[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 78 (Thursday, June 7, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5954-S5956]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE FEDERAL DEATH PENALTY SYSTEM
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise today to speak with grave
concern about a report released by the Justice Department yesterday on
our Federal Government's administration of the death penalty. In that
report and in his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee
yesterday, Attorney General John Ashcroft said that he now concludes
that ``there is no evidence of racial bias in the administration of the
federal death penalty.'' I am seriously, seriously concerned about and,
frankly, disappointed by the Attorney General's statements. The report
he released yesterday is not the in-depth analysis of the federal death
penalty ordered by his predecessor, Attorney General Reno, and
President Clinton.
[[Page S5955]]
This is a very urgent matter because the Federal Government, in a
matter of days, is about to resume executions for the first time in
decades, including that of Juan Raul Garza. He is scheduled to be
executed by the United States of America on June 19. Mr. Garza's case
has not received the level of intense scrutiny or legal representation
that his more notorious death row colleague, Timothy McVeigh, has
received. But Mr. Garza's case, and his possible execution, should
cause the Attorney General, President Bush, and our Nation even deeper
soul-searching than that which has begun with respect to the scheduled
execution of Mr. McVeigh.
A survey on the Federal death penalty system was released by the U.S.
Department of Justice in September 2000. That report showed racial and
regional disparities in the Federal Government's administration of the
death penalty. In other words, who lives and who dies in the Federal
system appears to relate to the color of the defendant's skin or the
region of the country where the defendant is prosecuted. Attorney
General Reno, Deputy Attorney General Holder, and President Clinton all
said they were ``troubled'' or ``disturbed'' by the results of that
report.
In fact, Attorney General Reno was so troubled by the report that she
immediately ordered the collection of additional data from U.S.
attorney offices and, most importantly, the National Institute of
Justice to conduct an in-depth examination in cooperation with outside
experts.
I would like to take a moment to read what Attorney General Reno said
that day in September:
There are important limitations on the scope of our survey.
The survey only captures data currently available beginning
when a U.S. attorney submits a capital eligible case to the
review committee and to me for further review. This survey,
therefore, does not address a number of important issues that
arise before the U.S. attorney submits a case: Why did the
defendant commit the murder? Why did the defendant get
arrested and prosecuted by Federal authorities rather than by
state authorities? Why did the U.S. attorney submit the case
for review rather than enter a plea bargain? . . . More
information is needed to better understand the many factors
that effect how homicide cases make their way into the
Federal system, and once in the Federal system, why they
follow different paths. An even broader analysis must
therefore be undertaken to determine if bias does, in fact,
play any role in the Federal death penalty system.
I've asked the National Institute of Justice to solicit
research proposals from outside experts, to study the reasons
why, under existing standards, homicide cases are directed to
the state or Federal systems, and charged either as capital
cases or non-capital cases, as well as the factors accounting
for the present geographic pattern of submissions by the U.S.
Attorney's Offices. The department will also welcome related
research proposals that outside experts may suggest.
In December, President Clinton, citing this ongoing review by the
Justice Department, then delayed the execution of Mr. Garza until June
19 to allow the Justice Department time to complete its review.
President Clinton also ordered the Justice Department to report to the
President by April of this year on the results of its further review.
President Clinton anticipated that this would have been sufficient time
for the President to review the results of the review before deciding
whether to proceed with Mr. Garza's execution on June 19.
On January 10 of this year, before the new administration took
office, the NIJ began its in-depth analysis by convening a meeting of
outside experts, defense counsel and prosecutors to discuss the
questions that should form the basis for the research proposals.
Later in January, during his confirmation hearing, Attorney General
Ashcroft promised to continue and not terminate the NIJ study.
At that hearing, I asked him if he would support the effort of the
National Institute of Justice already underway to undertake the study
of racial and regional disparities in the Federal death penalty system
that President Clinton deemed necessary.
Attorney General Ashcroft said, unequivocally and emphatically,
``yes.''
I then asked him whether he would continue and support all efforts
initiated by Attorney General Reno's Justice Department to undertake a
thorough review and analysis of the Federal death penalty system.
Attorney General Ashcroft said, ``. . . the studies that are under
way, I'm grateful for them. When the material from those studies comes,
I will examine them carefully and eagerly to see if there are ways for
us to improve the administration of justice.''
I then followed up with yet a third question on this subject: ``So
those studies will not be terminated?''
Attorney General Ashcroft responded: ``I have no intention of
terminating those studies.''
In response to written questions I provided to him following his live
testimony, I asked the Attorney General a number of related questions
about the need to eliminate racial or regional bias from our system of
justice. He replied that he believed the Department of Justice should
undertake ``all reasonable and appropriate research necessary to
understand the nature of the problem.''
