Dale Bumpers

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this is an amendment that deals with what is a perennial knotty problem for the members of this subcommittee. It simply says that no funds may be used to prepare the budget for this subcommittee that includes user fees unless those fees have been previously authorized or under the budget identifies spending cuts or revenue increases that should occur in case the fees are not adopted, which they never are. We invariably get these budgets. The President invariably sends a budget over, and our subcommittee looks it over, and there is always a bunch of user fees in there. This is about the eighth or ninth straight year that user fees have been included, and the subcommittee never agrees to them. The reason we don't is that the full committee and the Senate would never agree to them either. This amendment is designed to say in the future, don't send those user fees over here unless you are prepared to tell us, in case we don't adopt the user fees, where you are going to find the spending cuts for it or where you are going to find revenue increases. This is a 1-year proposition. This provision will only apply to the budget year 1999. I think this has been cleared on both sides. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this amendment codifies the Secretary of Agriculture's prohibition on the repackaging of eggs packed under USDA's voluntary grading program. This prohibition went into effect on April 27. It directs the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services to submit a joint report to the relevant congressional committees on egg safety and repackaging. The amendment has been cleared by USDA, by the Food and Drug Administration, and the egg industry, and it is supported by consumer groups. The USDA recently reported, each year over 660,000 Americans get sick from eating eggs contaminated with salmonella enterovirus. Illness from this can be fatal to the elderly, children, and those with weakened immune systems. According to the Centers for Disease Control, this bacteria caused more reported deaths between 1988 and 1992 than any other foodborne pathogen. The estimated annual cost of illness from this particular salmonella ranges from $118 million to $767 million each year, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest. It sounds like a very good amendment to me. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BUMPERS. Have the yeas and nays been ordered, Mr. President?

Mr. BUMPERS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BUMPERS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, will the Senator consider withholding that so we can offer and agree to a noncontroversial amendment?

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator. Amendment No. 3147 (Purpose: To clarify the eligibility of State agricultural experiment stations for certain agricultural research programs)

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of the Senators from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Dodd.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station is the oldest experiment station in America. It has never been a part of the land grant college, and under the research bill that we just passed not too long ago, there was a provision that you had to be a land grant college in order to be qualified for these. As I say, the experiment station in Connecticut has always received these funds. But because of that, nobody was thinking about that experiment station at the time. This bill corrects what really was an omission. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, rather than ask later, let me ask now. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to proceed for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Bumpers and Mr. Warner pertaining to the introduction of S. 2289 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') (The remarks of Mr. Warner and Mr. Ford pertaining to the introduction of S. 2288 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, recently I introduced S. 2030, the Grand Jury Due Process Act, to provide witnesses who are subpoenaed by federal grand juries with a right to the presence of counsel in the grand jury room. I am today introducing more comprehensive grand jury reform legislation which will remedy several major flaws in the grand jury system which today undermine the fairness of America's judicial system. Criminal justice must provide for more than swift and sure punishment. It must ensure fairness and due process to the accused as well as to witnesses and victims of crime. In the majority of cases, our courts provide a greater measure of justice than any other system known to man. Yet our system remains far from perfect. Of all aspects of America's criminal justice system, the grand jury has become the weakest link in ensuring due process of law. It is telling that most States have discarded grand juries entirely. Yet, the Federal Government is constrained by the fifth amendment constitutional requirement for grand juries, so we have to find ways to make the grand jury system work better. The legislation I am introducing makes five critical grand jury reforms: First, it directs the district courts to give basic legal instructions to the grand jurors at the time they begin their work. These instructions will include basic legal principles--the power to call witnesses, the power to investigate, and the power to indict on whatever charges the grand jury deems appropriate. No one would disagree with these basic instructions, but they are not required in the present grand jury system. Instead, grand jurors are told only as much about the law as the prosecutor chooses to tell them. My bill will change that. Second, this bill gives grand jury witnesses the right to be accompanied by counsel in the grand jury room. This section