S7598 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 26, 1995

This outlines, and it is a summary of

the Specter-Hatch habeas reform bill. I

hope our colleagues will realize that

this is the time to finally face this

issue that has involved just countless

frivolous appeals throughout the history of jurisprudence in this country.

It is time to have some finality in

these matters. We protect the constitutional rights and privileges of the individual defendants, but we say, ‘‘The

game is over.’’ There will not be any

more of these ingenious appeals that

are frivolous in nature that literally

will not meet those two requisites that

I mention.

We also say to the American taxpayers, we will not keep funding frivolous appeals by people on death row.

We are not going to have another 10, 12,

or 18 years, as is the Andrews case in

Utah, the case called ‘‘hi-fi,’’ where Andrews participated with another person

in killing a variety of people, but only

after they tortured them. They ran

pencils through their eardrums, and in

one case, poured Drano down the

throat of one of the victims. For 18

years, there was no question that Andrews did the murder. No question he

was guilty. No question of the heinous

nature of the crime. There was no question that the jury was right in rendering the verdict it did. But those appeals went on for 18 years, and in each

of these aspects of the appeal the victims and their families had to go

through the whole unpleasant, vicious,

terrible experience again.

Every one of the appeals was frivolous. For 18 years and 28 appeals. All

the way up through the State courts,

from the lower trial court, to the immediate appellate court, to the State

supreme court. In this case, mainly the

trial court and the State supreme

court. All the way up through the Federal court, district court, circuit court

of appeals, the Tenth Circuit Court of

Appeals, and the Supreme Court of the

United States of America. It made a

mockery of the law.

I cannot blame anybody who hates

the death penalty for trying to do everything in his or her power as a defense lawyer to try to deter somebody

from going to the final date of execution, but the law is the law, and whether a person hates the death penalty or

thinks it is the right thing, the fact is,

it is the law.

I do not have any fault with any defense lawyer who has done his or her

best to try and free these people or at

least alleviate the death penalty. I do

not have any problem with their efforts

in that regard. I have a problem with

the law that allows that type of frivolous repetitive appeals. This is the

time to change that law.

By the way, this is the only thing we

can do in this antiterrorism bill, it

seems to me, that will do something

about the Oklahoma City bombing. The

only thing we can do, it seems to me,

to bring swift justice, as the President

has called for, to the perpetrators of

the Oklahoma City bombing.

Frankly, it is something that we

have to bite the bullet on, and get it

done. We are willing to face the music

on this and to fight this battle out on

the floor. I would like it to be one of

the later aspects of this matter. The

fact is, it is time to face it.

When I talked to families of the victims, and the victims themselves just a

few days ago, they begged me to make

sure that we pass this bill and that we

pass the habeas corpus reform that we

have on the bill. Many of the State attorneys general, both Democrats and

Republicans State attorneys general,

want Congress to pass this habeas corpus reform bill.

I think most everybody wants Congress to pass the whole bill. The people

out there are sick and tired of the

problems.

Frankly, I assured those who have

been suffering so much from the Oklahoma City bombing, and those who suffer all over this country, from the repetitive appeals that are frivolous in

nature, and the need to continually go

to all of those hearings, I have assured

them we will face the habeas corpus

problem on this matter, and that we

will pass the Specter-Hatch habeas corpus bill.

We hope we can do that in this battle, and I will do everything in my

power to see that it is done. It is no secret that there are some on the floor

who do not like our changes in habeas

corpus. It is going to be a controversial

issue. I do believe that a majority of

the Members of this body will vote for

it.

There are many other things that I

would like to discuss about the bill. It

is a very complex bill. It is a very detailed bill. It is a bill that covers almost every aspect of antiterrorism. It

is one that is long overdue. And we are

going to handle this.

Let me digress for a minute, because

my dear colleague from Pennsylvania

is concerned about having hearings on

Waco and Ruby Ridge. I have been in

constant contact with the Justice Department, with the FBI, and with ATF,

and they are willing to do this. They

are willing to do this. Whether they are

willing or not, they know we are going

to do this, sooner or later.

They would prefer, as the FBI Director has requested in writing to me,

that we defer the hearings until they

have completed their investigation in

Oklahoma City. They have also indicated that sometime this summer they

feel that it will be all right, in any

event.

