Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. We have limited time. I also point out that the AFL-CIO has also said it is willing to make further disclosure itself as long as business is willing to do the same. I would invite the other side to actually offer a real amendment--not a sense of the Senate, but a real amendment--to try to address this. It is simply untrue that we are not covering groups on both sides. I specifically mentioned the Sierra Club and $4.5 million to cover that. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. In response to the question of the Senator from Arizona, the Senator from Pennsylvania, fortunately, is plain wrong about the issue of whether this covers other groups. As the Senator from Arizona said, in my opening remarks, I say to the Senator from Pennsylvania, I pointed out that this doesn't just cover the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club has said it has a 527 organization to use very large donations from wealthy individuals totaling $4.5 million. How can the Senator from Pennsylvania even begin to say that we have not included groups on both sides? The amendment is evenhanded. As the Senator from Arizona has pointed out, there were reports of groups from both the right and the left using this loophole. Any group claiming this loophole would have to disclose. So it is simply false that it would not include them.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent Senators Durbin, Bryan, and Boxer be added as cosponsors to the amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reid of Rhode Island be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 30 seconds.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Ten minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from New York.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will simply say to the chairman, I will be happy to do that. I ask in this instance that Senator Schumer go next because the understanding last night was that he start the process, and then after that alternate.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd, who has been a tremendous leader on campaign finance reform for decades, Senator Biden, Senator Reid of Nevada, and Senator Levin be added as cosponsors to the McCain-Feingold-Lieberman amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if there is one thing on which the entire Senate should be able to agree, it is that we need to have full disclosure by groups participating in the electoral process by running advertisements that mention candidates. This is a first step. In fact, it is only a first step on this bill. We intend to offer other steps, including our McCain-Feingold legislation concerning soft money, on this bill. But this is the first step. The so-called 527 organizations that this amendment addresses are the newest wrinkle in the breakdown of our campaign finance laws. These 527 groups are now openly and proudly flouting the election laws by running phony issue ads and refusing to register with the FEC as political committees or disclose their spending and contributors. It is time that Congress called a stop to this, not to try to keep anyone from speaking or otherwise participating in elections, but to give the American people information that they desperately need and deserve about who is behind the ads that are already flooding our airwaves, six months before the election. There is no reason that our tax laws should give protection to any group that refuses to play by the election law rules. For that reason, I have cosponsored and wholeheartedly endorse S. 2582, a bill introduced earlier this year by Senators Lieberman, Daschle, McCain, and others to restrict the tax exempt status available under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code only to those groups that register and report with the FEC. This amendment is even more mild. But at the very least, the public deserves more information on the financial backers and activities of groups that benefit from this tax exempt status, and that is what this amendment attempts to provide. This amendment simply seeks disclosure. It would be a small step towards addressing one of the loopholes in our current campaign laws that is eroding the public's faith in our electoral system. It's a small step, but an important step. It is the first step, and the second step is the ban on soft money. Time and time again when we have debated reform here on the floor of the Senate, the opponents of the McCain-Feingold bill have said that they favor full and complete disclosure of campaign contributions and spending. The Senator from Arizona did a fine job of sharing with us some of the quotes from Senators who said they would support disclosure even if they couldn't support a ban on soft money. Well, those Senators who so confidently proclaim that full disclosure is the answer to our campaign finance problems should realize that they cannot be consistent in that view if they don't support this amendment. All this amendments seeks is disclosure, the most basic and commonsense tenet of our campaign finance laws, by groups that are spending millions of dollars to influence elections. It is said that sunshine is the best disinfectant. Here is our chance to throw some sunshine on this latest effort to cast a dark cloud on our campaign finance system. Sadly, what to me is perhaps the most shameful thing about this whole process is we know that many Members of Congress are involved in raising money for these 527s. Recently, there was a very disturbing report in the Washington Post about the majority leader urging hi-tech companies to contribute to a new group called Americans for Job Security that is now running ads supporting one of our colleagues who is up for reelection. Americans for Job Security is almost certainly claiming a tax exemption under section 527, but at the same time it will not disclose its contributors or its spending. And we all know of the highly publicized connections between the majority whip in the House, Mr. DeLay, and various 527 organizations. These groups pose a special danger to the political process because if Members of Congress can organize them or raise money for them, the real possibility of corruption emerges. What is the difference between a million dollar contribution directly to a candidate and a million dollar contribution requested by a candidate that goes to a group that plans to run ads to support that candidate or, more likely, attack his or her opponent? There really is no difference when you come right down to it, but right now, the first contribution is illegal, as it should be, and the second contribution is not. It is legal. Our amendment does