[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 85 (Tuesday, June 19, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6440-S6441]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    THE EXECUTION OF JUAN RAUL GARZA

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Federal 
Government's execution today of Juan Raul Garza.
  This is a sad day for our Federal criminal justice system. The 
principle of equal justice under law was dealt a severe blow. The 
American people's reason for confidence in our Federal criminal justice 
system was diminished. And the credibility and integrity of the U.S. 
Department of Justice was depreciated.
  President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft failed to heed the calls 
for

[[Page S6441]]

fairness. Instead, the Government put Juan Garza to death.
  Now, no one questions that Juan Garza is guilty of three drug-related 
murders. And no one questions that the Government should have punished 
him severely for those crimes.
  But serious geographic and racial disparities exist in the Federal 
Government's system of deciding who lives and who dies. The government 
has failed to address those disparities. And President Bush and 
Attorney General Ashcroft failed to recognize the fundamental 
unfairness of proceeding with executions when the Government has not 
yet answered those questions. No, the government put Juan Garza to 
death.
  Today, most of those who wait on the Federal Government's death row 
come from just three States: Texas, Missouri, and Virginia. And 89 
percent of those who wait on the Federal Government's death row are 
people of color. But President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft 
failed to recognize the fundamental unfairness of executing Juan Garza, 
a Hispanic man from Texas, before the Government had answered why those 
disparities exist.
  On December 7, President Clinton stayed the execution of Juan Garza 
``to allow the Justice Department time to gather and properly analyze 
more information about racial and geographic disparities in the federal 
death penalty system.'' That day, President Clinton said, ``I have . . 
. concluded that the examination of possible racial and regional bias 
should be completed before the United States goes forward with an 
execution in a case that may implicate the very questions raised by the 
Justice Department's continuing study. In this area there is no room 
for error.''
  But today, the thorough study that President Clinton and Attorney 
General Reno ordered is nowhere near completion. Even so, the 
Government put Juan Garza to death.
  It now appears that, until recently, this administration's Justice 
Department had no plans to proceed with this thorough study. We now see 
that, on June 6, the Justice Department released a report that 
contained no new analysis but nonetheless reached the conclusions that 
they wanted to reach.
  Yes, after I called for a hearing and demanded that the thorough 
study resume, the Justice Department did agree to renew its thorough 
examination of racial and geographic disparities in the Federal death 
penalty system. But even so, the Government put Juan Garza to death.
  Experts at that hearing of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the 
Constitution testified that the facts did not support the conclusions 
that the Justice Department reached in its June 6 report. Experts 
testified that more information is needed before the Justice Department 
could credibly conclude that racial bias is absent from the Federal 
death penalty system. But even so, the Government put Juan Garza to 
death.
  The Justice Department now acknowledges that it has not conducted a 
complete review and that more study is needed. Before the Department 
completes that thorough review, and before it finishes that study, the 
Federal Government should not execute one more person.
  I once again call on the President to implement a moratorium on 
executions by the Federal Government. I call for it in the name of the 
credibility and integrity of the Department. I call for it in the name 
of justice. And I call for it in the name of equal justice under law.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Federal 
execution that was carried out earlier today.
  I believe that the Justice Department did what was right today when 
it carried out the death penalty against drug kingpin and murderer Juan 
Raul Garza.
  Steadfast death penalty opponents have tried to use Mr. Garza's case 
to justify a moratorium on the death penalty. It is puzzling why they 
would because his case in no way supports their arguments about 
innocence and racial disparity in the administration of the death 
penalty.
  First, Mr. Garza was clearly guilty. He was convicted of murdering 
three people, one of who he shot in the back of the head, and he was 
tied to five other killings. Even his lawyers are not claiming 
innocence.
  Second, there was no evidence that his race had anything to do with 
him receiving the death penalty. The judge and the main prosecutor in 
his case were Hispanic, as were all of his victims except one. The 
majority of the jurors had hispanic surnames, and all the jurors 
certified that race was not involved in their decision.
  Moreover, there were six death-eligible cases in this district, the 
Southern District of Texas, all involving Hispanic defendants. Yet, Mr. 
Garza's was the only case for which the local U.S. Attorney recommended 
the death penalty, and the only one for which it was sought.
  Mr. Garza was convicted under a law that Congress passed in 1988, 
which reinstated the death penalty and directed it at ruthless drug 
kingpins like Mr. Garza who commit murder as part of their drug 
trafficking. By following through with the death penalty in appropriate 
cases such as this, the Attorney General is simply enforcing the laws 
he has a duty to uphold.
  Mr. Garza was treated fairly and had full access to the extensive 
protections of the criminal justice system. This execution is not a 
case study in injustice. It is a case study in how the system works 
properly.
  I agree that continued study of the death penalty is worthwhile, but 
studies should not be used as an excuse to place a moratorium on the 
death penalty while opponents endlessly search for flaws in the system.

                          ____________________