It is clear that Attorney General Ashcroft said he would continue and
not terminate the NIJ study initiated by the Reno administration. I was
pleased to hear him make this commitment.
But, since the new administration took office, no steps have been
taken to move forward with the NIJ study. Rather, the Attorney General
now believes it would take much too long to conduct this in-depth
analysis of disparities and that it would provide indefinite answers.
To say that the NIJ research should not be undertaken because it may
take more than a year and provide inconclusive answers is just
baffling. I am absolutely confounded by the Attorney General's
unwillingness to take such a simple step to ensure fairness and to
promote public confidence in the Federal system.
Now, Attorney General Ashcroft did say yesterday that he would order
the National Institute of Justice to study the effectiveness of
Federal, state and local law enforcement in the investigation and
prosecution of murder in American and how death penalty cases are
brought into the Federal system. While this review may provide some
additional insight into the functioning of our criminal justice system,
it is not the NIJ review of racial and geographic disparities ordered
by Attorney General Reno.
The supplemental report released yesterday lacks credibility: it is a
case of ``we looked at ourselves and there's no evidence of bias.''
Instead of completing a thorough analysis of the racial and regional
disparities with outside experts, as outlined by Attorney General Reno,
Attorney General Ashcroft collected the additional data--also ordered
separately by Attorney General Reno--threw in some statements that
there is no evidence of bias and released it as a supplemental report.
This report does not dig behind the raw data in the way that an in-
depth research and analysis could do.
To her credit, Attorney General Reno recognized the need for input
from outside experts. That is why she ordered the National Institute of
Justice to undertake the review of racial and regional disparities.
While I commended Attorney General Reno for her action in ordering
further studies, I thought she should have gone one step further and
establish an independent, blue ribbon commission to review the Federal
system. That's what Governor George Ryan did in Illinois, and the
independent panel there has been doing some goodwork. I've introduced a
bill that applies Governor Ryan's example to the Federal Government,
the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act. We should demand the highest
standards of fairness and credibility in our Nation's administration of
the ultimate punishment.
Attorney General Ashcroft's actions are wholly unsatisfactory and
inconsistent with the promises he made to the Senate and the Nation
during his confirmation hearing.
I was pleased to hear Attorney General Ashcroft say on Friday, May
11:
Our system of justice requires basic fairness,
evenhandedness and dispassionate evaluate of the evidence and
the facts. These fundamental requirements are essential to
protecting the constitutional rights of every citizen and to
sustaining public confidence in the administration of
justice. . . . It is my responsibility to promote the
sanctity of the rule of law and justice. It is my
responsibility and duty to protect the integrity of our
system of justice.
The basic fairness, evenhandedness and dispassionate evaluation of
the evidence and facts, about which he spoke,
[[Page S5956]]
extend to the troubling racial and regional disparities in the Federal
system, as documented by the Department of Justice September 2000
report.
As my colleagues are aware, I oppose the death penalty. I have never
made any bones about that. But this is not really about just being
opposed to the death penalty. This is about bias-free justice in
America. I am certain that not one of my colleagues in the Senate--not
a single one--no matter how strong a proponent of the death penalty,
would defend racial discrimination in the administration of that
ultimate punishment. The most fundamental guarantee of our Constitution
is equal justice under law, equal protection of the laws. To be true to
that central precept of our national identity, we have to take
extremely seriously allegations that the death penalty is being
administered in a discriminatory fashion.
So I urge the Attorney General, in the strongest possible terms, to
reconsider his actions and direct the National Institute of Justice to
continue its study, with outside experts, of the racial and regional
disparities in the Federal death penalty system. I also urge him to
provide the NIJ whatever resources may be needed to complete this
study. This is the only course consistent with the promises he made
during his confirmation hearing.
Furthermore, with Mr. Garza's execution still scheduled to take place
and the NIJ study at a standstill, I urge the Attorney General to
postpone Mr. Garza's execution until these questions of fairness are
fully answered. The case of Mr. Garza--a Hispanic and convicted in
Federal court in Texas--implicates the very issues at the center of the
unfairness reflected in the DOJ report. It would be wholly illogical
and unjust to go forward with plans for the execution of Mr. Garza and
subsequent executions until the NIJ's study is completed and fully
reviewed. It would be a great travesty of justice, as well as a great
diminution in the public's trust in the Federal criminal justice
system, if the Federal Government executed Mr. Garza and the NIJ later
completed its study, which corroborated racial or regional bias in the
administration of the Federal death penalty.
The integrity of our system of justice demands no less.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
____________________