So we do intend to press forward. We

are putting our investigators on this

issue. They have been on it. We will see

what we can do.

I share my colleagues’ deep concern

over these incidents. I believe a thorough congressional review of these and

related Federal law enforcement issues

is warranted. I intend that these hearings will be held in the near future following Senate consideration of this

comprehensive antiterrorist legislation, upon the completion of the department’s investigation of the Oklahoma tragedy.

Notwithstanding my desire to have

hearings on this matter, I have resisted

doing so right at this time, and I believe doing so at this time would only

serve to confuse these important issues. I do not believe that the Waco

and Ruby Ridge incidents should be

linked to the Oklahoma City incident

or to the terrorist issues or hearings at

this time.

The Senate could, if we held hearings

at this time, inappropriately—albeit

unintentionally—convey the wrong

message regarding the culpability of

those responsible for the atrocity in

Oklahoma City. We simply must not do

this. Indeed, the Senate went on record

to this effect on May 11, 1995, by a vote

of 74 to 23, when it tabled a sense-ofthe-Senate resolution which would

have set a date certain for these hearings. But I assure my colleague from

Pennsylvania, we probably will hold

these hearings before the end of this

summer and before our August recess.

We will do the best we can. If it does

take more time than that, we will certainly state the reasons. But that is

our firm intention and we hope we can

get that done.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence

of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to

call the roll.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order for

the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered. The Senator

from Delaware is recognized.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent to speak as in

morning business for just a matter of 3

minutes so I can speak to a subject unrelated to what we are discussing now.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

fEDUCATION

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in over 20

years in the Senate I do not think I

have done this twice, but I will say, to

be safe, I do not think I have done it a

half dozen times. I would like to read

into the RECORD a letter that I received

yesterday from a woman who is graduating from high school in my State, a

woman I have never met. Her name is

Mrs. Judi Robinson. She lives in old

New Castle, DE, which is a community

over 350 years old, a beautiful place, in

a place called Penn Acres. I would like

to read it, if I may.

DEAR SENATOR BIDEN, I am a 48-year-old

night student at William Penn High School

in New Castle. I’m one of many students who

recently wrote to you concerning adult education. Thank you for your letter. It helped

me a little more to understand what it concerns.

I have been in the program since September 1994 and received my G.E.D. that June.

Now I’m at Penn doing very well and will
May 26, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7599

graduate this June. It took me 31 years to

get to this point in my life, so I thank God

that there was a program available to me.

Although my circumstances are different

than some of my classmates, we’re all there

for the same reasons, to get our G.E.D. or

better yet our diploma. Senator as far as I’m

concerned, I wanted this very badly, but I

have been married 27 years, have two children one of which also graduates this year

from Penn. I never had to work so my education wasn’t the top on my list. Because my

husband worked and took care of us and the

house. But most of the kids in the program

need this educational program to continue to

grow into productive adults. Our counselors

and teachers are the best, they work very

hard to keep things going well at school.

These programs need to keep going and I

know that you will do your best to keep it

going.

Now to get to the second reason I’m writing to you. I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to my graduation on

June 14 at 7:30 p.m. It will take place at Newark High School. Myself and I know all the

other students and staff would be honored to

have you there. I know you are a very, very

busy man but if you could find it in your

heart and schedule to make it, I would be

happy to have you there.

Sincerely,

MRS. JUDI ROBINSON.

Mr. President, the reason I read that

into the RECORD is I do not think we

should lose sight of the fact that there

are thousands and thousands and thousands of women and men like Judi Robinson who are going back to try to get

the basic education that for whatever

reasons they did not get when they

were children. I think our reluctance

to put as much emphasis on the educational needs in this country and the

Federal responsibility to participate in

that is a serious mistake. I am sure all

of my colleagues, and I know the Senator in the chair, the Senator from Colorado, like everyone else in here,

shares a sense of pride when there is

someone in their State like Judi Robinson who goes through that effort.

I remember discussing with my

friend from Colorado how his mother

went back and her significant educational accomplishments and what

she has done. I just thought it worthwhile to let people know that there are

a lot of people like Judi Robinson still

fighting hard, who still have faith in

this operation, still have faith in the

system, and still think they can better

themselves through education.

I thank the Chair for this time and I

yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. SPECTER. 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. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to speak

for up to 5 minutes as if in morning

business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

COVERDELL). Without objection, it is so

ordered.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.