not prohibit that second contribution, it just asks that it be made public. As groups proliferate, the chances of scandal increase as well. It will not be long before reports of legislative favors received by big donors to 527 groups start making the headlines. Or foreign money or money derived from organized crime making its way into our election process by way of 527s. The 527 loophole is a ticking time bomb of scandal. As noted in the recent Common Cause report, ``Under the Radar: The Attack of Stealth PACs on our Nation's Elections,'' here are some of the groups that are taking advantage of the 527 loophole to collect unlimited contributions and use them to influence federal elections without any disclosure. Saving America's Families Everyday, the Republican Majority issues Committee, Citizens for Better Medicare, Republicans for Clean Air, Shape the Debate, Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, the Peace Voter Fund, citizens for Reform, and the Sierra Club. When the American people see an ad by one of these groups, they will know it is coming from a Stealth PAC, a 527, but that's all they will know because these groups are currently not reporting anything to the FEC or the IRS. Money, politics, and secrecy is a dangerous mixture. Mr. President. The least we can do is address the secrecy ingredient in this potion with this amendment. There is no justification whatsoever for allowing these groups to operate under the radar. None. Citizens deserve to know who is behind a message that is being delivered to them in the heat of a campaign. These groups that hide behind apple pie names are trying to obscure their identities from the public. The public is entitled to that information. And it is entitled to withhold a tax exemption from any group that would refuse to provide the information. I think I have heard from almost every one of my colleagues recently that they believe this campaign finance system is completely out of control, that they sense it is about to completely explode. We all know it. It is completely out of control. This is a first step to try to bring that control back and then to move on quickly to the effort to address the other even more enormous problem at this point--the problem of soft money being contributed to political parties. I thank the Senator from Arizona and my colleagues on the floor, the Senators from Connecticut and New York, for their work. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to again be on the floor with my colleague and friend, the Senator from Arizona, and to join with him in offering this amendment. I am especially pleased also to be offering this amendment with the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, who has offered a bill in this same form. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, be added as a cosponsor of the amendment as well.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the Zimbabwe Democracy Act of 2000. I am very pleased to join my colleague, Senator Frist, in cosponsoring this legislation and sending an unambiguous signal to the current government of Zimbabwe that the international community will not passively stand aside while that country's great promise is squandered; the United States will not remain silent while the rule of law is undermined by the very government charged with protecting a legal order; this Congress will not accept the deliberate dismantling of justice and security and stability in Zimbabwe. Since the ruling party lost the outcome of a February referendum, in which voters rejected a new constitution which would have granted President Robert Mugabe sweeping powers, a terrible campaign of violence has gripped the country. Veterans of Zimbabwe's independence struggle and supporters of the ruling party have invaded a number of farms owned by white Zimbabweans. When the courts ordered the police to evict the invaders, President Mugabe explicitly continued to support the invasions, and called on the police force to ignore the court. Predictably, confusion and violence have ensued, and the rule of law, the basic protections upon which people around the world stake their safety and the safety of their families, has been seriously eroded. This is not a race war. Let me repeat that--this is not a race war. Race is not the critical issue in Zimbabwe today. And no one need take my word for that. One need only look at the facts on the ground. One need only observe the disturbing frequency with which members of the opposition have been the targets of violence. It is the Movement for Democratic Change, an opposition party that has been rapidly gaining the support of the disillusioned electorate, that is the real target of President Mugabe's campaign. It is the electorate that rejected the ruling party's proposed constitution that is suffering, and this is not unprecedented. In the early 1980s, supporters of a rival political faction were brutally slaughtered in Matabeleland--a dark period in the young country's history for which there is still not a satisfying public account. So we must not be intimidated by the scape- goating of the power-hungry. Once there was a struggle against a terrible system of oppression, grounded in racial discrimination, in the country now called Zimbabwe. But that is not the heart of the matter today. Nor is this crisis really about land tenure reform, although there is no question at all that land tenure reform is desperately needed and long overdue in Zimbabwe. But the government's past efforts at land reform have too often involved distributing land to key supporters of the ruling party, not the landless and truly needy. Fundamentally, land reform is about improving quality of life for the people of Zimbabwe-- something that is utterly undermined by the violent tactics of the ruling party today. So while this is not about race and it is not, at its core, about land, what this is about is an increasingly discredited President, who, watching his legacy turn increasingly into a source of shame rather than celebration, has hatched a desperate campaign to cling to power, even though this campaign, if successful, would render him the leader of an utterly broken country. Runaway government spending has led to high inflation and unemployment. Corruption infects the state. And, at this time of economic strain and hardship, the Government of Zimbabwe is spending over $1.5 million a month on its participation in the Congo conflict. The Zimbabwe Democracy Act indicates that the U.S. will have no part of the terrible campaign of violence now compounding Zimbabwe's troubles. The bill suspends U.S. assistance to Zimbabwe while carving out important exceptions--humanitarian relief, food