The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“VOLUNTARY CONFESSIONS LAW” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Senate section on pages S760-S761 on Feb. 24, 2000.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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.
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.
____________________
