[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 139 (Tuesday, October 1, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12054-S12056]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PRESIDENT CLINTON'S CODDLE A CONVICTED CRIMINAL CAMPAIGN, PART II

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, 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 an administration's prosecutorial 
policies and its outlook on the drug problem and how to combat it. And 
they include the scope and nature of prisoners' rights an 
administration asserts against State and local government prisons and 
jails.
  I have spoken several times about soft on crime Clinton 
administration judges. President Clinton has been soft on drugs. After 
years of declining use, the drug problem is on the rise--on President 
Clinton's watch. And there is no way that he can avoid the criticism.
  Today, I wish to speak again about the Clinton administration's 
coddle a convict program. The President is responsible for protecting 
the constitutional rights of convicted criminals and arrestees 
incarcerated in State and local prisons and jails. This is pursuant to 
the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act [CRIPA].
  I might add that I was the deciding vote on that act, and was the 
prime cosponsor, along with Senator Bayh, of that act many years ago.
  Convicted criminals do have some constitutional rights and we 
provided for them in that act; 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 the Constitution 
requires or even permits.
  On June 4, 1996, I drew the Senate's attention to some of the 
constitutional violations the Clinton administration claimed the State 
of Maryland was committing at its Supermax facility. This facility 
holds the worst of the most vicious criminals in the Maryland State 
prison system--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.

  This is not all. The Clinton administration insists that Maryland 
provide these killers and rapists ``one hour of out-of-cell time daily. 
At least five times per week, this out of cell activity should occur 
outdoors, weather permitting.'' [Letter of Mr. Patrick, May 1, 1996, to 
Governor Parris N. Glendening, page 12]. 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.
  Mr. President, this coddling campaign does not end at Maryland's 
Supermax facility. While time does not permit a full airing of this 
little known Clinton administration campaign, let me share with my 
colleagues just some of its more egregious outrages.
  Bear in mind, Mr. President, that certain penal policies may be 
desirable. But, the Constitution permits criminal prisoners to be 
afforded much less than the ideal. The Constitution certainly does not 
require States and localities to adopt model policies, as the Clinton 
administration seems to be trying to cram down the throats of State and 
local governments.
  The Clinton administration sent a June 1, 1995, letter to the Lee 
County jail in Georgia, a jail which had 27 inmates at the time. Here 
is one of the unconstitutional conditions the Clinton administration 
found at this jail:
  ``Inmates receive only two meals a day, and crackers and soda for 
`lunch.' They do not receive juice or milk * * *'' [June 1, 1995 letter 
from Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Deval L. Patrick to 
John L. Leach, III; page 3].
  Mr. President, doesn't your heart just bleed? The inmates of this 
county jail do not get juice or milk. So, let us make a Federal case 
out of it, at least according to the Clinton administration. Let us 
threaten to sue this Georgia county, let us use the vast power of the 
Federal Government to ensure that the 27 inmates at this county jail 
get their juice or milk.
  I am confident of one thing, though: these crooks must get their 
cookies during the day. How do I know? Because if they didn't, the 
Clinton administration would be claiming a violation of their 
constitutional rights.