or medical assistance provided to non-governmental organizations for humanitarian purposes, programs which support democratic governance and the rule of law, and technical assistance relating to ongoing land reform programs outside the auspices of the government of Zimbabwe. And it articulates clear conditions for ending this suspension of assistance--including a return to the rule of law, free and fair parliamentary and presidential elections, and a demonstrated commitment on the part of the Government of Zimbabwe to an equitable, legal, and transparent land reform program. The bill also offers assistance to the remarkable forces working within Zimbabwe in support of the rule of law, in support of democracy, and in support of basic human rights for all of Zimbabwe's citizens. It establishes a fund to finance the legal expenses for individuals and institutions challenging restrictions on free speech in Zimbabwe, where the latest campaign has also included a media crackdown. The fund would also support individuals and democratic institutions who have accrued costs or penalties in the pursuit of elective office or democratic reform. I had the chance to be in Zimbabwe in December, and I do not believe that I have ever encountered a more dynamic, committed, and genuinely inspiring group of civil society leaders than the group I met in Harare a few months ago. These forces must not be abandoned in Zimbabwe's time of crisis. And, very responsibly, this legislation recognizes that Zimbabwe will need the assistance of the international community when it seeks to rebuild once the crisis has passed. It authorizes support for ongoing, legally governed land tenure reforms, and authorizes an innovative approach to facilitating the development of commercial projects in Zimbabwe and the region. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I commend Senator Frist and his staff for their efforts on this matter. Right now a country of great promise and a people of tremendous potential are enduring a terrible campaign of lawlessness and oppression. Right now, one of the most important states on the African continent, economically and politically, is in crisis. To write off Zimbabwe, to lose this opportunity to speak and act on the matter, would be a terrible mistake. States descend into utter chaos in stages. Let us move to arrest Zimbabwe's descent today, not next year, when the problems will be more complex and more deeply entrenched, and not after 5 years of crisis, when Afro-pessimists will undoubtedly ignore the country's proud history and cynically assert that Zimbabwe cannot be salvaged. Let us be far-sighted, let us act now, pass this legislation, and stand firmly behind the forces of law, of democracy, and of justice in Zimbabwe.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to join my distinguished colleague from Vermont and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, as a cosponsor of the Innocence Protection Act of 2000. I commend him for his leadership on this important legislation. The insight and unique experience that he brings to this issue as a former federal prosecutor is invaluable. I have no doubt that because of his leadership and diligence, Americans have recently become more aware of the important role that the certainty of science can have in our criminal justice system. Improvements in DNA testing have allowed us to determine with greater accuracy whether certain offenders committed the crime that sent them to prison, including, very importantly, of course, those who have been condemned to death row. Since the 1970s, 87 people sentenced to die were later proven innocent. Some of those innocent death row inmates were able to prove their innocence based on modern DNA testing of biological evidence. But, Mr. President, this is not just about ensuring that we not condemn the innocent. DNA testing can also ensure that the guilty person not go free. DNA testing can be a tool for the prosecution to determine whether they have the right person. Over the last several months, I have spoken often on the floor about the serious flaws in the administration of capital punishment across the nation. I strongly support Senator Leahy's bill. It is a much over- due package of reforms that goes after some of the worst failings in our nation's administration of capital punishment--those that are unfair, unjust and plain just un-American. Very simply, Senator Leahy's bill can help save lives. His bill would make it less likely for an innocent man or woman to be sent to death row, where biological evidence is central to the issue of guilt or innocence. The bill also would make it more likely that a poor person receive adequate defense representation and less likely that a poor person gets stuck with a lawyer that sleeps through trial. Yesterday, I spoke on the floor about specific examples of such cases of egregious failings of defense counsel. We must ensure the utmost fairness in the administration of this ultimate punishment. I hope our colleagues--both those who support the death penalty in principle and those who oppose it--will join together in fixing this broken system and restoring fairness and justice. All Americans demand and deserve no less. Mr. President, I think it is very significant that this important bill now has bipartisan support. I want to thank and commend my colleagues, Senators Gordon Smith, Susan Collins and James Jeffords, for recognizing that flaws exist in our system of justice and acknowledging that something has to be done about it. I hope this is a sign that we can work together with the very real goal of passing this bill this year. Until we do so, the lives of innocent people literally hang in the balance.