is virtually identical to S. 2030 which I have already introduced. It also requires that a witness subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury be advised of his right to be accompanied by counsel, of the privilege against self-incrimination and other basic rights when the subpoena is issued. Third, this bill strengthens enforcement of the existing rule on grand jury secrecy, which is a matter of first importance to the integrity of the justice system. News reports indicate that grand jury secrecy is now being violated on a regular basis. Fourth, this bill mandates that prosecutors disclose to the grand jury any substantial evidence they possess which indicates that the accused is not, or may not be, guilty. While this may seem elementary to most Americans, it is contrary to a Supreme Court decision, United States v. Williams--a very recent decision--which held that the prosecutor has no such constitutional obligation. Fifth and finally, this bill entitles a defendant to a transcript of the grand jury testimony of all witnesses who are called against him at trial. This is a matter of basic fairness. Anyone charged with a crime should have a right to know what a witness against him has told the grand jury. Knowing the witness's prior testimony is the essence of the right of cross-examination enshrined in the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment. background Grand juries have enormous power and they offer few protections to those who are called as witnesses or who are subject to investigation. Under the fifth amendment to the Constitution, Federal felony prosecutions must include indictment by a grand jury. This provision was intended to protect citizens against prosecutions which are without merit or which are politically motivated. The Founding Fathers had plenty of experience with prosecutorial misconduct by the English crown. That is the reason they inserted the grand jury into the Constitution. The Grand Jury was to be a bulwark against a tyrannical government. My own observations of grand juries go back to my years as a small town defense lawyer, but they are reinforced by present day cases and news reports. Too often, I have seen criminal prosecutions which should never have been brought, or witnesses who have been abused by prosecutors. Recently, newspapers are filled with stories of secret grand jury testimony--often attributed to prosecution sources--and of witnesses who have been called back to testify a fourth or fifth or sixth time before the same grand jury. Many of these witnesses are obviously not criminals, at least in a reasonable person's understanding of the word. To understand today's grand jury system, you must understand history. The grand jury, Mr. President, is one of the common law's most ancient institutions. Its roots go back even further than Magna Carta. In 1166, King Henry II proclaimed the Assize of Clarendon which required that 12 ``lawful men'' out of every hundred be sworn to tell whether they knew of any crimes committed in their towns. In these early days, grand juries operated mostly on the personal knowledge of the grand jurors. The grand jury then, like today, only had power to accuse. In those days, trial was by ordeal. The accused either had his hand placed in boiling water or was bound and thrown into a lake. If he survived without injury, this was an acquittal. It was not until the 13th Century that our English forbearers secured the right to a trial by jury. Trial by ordeal was supposedly abolished long ago, but I wonder whether many of today's grand jury witnesses might dispute this. In English and American history up until the time of the Constitution, grand juries were a bulwark of freedom which stood between oppressive government and the individual. Grand juries often disagreed with English and colonial judges who were in service to the Crown. These feuds helped define both the power of the grand jury and the liberties of free people. For example, grand jurors in colonial Massachusetts adamantly refused demands by the Crown to indict the colonists who had participated in the Stamp Act riots. Unhappily, the grand jury's role as defender of liberty, has changed dramatically for the worse over the years. Too often, the grand jury has become an arm of the executive branch and a rubber stamp for the prosecutor. In modern times, the Supreme Court has held that a grand jury may call witnesses to satisfy the mere suspicion that a crime may have been committed. Grand juries have been judged so superfluous by the states that about half of them decided long ago to eliminate grand juries and allow criminal charges to be brought directly by prosecutors. The chief judge of the State of New York remarked several years ago that most grand juries would indict ``a ham sandwich'' if the prosecutor so requested. A recent Supreme Court decision, United States v. Williams, the Court has held that the District Courts have no supervisory power over grand juries, and that grand juries are not even part of the judiciary. I disagree strenuously with Justice Scalia's conclusions in the Williams case. If grand juries are not accountable to the courts, then who are they accountable to? Instructions of Law Under present Federal law, grand jurors receive no instructions on the law except for whatever the prosecutor may choose to tell them. This bill will provide for the District Court which empanels the grand jury to give some very basic legal instructions to the jurors before they begin their work. Included among these are the grand jury's duty to inquire into criminal offenses that have been committed in the jurisdiction; the right to call and interrogate witnesses; the right to request production of documents, including exculpatory evidence; the necessity of finding credible evidence of each element of the crime before returning an indictment; the right