  Moreover, Mr. President, according to the Clinton administration, 
those arrested and detained for crimes have a constitutional right to 
wear underwear. You don't believe me, Mr. President? Am I satirizing 
the Clinton administration policies?
  Let me quote from the Clinton administration's April 16, 1996 letter 
to the Virginia Beach, VA city jail. Here is one of the ``conditions 
[which] violate the constitutional rights of prisoners housed at the 
jail.'' Let me go into it again.
  ``* * * [the jail] fails to provide underwear to newly arrested 
people who are wearing `unacceptable' underwear at the time of their 
arrest. Unacceptable underwear is defined by [the jail] as any 
underwear other than all white underwear devoid of any ornamentation or 
decoration * * *. As a practical matter, this practice results in 
inmates having no underwear for extended periods of time * * *.'' 
[April 16, 1996 letter from Mr. Patrick to Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, 
pages 2, 5.]
  This is ridiculous. Can you imagine it, Mr. President? The Federal 
Government, led by the Clinton administration, is fighting for the 
alleged right of inmates to wear underwear, and in the name of the 
Constitution, no less. Some of these inmates include accused murderers 
and rapists. James Madison has got to be rolling over in his grave.
  On October 18, 1993, the Clinton administration listed ``conditions 
at the [Grenada City, MS] jail [which] violate the constitutional 
rights of the prisoners confined therein.'' [October 18, 1993 letter 
from Acting Assistant General Attorney General James P. Turner to Mayor 
L.D. Boone, page 2]. The Clinton administration noted that its 
inspection ``revealed that inmates are not provided an exchange of 
clean linen, such as sheets, blankets, pillows, and pillow cases on a 
scheduled weekly basis.'' [page 4]. On July 21, 1994, the city signed a 
consent decree at the Clinton administration's behest, which codifies 
in a court decree this requirement of weekly linen service.
  Just weeks later, however, the Constitution changed according to the 
Clinton administration: ``Prisoners should have a clean clothes and 
linen exchange at least three times per week.'' [August 3, 1994 letter 
from Mr. Patrick to Sheriff Robert McCabe, Norfolk, VA city jail, page 
8.]
  Mr. President, I am sure it is sound penal policy to provide clean 
clothes and linen exchange once or even three times a week. But the 
Clinton administration has no business imposing its policy preferences 
as requirements on States and localities under the false guise of 
enforcing the Constitution. Inmates' clothing and linen have to become 
awfully wretched before a constitutional violation occurs. This is an 
extra-constitutional convenience, a Clinton administration coddle, and 
not the enforcement of the Constitution.
  The Clinton administration's coddling of criminals does not stop 
there. The Clinton administration is compelling jails and prisons to 
``ensure that no inmate has to sleep on the floor.'' The Clinton 
administration told the Tulsa County Jail that it must ``[p]rovide all 
inmates within twenty-four hours of their admission with a bunk and 
mattress well above the floor.'' [September 13, 1994 letter from Mr. 
Patrick to Lewis Harris, page 15.]
  It is certainly preferable to give inmates a bunk to sleep in. But, 
jail and

[[Page S12055]]

prison space do not always match the number of criminals and detainees 
requiring incarceration. The Constitution does not require a bunk for 
every inmate. Sleeping on a mattress on a floor or on the floor itself 
may not be convenient, but the Constitution does not require prisons 
and jails to afford comfortable lodging for every criminal.
  But just listen to the bleeding heart of the Clinton administration, 
time and again bringing the full weight of the Federal Government down 
on the law enforcement systems of our localities and States. On October 
26, 1993, the Clinton administration advised the Lee County jail in 
Mississippi that the jail ``is routinely overcrowded. [Its capacity] is 
54, but there were 80 inmates on the first day [of the Justice 
Department's tour]'' and occasionally the inmate population is 
about double the jail's capacity. This means ``that some inmates have 
to sleep on bunks in the day rooms, on mattresses on the floor, and on 
top of the day room tables * * *.'' That is unconstitutional, according 
to the Clinton administration. [October 26, 1993 letter from Mr. Turner 
to Billy Davis, pages 2, 3.] The Clinton administration demanded that 
the jail ``house[] only an appropriate number of inmates and that none 
of the inmates sleep on the floor.'' [page 8].