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to join my distinguished colleague from Vermont and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, as a cosponsor of the Innocence Protection Act of 2000. I commend him for his leadership on this important legislation. The insight and unique experience that he brings to this issue as a former federal prosecutor is invaluable. I have no doubt that because of his leadership and diligence, Americans have recently become more aware of the important role that the certainty of science can have in our criminal justice system. Improvements in DNA testing have allowed us to determine with greater accuracy whether certain offenders committed the crime that sent them to prison, including, very importantly, of course, those who have been condemned to death row. Since the 1970s, 87 people sentenced to die were later proven innocent. Some of those innocent death row inmates were able to prove their innocence based on modern DNA testing of biological evidence. But, Mr. President, this is not just about ensuring that we not condemn the innocent. DNA testing can also ensure that the guilty person not go free. DNA testing can be a tool for the prosecution to determine whether they have the right person. Over the last several months, I have spoken often on the floor about the serious flaws in the administration of capital punishment across the nation. I strongly support Senator Leahy's bill. It is a much over- due package of reforms that goes after some of the worst failings in our nation's administration of capital punishment--those that are unfair, unjust and plain just un-American. Very simply, Senator Leahy's bill can help save lives. His bill would make it less likely for an innocent man or woman to be sent to death row, where biological evidence is central to the issue of guilt or innocence. The bill also would make it more likely that a poor person receive adequate defense representation and less likely that a poor person gets stuck with a lawyer that sleeps through trial. Yesterday, I spoke on the floor about specific examples of such cases of egregious failings of defense counsel. We must ensure the utmost fairness in the administration of this ultimate punishment. I hope our colleagues--both those who support the death penalty in principle and those who oppose it--will join together in fixing this broken system and restoring fairness and justice. All Americans demand and deserve no less. Mr. President, I think it is very significant that this important bill now has bipartisan support. I want to thank and commend my colleagues, Senators Gordon Smith, Susan Collins and James Jeffords, for recognizing that flaws exist in our system of justice and acknowledging that something has to be done about it. I hope this is a sign that we can work together with the very real goal of passing this bill this year. Until we do so, the lives of innocent people literally hang in the balance.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Federal Government has not executed a person in the name of people of the United States of America since 1963. For 37 years, we as a people have not taken that fateful, irreversible step. I rise today because all that is apparently about to change. Since January, I have come to the Senate floor several times to urge my colleagues to support a moratorium on executions and a review of the administration of capital punishment. Mr. President, the need for that moratorium has now become more urgent. During the Senate recess just ended, a Federal judge in Texas set a date for the execution of Juan Raul Garza. In only two months, on August 5, he could become the first prisoner that the Federal Government has put to death since 1963. In the early hours of a Saturday morning, when most Americans will be sleeping, Federal authorities will strap Mr. Garza to a gurney at a new Federal facility in Terre Haute, Indiana. They will put the needle in his vein. And they will deliver an injection that will kill him. Mr. President, I rise today to invite my colleagues to consider the wisdom of this action. More and more Americans, including prosecutors, police, and those fighting on the front lines of the battle against crime, are rethinking the fairness, the efficacy, and the freedom from error of the death penalty. Senator Leahy, a former federal prosecutor, has introduced the Innocence Protection Act, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor. Congressman Delahunt and Congressman LaHood have introduced the same bill in the House. Congressman Delahunt, also a former prosecutor, is concerned that our current system of administering the death penalty is far from just. He has said: ``If you spent 20 years in the criminal justice system, you would be very concerned about what goes on.'' In my own home state of Wisconsin, at least eleven active and former state and Federal prosecutors have said that executions do not deter crime and could result in executing the innocent. Michael McCann, the well-respected District Attorney of Milwaukee County, has said that prosecution is a human enterprise bound to have mistakes. Mr. President, police--the people on the front lines of the battle against crime--are coming out against the death penalty. They are finding that it is bad for law enforcement. Recently, when police chiefs were asked about the death penalty, they said that it was counterproductive. Capital cases are incredibly resource-intensive. They do not yield a reduction in crime proportional to other, more moderate law-enforcement activities. A former police chief of Madison, Wisconsin, for example, has said that he fears that the death penalty would make police officers' jobs more dangerous, not less so. He expressed concern that a suspect's incentive to surrender peacefully is diminished when the government has plans to execute. Ours is a system of justice founded on fairness and due process. The Framers of our democracy had a healthy distrust for the power of the state when arrayed against the individual. Many of the lawyers in the early United States of America had on their shelf a copy of William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, where it is written: ``For the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.'' And Benjamin Franklin wrote, ``That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer. . . .'' Our Constitution and Bill of Rights reflect this concern for the protection of the individual against the might of the state. The fourth amendment protects: ``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. . . .'' The fifth amendment protects against being ``deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . . .'' The sixth amendment guarantees that ``the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.'' And the eighth amendment prohibits ``cruel and unusual punishments.'' Our system of government is deeply grounded in the defense of the individual against the power of the government. Our Nation has a proud tradition of safeguarding the rights of its citizens. But more and more, we are finding that when a person's very life is at stake, our system of justice is failing to live up to the standards that the American people demand and expect. More and more, Americans are finding reason to believe that we have a justice system that can, and does, make mistakes. Americans' sense of justice demands that if new evidence becomes available that could shed light on the guilt or innocence of a defendant, then the defendant should be given the opportunity to present it. Unfortunately, apparently, the people of New York and Illinois are the only ones who understand this. They have enacted