[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 45 (Thursday, April 21, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
      HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE'S PASSAGE OF THE RACIAL JUSTICE ACT

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, yesterday, the other body voted, in effect, 
to repeal the death penalty in Utah and every other State which has a 
constitutional death penalty. It has voted to gut the existing Federal 
death penalty and every new Federal death penalty in the crime bill. 
While the House was doing this, there was not a word of protest from 
President Clinton--not one. Even though he has indicated in the past 
that he is against that provision.
  The other body's crime bill contains a misleadingly labeled ``Racial 
Discriminatory Capital Sentencing'' provision, commonly referred to as 
the so-called Racial Justice Act. It is really a provision intended to 
end the use of the death penalty unless it is imposed on a racial quota 
basis.
  The effort to delete this provision from the House crime bill was 
defeated 217 to 212, with 5 delegates voting in support of the Racial 
Justice Act. Members from the other side of the aisle accounted for 211 
of the 217 members who voted for the Racial Justice Act.
  The Senate has overwhelmingly shared my opposition to these kinds of 
provisions every time it has considered the proposal. The so-called 
Racial Justice Act was stricken from the last Congress' crime bill, in 
1991, by a vote of 55 to 41. It was rejected in 1990 by a vote of 58 to 
38. A similar amendment was soundly defeated by the full Senate in 1988 
by a vote of 52 to 35.
  Stated simply, the Racial Justice Act and its progeny have a history 
of failure because the Senate has seen it for what it is: for all 
intents and purposes, it is an effort to repeal every death penalty in 
the country. The National District Attorneys Association, the National 
Association of Attorneys General, law enforcement groups, and victims 
groups are all opposed to the measure, and yet the House enacts it.
  Congressional opponents of the death penalty know they are unable to 
defeat capital punishment head on. Instead, they offer catchy sounding 
provisions that have the effect of repealing the death penalty.
  I believe it is time to put an end to this sort of political 
gamesmanship. President Clinton claims to support the death penalty. He 
has been calling on Congress to pass a crime bill that contains the 
Federal death penalty. He has said that he is tough on crime. Where was 
his leadership against this provision which as a practical matter will 
end all capital punishment in this country? President Clinton and the 
Department of Justice sat silent while the House considered this 
proposal. Had they not been silent, it would have been defeated.
  If President Clinton truly supports the death penalty, if he truly 
wants a Federal death penalty provision in the crime bill, then he 
should speak out against the so-called Racial Justice Act. If he 
remains silent on this issue, I can only conclude that he supports the 
measure, that he is prepared to sign a bill that contains it, and that 
he is prepared to repeal the death penalty in every State in this 
country and in the Federal Government.
  The question Americans should be asking is, ``Does President Clinton 
support or oppose the Racial Justice Act?'' The future of the death 
penalty as punishment for the most heinous of crimes depends on his 
answer.
  To make the imposition of the death penalty on a quota basis rather 
than on the basis of the heinousness of the crime, the severity of the 
crime, the rottenness of the crime, the brutal cold-blooded murder of 
certain people is really a step in the wrong direction from trying to 
do things that are adequate against crime.

                          ____________________