NOMINATION OF DR. HENRY

fFOSTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I compliment the Labor and Human Resources Committee for reporting out

the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster to

be Surgeon General of the United

States.

Earlier this morning, the committee

met and by a 9-to-7 vote recommended

the confirmation of Dr. Foster for Surgeon General. Two Republicans joined

with seven Democrats in favoring his

nomination and thereby bringing the

nomination to the floor.

It is my hope that we will take up Dr.

Foster in this Chamber. It is my sense

that there are sufficient votes to bring

Dr. Foster to a vote in the face of what

has been announced to be a prospective

filibuster. There is at least one Senator

on the committee as reported who favors bringing Dr. Foster to a vote even

though that Senator voted against him

in committee.

I had occasion to meet with Dr. Foster early on, and at that time I was

convinced that the sole issue was the

issue of whether Dr. Foster should be

disqualified from being Surgeon General because he had performed abortions, a medical procedure which is

legal and authorized by the U.S. Constitution. It seemed to me at that time

that all the other matters which were

brought up were red herrings, and that

real opposition to Dr. Foster lay in the

fact that he had performed abortions, a

procedure authorized by the Constitution of the United States.

I said on the Senate floor early on

that Dr. Foster was entitled to be

heard by the committee, entitled to

have his day in court, so to speak, in

this Chamber for a vote, both out of

fairness to Dr. Foster as an individual

and really as a sign that nobody would

be railroaded out of this town without

having a day in court, a chance to have

an up-or-down vote in the Senate.

There is a very important precedent

beyond Dr. Foster as an individual as

to what he is entitled to as a matter of

fairness and that is to others who may

be interested in coming to Washington,

tempted to come to Washington to perform public service. And many would

be discouraged if Dr. Henry Foster

would not be entitled to fair treatment

by the Senate of the United States.

I thought that reasons given by our

colleague, Senator FRIST, in supporting

Dr. Foster’s nomination were very important; that Senator FRIST, a physician himself, emphasized Dr. Foster’s

commitment to try to combat teenage

pregnancy, and that may be the No. 1

social problem in America today. If

that can be brought under control,

then there is no better person to try to

do that than the Surgeon General of

the United States. And also Dr. Foster’s commitment to press for abstinence and to press for family values;

those are positions which I think are

very appropriate for the Surgeon General.

So Dr. Foster has cleared a very significant hurdle in the affirmative vote

of the Labor and Human Resources

Committee. Some predicted he would

never get that far.

From what I sense, the climate in

our body is to favor his nomination

coming to the floor for a vote. I think

a filibuster will be defeated and I think

ultimately Dr. Foster will be confirmed. That is a very positive sign of

respect for the laws of the United

States, as interpreted by the Supreme

Court, that a woman does have a right

to choose, that a nominee like Dr. Foster is not disqualified because he performed a medical procedure, albeit

abortion, authorized by the Constitution, and that men and women of character and good will can come to this

town and get a fair hearing and perform an important public service.

I thank the Chair and I yield the

floor.

COMPREHENSIVE TERRORISM

PREVENTION ACT

fThe Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the

Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I

rise to speak on the bill before the Senate at this time, S. 735, the Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995.

Mr. President, let me say first how

pleased I am that the leadership of

both parties has reached agreement on

so much in this bill and met President

Clinton’s challenge to reach a prompt

and bipartisan consensus on

counterterrorism legislation in the

aftermath of the tragedy in Oklahoma

City.

Most of the key provisions of the

President’s counterterrorism bill, offered earlier in the year by Senator

BIDEN and others, are included in the

measure before us. And I thank the majority leadership of the committee for

doing so. But, as Senator BIDEN mentioned last night, there are a few provisions that have not been included.

That is why this morning I will offer

two amendments which would restore

two provisions from the original bill to

this genuinely bipartisan effort, and I

am hopeful that there is an opportunity here for bipartisan support for

these two law enforcement measures,

as well.

Mr. President, in my view, and in the

view of those I have spoken to in the

Federal and State law enforcement

communities who are involved in the

daily, difficult business of pursuing terrorists, these two provisions, which

would increase law enforcement’s capacity to be involved in surveillance

through wiretapping of terrorists,

would be extremely helpful to the law

enforcement community’s efforts to

penetrate the highly secretive world of