S6590 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 12, 1995

Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I have good news

today, Mr. President. Susie Hamilton

underwent 15 hours of surgery yesterday at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer

Center in Seattle, receiving the bone

marrow from that German soldier. I

am pleased to say early reports are

positive, and the prognosis is good.

Mr. President, I will be sending a ribbon just like this to the White House

today so that President Clinton can affirm to Susie through correspondence

that everyone is praying for her speedy

and thorough recovery so that we can

all affirm that there is always hope

where there is prayer, and that truly

people all over the world are praying

for Susie, and to acknowledge the support of the community of Boise and all

of Susie’s friends as they rally around

a neighbor, which I think is the spirit

that does bring about not only hope

but the positive results that we want.

Mr. President, I thank you. I suggest

the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the role.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order for

the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I further

ask unanimous consent that I might

proceed now as in morning business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, today, I

VICTIMS’ RIGHTS

fwant to continue my discussion on the

crime bill that I intend to introduce in

the Senate next week.

As I have pointed out in previous

speeches on this issue, there are really

two fundamental issues that we always

need to address when we look at the

question of a crime bill, when we look

at whether it is a good crime bill or

whether it is not, when we look at

whether it gets the job done or not.

The first question is: What is the proper role of the Federal Government in

fighting crime in this country, understanding that 90 to 95 percent of all

criminal prosecution is not done at the

Federal level, but rather done at the

local level, the State level, the county

level? What is the role of the Federal

Government?

The second question we always have

to ask is, despite all the rhetoric: What

really works in the area of law enforcement? What really matters? And, conversely, what does not matter?

On Wednesday of this week, I discussed these issues with specific reference to crimefighting technology.

The conclusion I reached was that we

have an outstanding technological base

in this country that will do a great

deal to help us catch criminals.

Mr. President, technology does, in

fact, matter.

However, we do need the Federal

Government to be more proactive in

this area, more proactive in getting the

States on line with this technology and

giving the States the assets they need

to get that job done.

Having a terrific national criminal

records system or huge DNA data base

for convicted sex offenders in Washington, DC, is great—but it will not do

much good for the police officer in

Lucas County, Hamilton County, and

Franklin County, OH, or if other jurisdictions across this country cannot tap

into it, cannot get the information out

or, conversely, cannot put the information in.

Mr. President, crime occurs locally.

So we have to make sure the

crimefighting resources—such as hightech data bases—are, in fact, available

to local law enforcement. And one of

the principal provisions of the bill that

I will introduce next week does just

that, drives that home to the thousands, tens of thousands of local law

enforcement agencies scattered

throughout our 50 States.

Mr. President, on Thursday of this

week, I discussed a second issue—what

we have to do to get armed career

criminals off our streets. At that time,

I talked specifically about a program

called Project Triggerlock that targeted gun criminals for Federal prosecution.

Mr. President, Project Triggerlock

worked. It got 15,000—15,000—armed career criminals off the streets in just 18

months. But, incredibly, the Clinton

administration abolished this program.

My legislation, Mr. President, would

bring back Project Triggerlock, and

toughen the laws on gun crimes in

many other significant ways. It is

clear, if we are going to be tough on

crime and do things that really matter,

we have to get armed career criminals

off our streets.

Today, I would like to turn to a third

provision of my crime bill, a third

issue, and it is an issue that is near and

dear to my heart as a former county

prosecuting attorney, and that is the

people that we many times forget in

our criminal justice system, the victims of crime.

Today, I would like to talk about

that component of my crime legislation. I would like to discuss some of

the measures I think we ought to take

in the area of victims’ rights.

The late Hubert Humphrey said, in a

much admired and much quoted comment:

The moral test of Government is how that

Government treats those who are in the

dawn of life, the children; those who are in

the twilight of life, the elderly; and those

who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the

needy, and the handicapped.

What the former Vice President and

former U.S. Senator said, what he was

talking about was the fundamental

role of Government to protect the

weak, to protect those citizens who

could not protect themselves. That is

why, I submit, Mr. President, I think

victims of crime belong on that list, as

well.

For too long, victims have been forgotten by our judicial system. From

start to finish, the legal system can be

a terrible ordeal for the victims—a bureaucratic nightmare that seems to

and, in fact, does many times, go on

and on and on.

