[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1474-1475]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       VOLUNTARY CONFESSIONS LAW

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to discuss my concern regarding 
recent developments in the Dickerson case concerning voluntary 
confessions. Opponents are using some extreme tactics to encourage the 
Supreme Court to strike down this law.
  For years, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including 
myself, encouraged the Clinton Justice Department to enforce 18 U.S.C. 
3501, the law on voluntary confessions. In the Dickerson case, the 
Department refused to permit career federal prosecutors to rely on the 
law in their efforts to make sure a serial bank robber did not get 
away.
  When the Supreme Court was deciding whether to hear the case, the 
Department had the opportunity to defend the statute, as many of us 
encouraged it to do. While making its decision, the Department 
consulted with certain federal law enforcement agencies. The Drug 
Enforcement Administration explained that Miranda in its current form 
is problematic in some circumstances and encouraged the Department to 
defend the law.
  The Department later wrote in its brief about the views of federal 
law enforcement in this matter, but that support for the statute and 
reservation about Miranda is nowhere to be found. Instead, the brief 
states ``federal law enforcement agencies have concluded that the 
Miranda decision itself generally does not hinder their investigations 
and the issuance of Miranda warnings at the outset of custodial 
interrogation is in the best interests of law enforcement as well as 
the suspect.'' The brief should recognize that there is disagreement 
among federal law enforcement agencies about the impact of the Miranda 
warnings in investigations and the need for reform of the Miranda 
requirements. The Department should not generalize in a brief before 
the Supreme Court to the point of misrepresentation. Senator Hatch and 
I sent a letter to Attorney General Reno and Solicitor General Waxman 
last week asking for an explanation in this matter, and I look forward 
to their response.
  One of the amicus briefs, which was filed by the House Democratic 
leadership, takes a very novel approach toward the statute. It seems to 
suggest that the voluntary confessions law is not really a law after 
all. It states that the ``Congress enacted section 3501 largely for 
symbolic purposes, to make an election year statement in 1968 about law 
and order, not to mount a challenge to Miranda.''
  This statement is not only inaccurate. It is completely 
inappropriate.
  I was in the Senate when the voluntary confessions law was debated 
and passed over 30 years ago. A bipartisan majority of the Congress 
supported this law, and Democrats were in the majority at the time.
  We did not enact the law to make some vague statement about crime. We 
passed the voluntary confessions law because we were extremely 
concerned about the excesses of the Miranda decision allowing an 
unknown number of defendants who voluntarily confessed their crimes to 
go free on a technicality. We passed it to be enforced.
  For the House Democratic leadership brief to state that the Congress 
did not intend for a law that it passed to be enforced trivializes the 
legislative branch at the expense of the executive. It is a dangerous 
mistake for the legislative branch to defer to the executive regarding 
what laws to enforce.

[[Page 1475]]

  The executive branch has a constitutional duty to enforce the laws, 
unless they are clearly unconstitutional. Contrary to what is happening 
today, the executive branch is not free to ignore acts of Congress 
simply because it does not support them, and the legislative branch 
should not support this approach.
  In this matter, the Justice Department has refused to abide by its 
duty to faithfully execute the laws, and has instead chosen to side 
with criminals and defense attorneys over prosecutors and law 
enforcement. It is unfortunate that, in this case, the Department will 
be making arguments on behalf of criminals before the Supreme Court. No 
arguments about the law will change this sad fact.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  (The remarks of Mr. Specter and Mr. Torricelli pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 2089 are printed in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
speak for 8 minutes as in morning business for the introduction of a 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Campbell pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2090 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Georgia.

                          ____________________