to ask the prosecutor to draft indictments for charges other than those originally presented; the obligations of grand jury secrecy; and such other rights and duties as the court deems appropriate. Mr. President, there is no good reason why these instructions should not be given. These rules of law are universally accepted. It makes no sense for the grand jury not to be told what its legal powers and duties are, and I cannot imagine that this provision would be disputed. Right to Counsel Mr. President, as I indicated before, the institution of the grand jury goes back more than 800 years in Anglo-American legal history. but it was not until 1963 that the Supreme Court held in Gideon v. Wainwright that a man may not be sent to prison without having had a lawyer at trial. Under Gideon, a person unable to pay for a lawyer must have counsel appointed to represent him, or else the requirement of due process of law has not been met. In 1964, the Court held in Miranda v. Arizona that criminal defendants must be advised by the police of their right to counsel and of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. These rights are basic American freedoms which are the hallmarks of due process of law. And nobody today would take us back to the old days when those rules were not in effect. Our ideas of due process have changed for the better over the centuries. One legal tradition which has not changed, however, is the lack of counsel before the grand jury. A witness who is not a criminal defendant but who is legally summoned to testify by the grand jury may not have his lawyer in the room. This rule of law is perverse to say the least in that it gives criminals, or accused criminals, more rights than innocent people. A criminal defendant today has greater rights than an ordinary, unaccused witness testifying before a grand jury. The Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure which prohibits the presence of counsel for a witness is an anachronism, and it will be changed by this bill, as well as by S. 2030 which I previously introduced. Exculpatory Evidence Even with a lawyer for the witness present, the grand jury will always be a one-sided affair in which only the prosecutor presents evidence. My bill will not change that. The prosecutor will naturally present only the evidence most favorable to the government. The Supreme Court has held that a prosecutor has no constitutional obligation to present the grand jury with any exculpatory evidence. This case, United States v. Williams, was a 5-4 decision written by Justice Scalia and as I said, in my opinion, it could not be more wrong. If due process of law means anything at all, it means that both sides of a case must be heard. How can due process permit the government to withhold evidence which might prevent the indictment from even being issued? My bill today reverses United States v. Williams by amending the Rules of Criminal Procedure to require that prosecutors present the grand jury any substantial evidence which directly negates the guilt of the accused. This bill will not make the grand jury a ``mini-trial'' since the accused will not be able to present evidence or to cross-examine. But the Government will be required to tell the grand jury, before it decides to indict, of substantial evidence against guilt. Due process of law requires no less. those who are not guilty. It is no answer to say that evidence of innocence can be considered at trial, and the jury will correct mistakes of the grand jury. If the Government has evidence which--if it were shown to be the grand jury--would lead the grand jury not to indict, the government must share that evidence with those who have power to indict. U.S. v. Williams is a gross misreading of due process which cries out for correction. grand jury secrecy Mr. President, the secrecy of grand jury proceedings is a matter of fundamental importance which is already clearly required by Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules. Yet the rule is flouted on almost a regular basis. Weekly, if not daily, the newspapers have carried stories about the several Independent Counsels' investigations which begin, ``Sources close to the investigation report * * *'' Every time the law regarding grand jury secrecy is violated, a fair and impartial trial is impossible. Grand jury secrecy is as ancient as the institution itself. Without it, our judicial system would degenerate into a horrific state. An indictment is already tantamount to guilt in the opinion of most people. At the same time, the grand jurors must be insulated from outside pressure which might influence their decisions to indict or not. Grand jury secrecy is necessary for the protection of both witnesses and grand jurors. The grand jury hears all kinds of testimony--some true, some scurrilous. Many things said to the grand jury may be incredibly damaging to people if they are revealed. Since the accused and his lawyer are not in the room, there is no safeguard of cross-examination. False testimony can easily go undiscovered until trial, which is one reason grand jury secrecy is so important. If the public learns that a witness has made some horrendous accusation, it will be cold comfort that the grand jury later decides not to believe the testimony and not to indict. More than one witness has lost his life when it was learned that he had testified against a leader of organized crime or a murderer. Grand jury secrecy can literally be a matter of life and death. Its importance to law enforcement and the cause of justice cannot be overstated. At the same time, a witness who has testified before a grand jury is perfectly free, if he so chooses, to go on television and tell the world what he or she has testified to. Present law places responsibility for enforcing grand jury secrecy on the prosecutor. If a member of the prosecution staff is leaking