laws allowing convicted offenders access to the biological evidence used at trial and modern DNA testing. If you are on death row in a state other than Illinois or New York, you might be able to show a court evidence of your guilt or innocence based on new DNA tests. But your ability to do so rests on whether you're lucky enough to get a prosecutor to agree to the test or convince a court that it should be done. Or, as we have seen very recently, your ability to show your innocence may rest with the decision of the governor. And that raises the risk of a political decision, not necessarily one that is based solely on fairness or justice. Mr. President, I am not surprised that both Texas Governor George Bush and Virginia Governor James Gilmore are no longer confident that every prisoner on death row in their states is guilty and has had full access to the courts. Allowing death row inmates the benefit of a modern DNA test is the fair and just thing to do. But scores of other death row inmates, in Texas, in Virginia, and around the country, may also have evidence exonerating them. They may have DNA evidence. Or they may have other exonerating evidence. We must ensure that all inmates with meritorious claims of innocence have their day in court. But, among problems in our criminal justice system, the lack of full access to DNA testing is, unfortunately, just the tip of the iceberg. Americans' sense of justice demands fair representation and adequate counsel. In the landmark 1963 case of Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court held that ``in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him.'' The Court in Gideon wrote: From the very beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law. This noble ideal cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him. And, in cases since then, for example the 1988 case of McCoy v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court has ruled that: ``It is . . . settled law that an indigent defendant has the same right to effective representation by an active advocate as a defendant who can afford to retain counsel of his or her choice.'' But, Mr. President, more and more, we are finding counsel that fail the standard of adequacy. Drunk lawyers. Sleeping lawyers. Lawyers who never cross-examined. Lawyers whose first trial is a trial where the client's life is on the line. Lawyers who have been subsequently disbarred. We would never allow a podiatrist to perform heart surgery. And we would never allow a surgeon to perform surgery while drunk, or to fall asleep during surgery. But courts, over and over again, have upheld convictions where the defendants' lawyers were not qualified to represent them, slept through trial, or were drunk in court. Take the case of the lawyer Joe Cannon. In 1979, one Mr. Carl Johnson was convicted of murder and sent to death row by a Texas state court. During trial, his lead counsel, Joe Cannon, was often asleep. Cannon's co-counsel, Philip Scardino, was two years out of law school and recalls the whole experience as ``frightening.'' He said, ``All I could do was nudge him sometimes and try to wake him up.'' Johnson's appellate attorney, David Dow, said the trial transcript gives the impression that there was no one in the courtroom defending Johnson. It ``goes on for pages and pages, and there is not a whisper from anyone representing him.'' Mr. Johnson was executed in 1995, the 12th execution under Governor Bush's watch. Now as ``frightening'' as this sounds, the same attorney continued to work capital cases. Like the majority of inmates on Texas' death row, Calvin Burdine could not afford an attorney, so the court paid a lawyer to represent him, and that lawyer again was Joe Cannon. Five years after Johnson's trial, and this time without co-counsel, Cannon represented Burdine, and again slept through crucial moments of the trial. The clerk for the trial judge said Cannon ``was asleep for long periods of time during the questioning of witnesses.'' Three jurors noted he did most of his nodding off in the afternoon, following lunch. Burdine's appellate attorneys contend that highly incriminating hearsay testimony was introduced and reached the jury because the attorney was sleeping. In 1995, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected his claim of ineffective assistance. Burdine's case is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. As Texas State Senator Rodney Ellis said of the Burdine case on ABC's This Week this past Sunday, ``That is a national embarrassment.'' Incredulously, Senator Ellis lamented: ``[T]he Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled apparently that you can be Rip Van Winkle and still be a pretty good attorney.'' Two years after his death, lawyer Joe Cannon remains a courthouse legend. In a span of about 10 years, twelve of his indigent clients went to death row. Americans' sense of justice demands that the poor, as well as the rich, should get their day in court. Even death penalty supporters like Reverend Pat Robertson recognize that this ultimate punishment appears reserved for the poor. The machinery of death is badly broken. Since the 1970s, 87 people sitting on death row were later proven innocent. That means that for every seven executions, we've found one person innocent. But remember, this is after they were on death row. Eight of the 87 people later proven innocent relied on modern DNA testing to prove their innocence. But access to DNA testing plainly tells only a small part of the story of the mistakes in our criminal justice system. The remaining 79 innocent people gained their release based on other kinds of evidence-- evidence like recanted witness testimony. Sometimes, it is evidence that an ineffective attorney fails to introduce at trial. Take the case of Gregory Wilhoit. In 1987, an Oklahoma court sentenced Wilhoit to die for the murder of his estranged wife. The key evidence for the prosecution was expert testimony that a bite mark on the victim matched Wilhoit's. The defense never called an expert to challenge the prosecution's dental expert. The court of appeals granted a new trial, recognizing that Wilhoit had ineffective legal representation. The appellate court noted that his counsel was ``suffering from alcohol dependence and abuse, and brain damage during his representation.'' Wilhoit describes his former attorney as ``a drunk'' and recalls several occasions when the attorney threw up in the judge's chambers. After spending six years on death row, Wilhoit was exonerated after 11 experts--11 experts--testified that the teeth marks did not match. Mr. President, I hate to say it, but this is the worst of government gone amok. People understand