[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 50 (Monday, May 2, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 2, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                           RACIAL JUSTICE ACT

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, last week, on this floor, I explained in 
detail how title IX of the House crime bill--which is mislabeled by 
some as the Racial Justice Act--would effectively abolish the death 
penalty in my home State of Utah and in every other State in this 
country, as well as the Federal level.
  Unfortunately, President Clinton, despite his rhetoric in support of 
the death penalty, has not yet stated his opposition to this Death 
Penalty Abolition Act. Indeed, his administration has publicly stated 
that it is neutral on this radical measure.
  Even worse, according to a detailed newspaper account, the Clinton 
administration in fact lobbied House Democrats to keep title IX in the 
House crime bill. In addition, the Clinton administration is reportedly 
seeking to hammer out a false compromise under which the death penalty 
would ultimately be abolished in two steps rather than one.
  Mr. President, let me be clear: The so-called Racial Justice Act has 
nothing to do with racial justice and everything to do with abolishing 
the death penalty.
  In the guise of protecting against race-based discrimination, title 
IX would instead impose an unreliable and manipulable statistical quota 
on imposition of the death penalty. It would convert every death 
penalty case into a massive sideshow of statistical squabbles and quota 
quarrels. As prosecutors already recognize, they would ultimately have 
no choice but to adopt a death penalty quota that equals zero--in 
short, to abolish the death penalty. That is why this Death Penalty 
Abolition Act has been strongly opposed by the National Association of 
Attorneys General, the National District Attorneys Association, and 
other law enforcement and victims groups.
  Mr. President, at this time I would like to enter in the Record three 
letters that illustrate the strong and bipartisan opposition of 
prosecutors to any provision that enables a brutal killer to escape the 
death penalty based on manipulated statistical showings from unrelated 
cases.
  The first letter, from the National Association of Attorneys General, 
includes a recent resolution passed by that body that specifically 
opposes any version of title IX. Again, let me emphasize that the 
resolution from the National Association of Attorneys General was 
supported by both Democrats and Republicans.
  The second letter that I would like to have made part of the Record 
is a letter from Jan Graham, the attorney general from my State 
of Utah. In this letter, Ms. Graham, a Democrat, states her opposition 
to title IX ``because it would impose an unworkable statistically-based 
procedure on the States'' and ``would effectively abolish capital 
punishment, weaken law enforcement, and suspend closure for victims of 
violent crime.''

  Third, I have a unanimous resolution from all 58 elected district 
attorneys in the State of California opposing any version of the so-
called Racial Justice Act.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these three letters be 
printed in the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  [See exhibit 1.]
  Mr. HATCH. It is bad enough that an administration that purports to 
support the death penalty has publicly stated its neutrality on title 
IX. It is even worse that the same administration is reportedly working 
behind the scenes to salvage what it can of this legislation.
  Attorney General Reno, in response to my questions at a hearing last 
week, disclosed that the administration may attempt to modify title IX 
so that it applies only to cases in the Federal system.
  Even as so modified, title IX would not be acceptable. In the first 
place, it would result in the abolition of the Federal death penalty at 
the very time that the administration is purporting to support 
expansion of the Federal death penalty.
  It is worth noting that, according to a recent article, Attorney 
General Reno has approved seeking the Federal death penalty against 
nine defendants, all of whom are black. Now I do not believe for a 
second that Attorney General Reno has been acting in a racially 
discriminatory manner. But the false compromise that the Clinton 
administration is working on would compel this faulty inference as a 
matter of law.
  Second, a statistical quota system that would apply, for the time 
being, only to the Federal Government should give States no more 
comfort than the German invasion of Belgium gave the French. Far from 
being a stable accommodation, such modification of title IX would 
simply set the stage for a later full-scale assault on the death 
penalty in the States.
  In short, if President Clinton truly supports the death penalty--if 
his actions are to match his rhetoric--he must demand that title IX in 
its entirety be removed from the crime bill. If he remains silent or 
neutral on this issue, or supports phony compromises, it can only mean 
that he is prepared to repeal the death penalty for the most heinous 
crimes in this country.
  A vote for any bill that contains title IX is a vote to abolish the 
death penalty. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make 
sure that this provision is removed at conference.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                   April 12, 1994.
     Hon. Jack Brooks,
     Chairman, House Judiciary Committee, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Hamilton Fish, Jr.,
     Ranking Minority, Member, House Judiciary Committee, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressmen: We are a bipartisan group of chief law 
     enforcement officers of our respective Sates who are 
     responsible for overseeing capital and non-capital habeas 
     litigation and for enforcing state criminal law in death 
     penalty and non-death penalty jurisdictions.
       We wish to express our views on the need to strike habeas 
     corpus as part of the House omnibus crime bill, and on some 
     of the amendments which have been offered. Specifically, we 
     write in strong support of the Hyde Amendment (to strike the 
     habeas provisions contained in the crime bill, H.R. 4092, 
     Title VIII) and strong support for the McCollum Amendment (to 
     substitute the Equal Justice Act for legislation in Title IX 
     of H.R. 4092 which provides relief based on mere statistical 
     showings from unrelated cases). This is consistent with the 
     recently adopted Resolution of the National Association of 
     Attorneys General (NAAG), a copy of which is attached.