to the press, this is the clearest conflict of interest. Asking any prosecutor to investigate his own conduct is an obvious conflict of interest. Yet that is what present law provides. Mr. President, the way to resolve this problem is to place authority for investigating violations of grand jury secrecy on the District Court which empaneled the grand jury in the first place. My bill does exactly that by giving the Court power to appoint an investigator or counsel if necessary to determine the source of leaks. It should be the exceptional case where such action will be necessary. The existence of the possibility of an independent investigation should be enough to deter any prosecutor from breaching grand jury secrecy. Mr. President, the public's confidence in law enforcement, in the courts, and in the administration of justice for all Americans has taken a beating in recent years. Time and again, we have seen misconduct by police and prosecutors, as well as jury verdicts and court judgments that seem to defy reason and common sense. This Congress has an extraordinary opportunity to restore public confidence in the judicial system. Almost every point in this bill is long- standing policy supported by the American Bar Association. I believe the public and the bar will widely support these changes, and I hope my colleagues will move swiftly to enact this bill into law. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS. Thank you.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Grand Jury Reform Act, which I am introducing today, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, recently I introduced S. 2030, the Grand Jury Due Process Act, to provide witnesses who are subpoenaed by federal grand juries with a right to the presence of counsel in the grand jury room. I am today introducing more comprehensive grand jury reform legislation which will remedy several major flaws in the grand jury system which today undermine the fairness of America's judicial system. Criminal justice must provide for more than swift and sure punishment. It must ensure fairness and due process to the accused as well as to witnesses and victims of crime. In the majority of cases, our courts provide a greater measure of justice than any other system known to man. Yet our system remains far from perfect. Of all aspects of America's criminal justice system, the grand jury has become the weakest link in ensuring due process of law. It is telling that most States have discarded grand juries entirely. Yet, the Federal Government is constrained by the fifth amendment constitutional requirement for grand juries, so we have to find ways to make the grand jury system work better. The legislation I am introducing makes five critical grand jury reforms: First, it directs the district courts to give basic legal instructions to the grand jurors at the time they begin their work. These instructions will include basic legal principles--the power to call witnesses, the power to investigate, and the power to indict on whatever charges the grand jury deems appropriate. No one would disagree with these basic instructions, but they are not required in the present grand jury system. Instead, grand jurors are told only as much about the law as the prosecutor chooses to tell them. My bill will change that. Second, this bill gives grand jury witnesses the right to be accompanied by counsel in the grand jury room. This section is virtually identical to S. 2030 which I have already introduced. It also requires that a witness subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury be advised of his right to be accompanied by counsel, of the privilege against self-incrimination and other basic rights when the subpoena is issued. Third, this bill strengthens enforcement of the existing rule on grand jury secrecy, which is a matter of first importance to the integrity of the justice system. News reports indicate that grand jury secrecy is now being violated on a regular basis. Fourth, this bill mandates that prosecutors disclose to the grand jury any substantial evidence they possess which indicates that the accused is not, or may not be, guilty. While this may seem elementary to most Americans, it is contrary to a Supreme Court decision, United States v. Williams--a very recent decision--which held that the prosecutor has no such constitutional obligation. Fifth and finally, this bill entitles a defendant to a transcript of the grand jury testimony of all witnesses who are called against him at trial. This is a matter of basic fairness. Anyone charged with a crime should have a right to know what a witness against him has told the grand jury. Knowing the witness's prior testimony is the essence of the right of cross-examination enshrined in the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment. background Grand juries have enormous power and they offer few protections to those who are called as witnesses or who are subject to investigation. Under the fifth amendment to the Constitution, Federal felony prosecutions must include indictment by a grand jury. This provision was intended to protect citizens against prosecutions which are without merit or which are politically motivated. The Founding Fathers had plenty of experience with prosecutorial misconduct by the English crown. That is the reason they inserted the grand jury into the Constitution. The Grand Jury was to be a bulwark against a tyrannical government. My own observations of grand juries go back to my years as a small town defense lawyer, but they are reinforced by present day cases and news reports. Too often, I have seen criminal prosecutions which should never have been brought, or witnesses who have been abused by prosecutors. Recently, newspapers are filled with stories of secret grand jury testimony--often attributed to prosecution sources--and of witnesses who have been called