In our Constitution, we have all

kinds of protections for the rights of

defendants, as well we should. We try

to make sure that they have every possible chance—and that is good—because we do not know if the defendants

are guilty. We want to know if they

have justice. That is why we bend over

backwards to be fair to anyone accused

of crime.

Mr. President, in the process, I believe that many times we have forgotten the victims of crime.

Over the last few decades, we have

made some progress in this area. We

have made some progress in recognizing the rights of victims. When I was a

county prosecutor in the 1970’s, I saw

too many crime victims, people who

had already been hurt, hurt a second

time by a callous legal system. That is

why I did everything that I could to

protect the rights of those victims.

Today, the legal process, in spite of

changes, in spite of reforms, in spite of

progress that we have made, is still too

brutal on the victims. Our bottom line

has to be this: To be victimized once by

a crime is already once too often. To be

victimized yet again by an uncaring judicial system is totally, totally unacceptable.

There are some measures we should

take as part of this year’s crime legislation to continue the process of making the legal system treat crime victims with greater fairness and with

greater consideration. Let me talk

about a few of these.

No. 1, let us make sure that crime

does not pay. Today, a Federal trial

court may—may—order restitution for

crimes. I think that in every case they

should order restitution for crimes. I

think we should mandate full restitution in all Federal criminal cases.

No. 2, let us stop the brutalization of

victims in our courts. Under current

law, lawyers are not allowed to present

evidence that they know is false. That

is a basic tenet of judicial ethics for

lawyers. Every law student learns that

early on. But what defense lawyers can

do under our current system is this: If

they have a crime victim on the stand,

a crime victim whom they know is telling the truth, defense lawyers are still

allowed to make it look like that witness is lying. Defense lawyers can do

this even though they know the witness is telling the truth. My legislation

would prohibit this practice.

No. 3, let us make the trial process

more fair to the victims. Under the

Constitution, a defendant has the

right, if he so chooses, not to testify in

his own defense. This is a very important constitutional right. It is imperative that we always protect this. This
May 12, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6591

right has a consequence, a consequence

that is both unintended and, I submit,

undesirable.

There are cases in which the defense

team decides not to put the defendant

on the stand, which is fine, and then,

though, attacks the victim’s character

and the victim when that victim, himself or herself, takes the stand and testifies. In effect, the defense lawyers put

the victim on trial while at the same

time being able to shield the defendant

from questions about that defendant’s

own character.

I think it is time to end the free ride

for these defendants. Let us simply say

to the defendants and let us say to the

defendants’ lawyers this: If you, the accused or a lawyer, want to attack the

character of a victim, then you can expect the prosecutor to call your character into question. It is only fair. It is

only right. It is only just.

No. 4, let us make people who are accused of sexual assault be tested for

HIV. If you, or one of your loved ones,

was the victim of a sexual assault

today, it is very difficult to find out if

the attacker has HIV, and in today’s

society, is that not something that the

victim should know? Is that not something that the court system should

help the victim to determine?

Last year, the Senate version of the

crime bill did have a provision mandating HIV testing of persons arrested for

sexual assault. The Clinton administration supported this provision. But in

the other body, for some reason, it was

dropped.

My legislation would change that.

My legislation would put that back in.

My legislation would force the HIV

testing of these defendants and the disclosure of the testing results to the

victims of crime.

No. 5, a fifth way to make our system

more fair and more just to the victims

of crime, let us make the jury, the

whole jury system, a level playing

field. The O.J. Simpson trial has focused America’s attention on the process of the selection of a jury. How do

we make sure that the jury is a fair

panel?

Mr. President, under today’s Federal

laws, prosecutors can challenge six potential jurors without giving cause,

what in the courtroom they call

‘‘cause.’’ Six jurors can be knocked off

without giving any reason. Defense

lawyers, however, can challenge 10

without giving a reason. These are

called generally peremptory challenges

where each side can excuse a juror

without giving a reason.

I think that we should give victims

an impartial trial, jury, and a fair

shake. To do that, I think we need to

give both the prosecution and the defense simply the same number of peremptory challenges. It only seems

right, and it only seems fair.

Mr. President, all the provisions I

have discussed today to protect victims

have a common theme. In our judicial

system, we cannot condone the

revictimization of crime victims. Our

system is and must be impartial. It

must be impartial between the prosecution and the defense, all the while recognizing the presumption of innocence

on behalf of the defendant.