  Indeed, Mr. President, take a look at how the Clinton administration 
handled the Forrest County, MS, jail. The Clinton administration cited 
the jail because it ``is consistently overcrowded. Although the 
facility is designed to house 172 inmates * * * [it has] housed up to 
242 individuals on a single day. On the day of [the Justice 
Department's] tour * * * the jail housed 203 inmates. Inmates have 
slept on mattresses on the floor for the past year.'' [July 6, 1993 
letter from Mr. Turner to Lynn Cartlidge, Attachment, page 4].
  The Clinton administration, with the full leverage of its resources, 
prevailed upon the county to enter into a consent decree nearly 2 years 
later. The consent decree provides that, ``[t]he jail's population 
shall not exceed the rated capacity of 172 unless temporary conditions 
exist beyond the control of [the County].'' Even then, the county must 
do all it can within its control to get the inmate population down to 
172 [Consent decree, paragraphs 67-69].
  Mr. President, the inmates at Forrest County jail, or any other jail 
or prison, do not have a constitutional right to be routinely housed at 
a jail with no overcrowding whatsoever. But the inmates' allies in the 
Clinton administration have created that right for them.
  Mr. President, the Clinton administration has also discovered a 
constitutional right to fresh air for the inmates. According to the 
Clinton administration, the Lee County, MS, jail's ``installation of 
individual domestic-type air conditioners did not provide minimum 
ventilation for the purposes of fresh air supply, air exchange and 
overall cooling, as indicated by the 91 degrees Fahrenheit temperature 
and the 75 percent relative humidity in the cell housing areas. * * '' 
[page 5]. Does that sound like cruel and unusual punishment to you, Mr. 
President?

  I know of thousands, hundreds of thousands of Americans who live no 
better than that. But our prisonors have to be coddled. We have to take 
good care of them and make sure they all have air conditioning.
  The Clinton administration has relentlessly fought for the rights of 
inmates to outdoor exercise and to exercise equipment. It complained to 
the Onondaga County jail of Syracuse, NY, that, `` `outdoor recreation 
facilities' consist of only 1 operative basketball hoop and 
underinflated basketballs [and no other type of equipment.]'' My 
goodness, here is the Clinton administration's demand on that county 
jail: ``Existing outside recreation space must be equipped with 
sufficient sporting/recreation equipment to afford prisoners the 
opportunity to participate in large muscular activity. [The Jail] must 
assure that both indoor and outdoor recreation programs exist for 
prisoners.'' [October 18, 1994 letter from Mr. Patrick to Mr. Nicholas 
J. Perio, page 14.]
  I am sure the citizens of New York State and the rest of our States 
can sleep easier knowing the Nation's jail inmates have this 
constitutional right to participate in large muscular activity with 
sufficient sporting and recreation equipment. I am sure we all rest 
easier knowing that these inmates have a right to indoor and outdoor 
recreation programs.
  Mr. President, while the Constitution may require a minimum 
opportunity for inmates to exercise, there is no constitutional right 
to exercise out of doors. And there certainly is no constitutional 
right to exercise equipment and indoor and outdoor recreation programs.
  Some of these programs may make sense as a matter of policy. I have 
no particular objection, for example, to outside exercise, which 
inmates can obtain without exercise equipment. But the Clinton 
administration has no business imposing these programs on States and 
localities in the name of the Constitution. The Clinton administration 
is seeking to constitutionalize its notion of enlightened prison policy 
and cram it down the throats of our State and local prisons and jails.
  The Clinton administration cited the Calhoun County, GA, jail for 
allowing prisoners only 2 hours a week of out of cell exercise, staff 
availability permitting, and providing no exercise equipment. The 
Clinton administration demanded that, ``Inmates * * * be provided with 
exercise outdoors when weather permits, one hour per day, five days per 
week. Reasonable exercise equipment should be provided.'' [June 1, 1995 
letter from Mr. Patrick to Mr. Calvin Schramm, pages 3, 5].