back to testify a fourth or fifth or sixth time before the same grand jury. Many of these witnesses are obviously not criminals, at least in a reasonable person's understanding of the word. To understand today's grand jury system, you must understand history. The grand jury, Mr. President, is one of the common law's most ancient institutions. Its roots go back even further than Magna Carta. In 1166, King Henry II proclaimed the Assize of Clarendon which required that 12 ``lawful men'' out of every hundred be sworn to tell whether they knew of any crimes committed in their towns. In these early days, grand juries operated mostly on the personal knowledge of the grand jurors. The grand jury then, like today, only had power to accuse. In those days, trial was by ordeal. The accused either had his hand placed in boiling water or was bound and thrown into a lake. If he survived without injury, this was an acquittal. It was not until the 13th Century that our English forbearers secured the right to a trial by jury. Trial by ordeal was supposedly abolished long ago, but I wonder whether many of today's grand jury witnesses might dispute this. In English and American history up until the time of the Constitution, grand juries were a bulwark of freedom which stood between oppressive government and the individual. Grand juries often disagreed with English and colonial judges who were in service to the Crown. These feuds helped define both the power of the grand jury and the liberties of free people. For example, grand jurors in colonial Massachusetts adamantly refused demands by the Crown to indict the colonists who had participated in the Stamp Act riots. Unhappily, the grand jury's role as defender of liberty, has changed dramatically for the worse over the years. Too often, the grand jury has become an arm of the executive branch and a rubber stamp for the prosecutor. In modern times, the Supreme Court has held that a grand jury may call witnesses to satisfy the mere suspicion that a crime may have been committed. Grand juries have been judged so superfluous by the states that about half of them decided long ago to eliminate grand juries and allow criminal charges to be brought directly by prosecutors. The chief judge of the State of New York remarked several years ago that most grand juries would indict ``a ham sandwich'' if the prosecutor so requested. A recent Supreme Court decision, United States v. Williams, the Court has held that the District Courts have no supervisory power over grand juries, and that grand juries are not even part of the judiciary. I disagree strenuously with Justice Scalia's conclusions in the Williams case. If grand juries are not accountable to the courts, then who are they accountable to? Instructions of Law Under present Federal law, grand jurors receive no instructions on the law except for whatever the prosecutor may choose to tell them. This bill will provide for the District Court which empanels the grand jury to give some very basic legal instructions to the jurors before they begin their work. Included among these are the grand jury's duty to inquire into criminal offenses that have been committed in the jurisdiction; the right to call and interrogate witnesses; the right to request production of documents, including exculpatory evidence; the necessity of finding credible evidence of each element of the crime before returning an indictment; the right to ask the prosecutor to draft indictments for charges other than those originally presented; the obligations of grand jury secrecy; and such other rights and duties as the court deems appropriate. Mr. President, there is no good reason why these instructions should not be given. These rules of law are universally accepted. It makes no sense for the grand jury not to be told what its legal powers and duties are, and I cannot imagine that this provision would be disputed. Right to Counsel Mr. President, as I indicated before, the institution of the grand jury goes back more than 800 years in Anglo-American legal history. but it was not until 1963 that the Supreme Court held in Gideon v. Wainwright that a man may not be sent to prison without having had a lawyer at trial. Under Gideon, a person unable to pay for a lawyer must have counsel appointed to represent him, or else the requirement of due process of law has not been met. In 1964, the Court held in Miranda v. Arizona that criminal defendants must be advised by the police of their right to counsel and of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. These rights are basic American freedoms which are the hallmarks of due process of law. And nobody today would take us back to the old days when those rules were not in effect. Our ideas of due process have changed for the better over the centuries. One legal tradition which has not changed, however, is the lack of counsel before the grand jury. A witness who is not a criminal defendant but who is legally summoned to testify by the grand jury may not have his lawyer in the room. This rule of law is perverse to say the least in that it gives criminals, or accused criminals, more rights than innocent people. A criminal defendant today has greater rights than an ordinary, unaccused witness testifying before a grand jury. The Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure which prohibits the presence of counsel for a witness is an anachronism, and it will be changed by this bill, as well as by S. 2030 which I previously introduced. Exculpatory Evidence Even with a lawyer for the witness present, the grand jury will always be a one-sided affair in which only the prosecutor presents evidence. My bill will not change that. The prosecutor will naturally present only the evidence most favorable to the government. The Supreme Court has held that a prosecutor has no constitutional obligation to present the grand jury with