that the government can make mistakes in other areas. They can only expect as much here. Columnist George Will recently wrote that conservatives, especially, should be concerned. George Will wrote: ``Capital punishment, like the rest of the criminal justice system, is a government program, so skepticism is in order.'' When we do not exercise that skepticism, when we rush to execute with ever growing speed, we contribute to, rather than detract from, a culture of violence. It deprives us of the greatness that is America. We are better than this. And so, Mr. President, the time has come to pause. That is why today, in the light of the scheduling of the first Federal execution in almost 40 years, and in light of the growing awareness that there are fundamental flaws in our system of justice, I urge my Colleagues to join me in the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act, which I introduced along with Senators Levin and Wellstone. This bill is a common sense, modest proposal. It merely calls a temporary halt to executions while a national, blue ribbon commission thoroughly examines the administration of capital punishment. The bill simply calls for a pause and a study. That is not too much to ask, when the lives of innocent people hang in the balance. When an airplane careens off a runway, the Federal government steps in to review what went wrong. This Nation's system of capital punishment has veered seriously off-course. It is now clear that it is replete with errors. The time has come to pause and study what is wrong. The time has come to pause and ensure that our system is fair and just. Our American tradition of fairness and due process demands it. Reverence for our democracy's protection of the individual against the state compels as much. The American people's love of justice deserves no less.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator and take my hat off to him and to our neighbor to the south, the State of Illinois. Without the leadership of Illinois, which had the courage to admit that it had a problem, this entire issue would not be receiving the kind of examination occurring across the country. That is to the Senator's credit, to that of the Governor, and to all the people of your State. The bill I have introduced is modeled exactly after the pattern followed in Illinois; that is, the calling of a moratorium by a Governor who is, or at least has been, a death penalty supporter, and then the appointing of a very distinguished blue-ribbon commission, including our former wonderful colleague, Paul Simon, and including both pro- and anti-death penalty people. Under Illinois' leadership, there will be this kind of pause and examination that is open to people of any view on the death penalty, to simply make sure that system is fixed. As the Senator pointed out, Illinois could not possibly be the only State that has this problem. In fact, I predict it will not turn out to be the one with the worst problem in this area. The other States need to join it on this, the Federal Government needs to join, and I compliment your State, as I did in my earlier remarks, as being one of the only two States to recognize the right to have guaranteed DNA testing.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, along with Senator Jeffords, I am pleased to introduce the Quality Cheese Act of 2000. This legislation will protect the consumer, save taxpayer dollars and provide support to America's dairy farmers, who have taken a beating in the marketplace in recent years. When Wisconsin consumers have the choice, they will choose natural Wisconsin cheese, but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) may change current law, and consumers won't know whether cheese is really all natural or not. If the federal government creates a loophole for imitation cheese ingredients to be used in U.S. cheese vats, cheese bearing the labels ``domestic'' and ``natural'' will no longer be truly accurate. If USDA and FDA allow a change in federal rules, imitation milk proteins known as milk protein concentrate or casein, could be used to make cheese in place of the wholesome natural milk produced by cows in Wisconsin or other part of the U.S. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned by recent efforts to change America's natural cheese standard. This effort to allow milk protein concentrate and casein into natural cheese products flies in the face of logic and could create a loophole for unlimited amounts of substandard imported milk proteins to enter U.S. cheese vats. My legislation will close this loophole and ensure that consumers can be confident that they are buying natural cheese when they see the natural label. Our dairy farmers have invested heavily in processes that make the best quality cheese ingredients, and I am concerned about recent efforts to change the law that would penalize them for those efforts by allowing lower quality ingredients to flood the U.S. market. Over the past decade, cheese consumption has risen at a strong pace due to promotional and marketing efforts and investments by dairy farmers across the country. Year after year, per capita cheese consumption has risen at a steady rate. Back in the 1980's, when I served in the Wisconsin State Senate, cheese consumption topped 20 pounds per person. During the 1990s consumption increased by over 25 percent, and passed 25 pounds per person. Last year we saw an even more dramatic increase when per capita cheese consumption rose an amazing 1.5 pounds to reach 29.8 pounds. This one-year increase amounts to the largest expansion since 1982! I am proud to say that my home state of Wisconsin, America's dairyland, was one of the main engines behind this growth. After all, when consumers see the label ``Wisconsin Cheese,'' they know that it is synonymous with quality. Over the past two decades consumers have increased their cheese consumption due to their understanding, and taste for the quality natural cheese produced by America's dairy industry. Recent proposals to change to our natural cheese standard could decrease consumption of natural cheese. These declines could result from concerns about the origin of casein and other forms of dry UF milk. The vast majority of dry ultra filtered milk originates from countries with State Trading Enterprises. Many of these countries subsidize their dairy exports through these trading mechanisms, and have quality standards that are well below those of the United States. While it is difficult to obtain specific numbers about the amount of dry UF milk produced in foreign countries, I have heard disturbing stories about the conditions under which the casein and milk proteins are sometimes