There is no reason that the presumption of the defendant’s innocence

should be construed in such a way that

it condones heartless treatment of

crime victims. The criminal law embodies some of the truly fundamental

values of our society. One of these values is that we should console those who

have been hurt. We should not victimize them further.

A number of years ago when I was a

county prosecuting attorney, I would

see the victims of murder and other

violent crimes. I would interview people who had been abused, assaulted,

and raped. I learned a lot from talking

to these innocent people. I learned that

we have to make the crime victim a

full participant, not a forgotten person,

in the criminal justice system.

The proposals I have just outlined

would help us make some progress in

turning the criminal justice system

into a more victim-friendly enterprise.

It is long past time that we stop treating the victims like they are criminals

and the criminals like they are victims.

My legislation is an attempt to move

the concerns of crime victims toward

center stage in our Federal criminal

justice policy.

Next week, I will continue my series

of speeches on the crime bill that I intend to introduce next week. On Monday, I will explain what I think we

ought to do to get more police officers

on the streets, particularly to get more

police officers on the streets where the

crime is the highest, because if there is

one thing that we know, it is this: Law

enforcement officers who are well

trained and who are deployed correctly

on our streets will, in fact, reduce

crime. That is a fact. That is the truth.

I will talk more about this next week.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

MORATORIUM ON REGULATIONS

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, in

fMarch of this year, just 2 months ago,

this Senate considered a bill that

would have imposed an across-theboard moratorium on the issuance of

new major regulations. That acrossthe-board moratorium would have extended from last November’s election

up until the end of this year, the end of

1995. It would have encompassed all of

1995 and the last several months of 1994.

That bill came up before the Senate,

and it was overwhelmingly rejected by

this Senate. Instead, on this acrossthe-board moratorium, the Senate

adopted a substitute amendment which

was offered by the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Nevada.

And that provided for a 45-day review

of major new rules coming up before

the new rules by the Congress. This 45-

day review was agreed to by this Senate 100–0. Any time you can get a vote

of 100–0, it is considered favorable;

overwhelming is an understatement.

Before that bill was sent over to the

House and to the conference of House

and Senate Members, many of us here

in the Senate made clear that if the

conference report came back with an

across-the-board moratorium, we

would oppose it. We do not want these

across the board moratoriums. We

wanted the situation that was proposed

by the Senator from Oklahoma which,

principally, was for a 45-day review.

I want the Senate to know, as I indicated during the earlier debate, that I

will oppose the conference report if it

includes provisions of the type that I

outlined, namely the restoration of

these broad moratoriums that this bill

had.

Now, yesterday, a Member of the

House released a list of the rules that

they have targeted in the House. They

are not satisfied with a 45-day review.

They have targeted some 30 rules—12 of

them are EPA rules; 4 of them are

worker safety rules to be issued by

OSHA; 10 of the rules relate to food and

drug safety. Almost all of the rules on

the list that are targeted by the House

are there to protect public health,

worker safety, and the environment.

I notice that the occupant of the

chair is the distinguished Senator from

Minnesota. One of the rules that is targeted deals with the Great Lakes clean

water quality guidance. I do not know

the position of the occupant of the

Chair on this. I suspect that most of

the Senators from those States—Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota,

New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and

Wisconsin—are interested in the quality of the water in those Great Lakes.

The EPA has proposed an initiative

dealing with that situation. The EPA

has estimated a proposal that could

cost from $80 to $500 million annually.

This has to do with the cleanliness of

those lakes. This is one of the rules

that has been targeted by the House

Members, one that would be subject to

an extensive moratorium.

There are a host of others, Mr. President. One of them I will describe. It is

a rule promulgated under the Safe

Drinking Water Act. It would reduce

the levels of so-called disinfection byproducts in drinking water. These are

the chemicals that form when water is

chlorinated, as is done in most communities. It is chlorinated to kill bacteria

and other organisms. The chlorine, in

some instances, combines with other

substances in the water to form new

chemicals, such as chloroform, that

may cause significant cancer risks for

those using the water.

A recent article in the American

Journal of Public Health indicated that

up to 10,000—not 1,000, but 10,000—cases

of cancer per year may be attributable

to these chemicals in our water. EPA

has been working on a rule to reduce

this health risk.