  On the same day, the Clinton administration read the Constitution 
even more expansively when it cited the Lee County jail for exercise 
violations--the same jail that allegedly violated the Constitution by 
not providing juice or milk to the inmates. The Lee County jail must 
provide not 5 days of outdoor exercise, but 7 days a week of outdoor 
exercise. [page 6].
  Let me touch on another Clinton administration coddle. According to 
the Clinton administration's reading of the Constitution, ``loss of 
meals must never be used as a punitive measure.'' [April 23, 1996 
letter from Mr. Patrick to Mr. John Moore, Coffee County, Commission, 
GA, page 3.] From time immemorial, parents have sent children to bed 
without supper as punishment. But, just let a prison or jail try it on 
a convicted criminal, and they will wind up with the Federal Government 
on their backs, courtesy of the Clinton administration.
  Moreover, the Clinton administration objected to a jail's inmate 
handbook which ``instructs inmates to eat `quickly'. This is contrary 
to generally accepted correctional practice,'' claims the Clinton 
administration [page ]. But the Clinton administration has no authority 
to impose generally accepted correctional practices on State and local 
governments. It can only remove unconstitutional conditions at state 
and local prisons and jails. The Clinton administration is seeking, 
once again, to constitutionalize what it considers to be sound 
correctional policy.
  Now, let me read, in its entirety, one of the ``unconstitutional 
conditions'' found at the Dooly County, GA, jail. This jail has a 
capacity of 36 inmates:
  ``Food sanitation is poor. The Jail does not have a kitchen. Food is 
obtained from a nearby, private establishment. The lunch meal on the 
day of our tour, tuna fish, was served at approximately 65 degrees 
Fahrenheit. This is much warmer than food safety standards permit.'' 
[June 1, 1995 letter of Mr. Patrick to Mr. Wayne West, page 5.]

  That is it. The serving of that warm tuna fish violated the 
Constitution.
  On the same day, the Clinton administration found the following 
``conditions at the Mitchell County, GA, jail violate the 
Constitutional rights of prisoners:
  ``* * * The food is transported by car in styrofoam or polystyrene 
containers not designed to maintain proper food temperatures. During 
our tour, the hot food for the evening meal, which should be served at 
a minimum of 140 degrees fahrenheit, was served at 115 degrees 
fahrenheit.'' The Constitution allegedly requires such proper 
insulation and temperatures for inmates' food. [June 1, 1995 letter 
from Mr. Patrick to Benjamin Hayward, page 6, 9.]
  Mr. President, I could go on and on, about the areas just mentioned, 
as well as additional areas where the Clinton administration seeks to 
coddle criminals by demanding extra-constitutional privileges for them.

[[Page S12056]]

  Scarce Federal law enforcement resources would be better utilized by 
focusing on putting more criminals behind bars rather than worrying 
about whether their tuna fish is too warm once they get there; whether 
their hot food is lukewarm, or heaven forbid, cold; whether they get 
juice or milk with their meals; whether they have to sleep on a 
mattress on the floor rather than a bunk a certain number of inches off 
the floor; whether they get outdoor exercise, exercise equipment, and 
recreation programs; and whether they get to wear underwear.
  And the Clinton administration should stop diverting scarce State and 
local resources toward defending against, or bowing to, these bleeding-
heart concerns.
  Mr. President, I was the author, along with Birch Bayh, of the Civil 
Rights for Institutionalized Persons Act. I was the deciding vote on 
that vote. I believe it was in 1978 or 1979. It could have been 1980. 
It was an important bill. I believe in it. I do not think criminals 
should have their constitutional rights violated any more than anybody 
else.
  But these assertions of the Clinton administration and these demands 
and these consent decrees and these costs to the taxpayers in those 
State and local areas are absurd. Frankly, we have to get them out of 
the pockets and lives of our State and local governments. When they 
find true constitutional issues, true constitutional wrongs, they ought 
to right them. But these are not constitutional issues or wrongs that 
need to be righted, and we have to give the State and local governments 
some flexibility. We also have to understand that these murderers and 
rapists and others have committed these crimes and they should not be 
coddled in the jails of this country.
  Mr. President, I think we ought to quit making a distortion out of 
the Civil Rights for Institutionalized Persons Act and do what is 
right. But this is typical of this administration, and I had to make 
these comments.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

                          ____________________