produced. For the most part, dry UF milk is not produced in the US. In fact, it is, for the most part, produced in countries where sanitary standards are well below those of the United States. These products are sold on the international market, and under the proposed rule they could be labeled as natural cheese. This cheap, low quality dry UF milk tends to leave cheese greasy and increases separation problems. The addition of this kind of milk will certainly leave the wholesome reputation of ``natural cheese'' significantly tarnished in the eyes of the consumer. This change would seriously compromise decades of work by America's dairy farmers to build up domestic cheese consumption levels. It is simply not fair to America's farmers! Mr. President, consumers have a right to know if the cheese they buy is unnatural. And by allowing unnatural dry UF milk into cheese, we are denying consumers the entire picture. The Feingold-Jeffords legislation will paint the entire picture for the consumer, and allow them enough information to select cheese made from truly natural ingredients. Allowing dry Ultra-Filtered milk into cheeses will have a significant adverse impact on dairy producers throughout the United States. Some estimate that the annual effect of the change on the dairy farm sector of the economy could be more than $100 million. The proposed change to our natural cheese standard would also harm the American taxpayer. If we allow dry UF milk to be used in cheese we will effectively permit unrestricted importation of these ingredients into the United States. Because there are no tariffs and quotas on these ingredients, these heavily subsidized products will displace natural domestic dairy ingredients. These unnatural domestic dairy products will enter our domestic cheese market and may further depress dairy prices paid to American dairy producers. Low dairy prices result in increased costs to the dairy price support program. So, at the same time that U.S. dairy farmers are receiving lower prices, the U.S. taxpayer will be paying more for the dairy price support program. Mr. President, this change does not benefit the dairy farmer, consumer or taxpayer. Who then is it good for? The obvious answer is nobody. America's farmers have invested a tremendous amount of time and effort create the best cheese industry in the world. They should not be penalized for their efforts. This legislation takes a two pronged approach to address these concerns. First, it prohibits dry ultra-filtered milk from being included in America's natural cheese standard. Second, it requires the Food and Drug administration to conduct a study into the impact of allowing wet ultra-filtered milk into the natural cheese standard. Let me be clear, currently, neither of these products are allowed in America's natural cheese standard. Under current regulations, wet ultra-filtered milk may only be used in natural cheese products if--and only if--both the wet UF milk and the cheese are produced at the same plant. I have heard a number of concerns from dairy farmers, but the most immediate concern is the importation of milk protein concentrate and casein. This legislation is the first step in addressing their concerns, and ensuring that any future changes incorporate the concerns of America's dairy farmers. Congress must shut the door on any backdoor efforts to stack the deck against America's dairy farmers. And we must pass my legislation that prevents a loophole that would allow changes that hurt the consumer, taxpayer and dairy farmer. Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to keep a promise that I made on this floor a few months ago. In January, I came to the floor to talk about the tragic events that occurred last fall in East Timor. I spoke about the need to encourage the new Indonesian government in its commitment to reform and its resolve to reject the climate of impunity. I withdrew an amendment that would have codified the administration's suspension on military and security assistance for Indonesia East Timor, although I believed then and strongly believe today that Indonesia has not yet met the basic conditions that should be prerequisites for any restoration of military ties with Indonesia. At that time, Mr. President, I pledged to continue to monitor events in Indonesia and in East Timor closely. And I pledged to come to this floor if what I saw troubled me. Let me tell you what I see today. First, I am sorry to say, Mr. President, there have been no trials yet. No one has been brought to justice for the atrocities committed in East Timor last year. I recognize that the Indonesian government has taken some courageous steps in investigating the atrocities that took place in East Timor, and I commend the Indonesian government for its efforts to date. The Indonesian government and the U.N. have succeeded in signing an agreement to exchange witnesses and evidence that could lead to the prosecution of those responsible for the violence in East Timor. A number of dedicated individuals within the new government continue to work courageously for reform, justice, and accountability. But I note, that obervers have been disturbed by the number of civilian and military police officers that the government has appointed to the team charged with investigating human rights abuses in East Timor. And the simple fact remains--no one has yet been held accountable in a court of law for the acts committed by the military and militias in East Timor last year. A second concern is there has been no change in the situation in West Timor. Today, half a year after the referendum, some 100,000 people are still living in the refugee camps of West Timor, afraid of what will happen to them should they attempt to return home. Some will likely choose to stay in Indonesia, but all reports from the area indicate that many want to return home but do not because of continued intimidation from militia groups. Within the refugee camps, since January there have been about a dozen incidents in which international agencies attempting to deliver aid to the refugees were attacked. According to recent reports, one militia group is so well-organized that it prints a newsletter of fabricated horror stories aimed at dissuading refugees from returning to East Timor. This week the plight of these refugees--at this point the most vulnerable of the original masses--was made even more difficult as they contend with the heavy rains and floods that have already killed at least 148 people. Over a hundred are still missing. When the flood waters recede, these people should have every opportunity to put their lives back together, free from threats and from fear. I look at these facts and I consider