the matter is, there is a word called ``responsibility.'' 
We have to start requiring people to be responsible in our society even 
though they may have come from the wrong side of the tracks. Many 
people grew up on the other side of the tracks, in extremely difficult 
circumstances, and overcame those circumstances without turning to 
crime.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, in its capacity as a Senator from 
the State of Ohio, suggests the absence of a quorum. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________