any exculpatory evidence. This case, United States v. Williams, was a 5-4 decision written by Justice Scalia and as I said, in my opinion, it could not be more wrong. If due process of law means anything at all, it means that both sides of a case must be heard. How can due process permit the government to withhold evidence which might prevent the indictment from even being issued? My bill today reverses United States v. Williams by amending the Rules of Criminal Procedure to require that prosecutors present the grand jury any substantial evidence which directly negates the guilt of the accused. This bill will not make the grand jury a ``mini-trial'' since the accused will not be able to present evidence or to cross-examine. But the Government will be required to tell the grand jury, before it decides to indict, of substantial evidence against guilt. Due process of law requires no less. those who are not guilty. It is no answer to say that evidence of innocence can be considered at trial, and the jury will correct mistakes of the grand jury. If the Government has evidence which--if it were shown to be the grand jury--would lead the grand jury not to indict, the government must share that evidence with those who have power to indict. U.S. v. Williams is a gross misreading of due process which cries out for correction. grand jury secrecy Mr. President, the secrecy of grand jury proceedings is a matter of fundamental importance which is already clearly required by Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules. Yet the rule is flouted on almost a regular basis. Weekly, if not daily, the newspapers have carried stories about the several Independent Counsels' investigations which begin, ``Sources close to the investigation report * * *'' Every time the law regarding grand jury secrecy is violated, a fair and impartial trial is impossible. Grand jury secrecy is as ancient as the institution itself. Without it, our judicial system would degenerate into a horrific state. An indictment is already tantamount to guilt in the opinion of most people. At the same time, the grand jurors must be insulated from outside pressure which might influence their decisions to indict or not. Grand jury secrecy is necessary for the protection of both witnesses and grand jurors. The grand jury hears all kinds of testimony--some true, some scurrilous. Many things said to the grand jury may be incredibly damaging to people if they are revealed. Since the accused and his lawyer are not in the room, there is no safeguard of cross-examination. False testimony can easily go undiscovered until trial, which is one reason grand jury secrecy is so important. If the public learns that a witness has made some horrendous accusation, it will be cold comfort that the grand jury later decides not to believe the testimony and not to indict. More than one witness has lost his life when it was learned that he had testified against a leader of organized crime or a murderer. Grand jury secrecy can literally be a matter of life and death. Its importance to law enforcement and the cause of justice cannot be overstated. At the same time, a witness who has testified before a grand jury is perfectly free, if he so chooses, to go on television and tell the world what he or she has testified to. Present law places responsibility for enforcing grand jury secrecy on the prosecutor. If a member of the prosecution staff is leaking to the press, this is the clearest conflict of interest. Asking any prosecutor to investigate his own conduct is an obvious conflict of interest. Yet that is what present law provides. Mr. President, the way to resolve this problem is to place authority for investigating violations of grand jury secrecy on the District Court which empaneled the grand jury in the first place. My bill does exactly that by giving the Court power to appoint an investigator or counsel if necessary to determine the source of leaks. It should be the exceptional case where such action will be necessary. The existence of the possibility of an independent investigation should be enough to deter any prosecutor from breaching grand jury secrecy. Mr. President, the public's confidence in law enforcement, in the courts, and in the administration of justice for all Americans has taken a beating in recent years. Time and again, we have seen misconduct by police and prosecutors, as well as jury verdicts and court judgments that seem to defy reason and common sense. This Congress has an extraordinary opportunity to restore public confidence in the judicial system. Almost every point in this bill is long- standing policy supported by the American Bar Association. I believe the public and the bar will widely support these changes, and I hope my colleagues will move swiftly to enact this bill into law. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS. Thank you.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Grand Jury Reform Act, which I am introducing today, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this morning's prayer was offered by the Reverend James Lupton. Reverend Lupton retired in May 1997 after eight years at St. Alban's Episcopal Church in Stuttgart, AR. During this ministry in Stuttgart, Reverend Lupton also served the people of St. Peter's Episcopal Church in Tollville, AR. Prior to that, he served for four years in a Texas ministry. Reverend Lupton received his call to the ministry later in life after a twenty-five year career as an architect. James comes from a long line of Arkansans. His mother's family was one of the first pioneer families to settle in Arkansas, coming to the state with Arkansas' first Governor, James Sevier Conway. I am pleased that this individual with deep roots in my state was given the opportunity to offer today's prayer. We thank him for his inspiration.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.