that the administration has chosen to take a first step toward lifting its suspension on all forms of military assistance and contacts by inviting the Indonesians to particiapte in a joint exercise, and I am indeed troubled. Today I am introducing a bill, the East Timor Repatriation and Security Act of 2000. The bill codifies the suspension of military and security assistance to Indonesia until certain conditions are met--the same conditions that have been articulated in the past; the same conditions contained in last year's foreign operations appropriations bill. The bill would permit military and security assistance to resume only when the President determines and submits a report to the appropriate congressional committees that the Government of Indonesia and the Indonesian Armed Forces are: Taking effective measures to bring to justice members of the armed forces and militia groups against whom there is credible evidence of human rights violations; Taking effective measures to bring to justice members of the armed forces against whom there is credible evidence of aiding or abetting militia groups; Allowing displaced persons and refugees to return home to East Timor, including providing safe passage for refugees returning from West Timor; Not impeding the activities of the United Nations Transitional Authority in East Timor; Demonstrating a commitment to preventing incursions into East Timor by members of militia groups in West Timor; and, Demonstrating a commitment to accountability by cooperating with investigations and prosecutions of members of the Indonesian Armed Forces and military groups responsible for human rights violations in Indonesia and East Timor. These certainly are not unreasonable conditions. They work in favor of the forces of reform within Indonesia. And by linking military and security assistance to these benchmarks, Congress will ensure that the U.S. relationship with Jakarta avoids the mistakes of the past, and that U.S. foreign policy comes closer to reflecting our core national values. To those who believe that all is well, to those who would prefer to forgive and forget, to those who think that the issue is yesterday's news, I would simply reiterate the simple facts. There have been no trials for the perpetrators of abuses in East Timor, and the situation in the refugee camps has remained unacceptable. Quite recently, Admiral Dennis Blair, commander in chief of U.S. forces in the Pacific, reaffirmed what Secretary of Defense Cohen articulated last year--the U.S. will not resume a military relationship with Indonesia until the military personnel responsible for the devastation in East Timor are brought to justice, and the U.S. will not resume a military relationship with Indonesia until the refugee crisis in West Timor has been resolved. Specifically, Admiral Blair called on the Indonesians to disband and cut off support to the militia members still terrorizing the refugees. It is critical that the U.S. insist on nothing less. In fact, we should insist on more--the militia members guilty of atrocities should be brought to justice. It is clear that these conditions have not yet been met. But the administration's new proposals for joint exercises with the Indonesians undermine Admiral Blair's words. The substance of the exercise currently being planned does not necessarily trouble me, but its significance does. The administration looks as if it suffers from a lack of resolve and from a wavering sense of commitment. Indonesia is an extraordinarily important country--strategically and economically. Its future course will undoubtedly affect the United States. For this very reason, we must stand firm, and insist upon rebuilding U.S.-Indonesian ties on the firm foundation of respect for the rule of law and for basic human rights. It is because I believe this so strongly--and I know that many of my colleagues share my views--that I have come back to the floor to raise this issue again. I am keeping my promise. I am watching the situation in East and West Timor very closely, and I still do not like what I see.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in the brief time I have remaining, I want to quickly respond to some of the remarks of the Senator from Kentucky. First of all, the suggestion that the arguments on this side have relied on a caricature of the views of the nominee is simply false. We have been very cautious in the debate to simply rely on Professor Smith's actual words from his voluminous writings, and the Senator from Kentucky in no instance has denied that we accurately quoted Professor Smith. These are his views. There has been no distortion and no caricaturing of his views. Second, the Senator denies the nominee's views on the campaign finance law will affect his ability to discharge his duties as an FEC Commissioner. Of course, I do not believe that people involved in the enforcment of laws have to accept the premise of every single law they are charged to enforce, but this nominee rejects essentially the entire campaign finance law of our country, from the notion dating back to 1907, that is still supposed to be good law today, that a corporation should not be able to give contributions in connection with federal elections, to the notion that labor unions should not be able to make such contributions, according to a 1947 law, to his rejection of the fundamental post-Watergate laws restricting the amounts that individuals can give candidates and parties that we are supposed to live under today. Professor Smith is essentially a campaign finance law anarchist. He does not believe we should have any campaign finance law. The notion that such a person should be on the FEC makes virtually no sense. To take the analogy of the Senator from Kentucky, he says having Professor Smith on the Commission will be like having a prosecutor who cares very much about people's constitutional rights. But the real analogy is that this nominee would be a prosecutor who believes we should repeal just about all of the U.S. Criminal Code. That, to me, is too much. This is not about a litmus test. This is absolutely not about barring this gentleman from public service, as the Senator from Kentucky suggests. If he wants to run for the Senate and pass laws about campaign finance reform, there is an election for the Senate in Ohio this year. He can run. But if his job is to enforce the main body of campaign finance laws in this country, that job cannot be done by someone who believes those laws are entirely inconsistent with the first amendment and have no legal merit. Our election laws are too important to put them at risk in this way. For those reasons, I hope my colleagues reject this nomination.