 support the hyde amendment to strike title viii and oppose any other 
   habeas amendments to title viii (including the derrick amendment)

       Several reasons compel our strong support for the Hyde 
     Amendment to strike the habeas provisions from the omnibus 
     crime bill:
       First, the Hyde Amendment is consistent with a similar 
     bipartisan amendment, which was offered by Senator Dianne 
     Feinstein and Senator Orrin Hatch, and which was unanimously 
     agreed to last year in the Senate.
       Second, we believe that the habeas provisions contained in 
     Title VIII of H.R. 4092 may once again hold up consideration 
     and enactment of other important crime reform issues. Habeas 
     corpus reform has proven to be a contentious issue in prior 
     Congresses and in fact was in large part responsible for the 
     deadlock on the omnibus crime bill in the last Congress. The 
     need to address violent crime is too urgent to delay 
     deliberation on other measures to combat crime. Similarly, we 
     believe there is a danger that the other provisions of the 
     crime bill may be viewed as so important that habeas 
     provisions will be swept into the omnibus package without 
     sufficient review and analysis of their long term impact and 
     legal significance, as discussed below.
       Third, there are other precedents for severing certain 
     specific crime reform issues from omnibus crime bills. They 
     include, for example, the Brady bill (five-day waiting period 
     for handgun purchases).
       We believe stronger reasons support the severance of the 
     habeas provisions from the crime bill. Such a severance would 
     allow the provisions of any habeas reform bill to be 
     considered on their own merits. Habeas corpus, while an 
     important part of our criminal justice system, is a 
     specialized and arcane area of the law. Any reforms adopted 
     by the Congress in this area will have tremendous 
     ramifications on the operations of the criminal justice 
     system, law enforcement, and victims of crime, and therefore 
     warrant independent consideration.
       We have previously expressed a commitment to obtaining 
     meaningful reform of the federal habeas corpus process, along 
     the lines of the Powell Committee Report. This Report 
     endorses the so-called ``one bite at the habeas apple'' 
     approach, enabling state prisoners one fair and complete 
     round of habeas litigation in federal court. We need 
     effective reforms to curb unnecessary delay and repetitious 
     litigation which has become all too common under the current 
     federal habeas corpus process. Such reforms should, however, 
     be considered in separate legislation.
       Fourth, the legislation reported out by the House Judiciary 
     Committee, and now included in Title VIII of H.R. 4092, 
     would, according to the recent NAAG Resolution, ``adversely 
     affect all capital and non-capital habeas litigation in the 
     States and effectively stop all state capital case 
     prosecutions and executions under valid state capital 
     sentencing schemes.'' The legislation would overturn or 
     modify numerous key U.S. Supreme Court precedents which 
     promote finality in our criminal justice process. This 
     includes the Teague doctrine, which is essential for capital 
     and non-capital cases. Instead of streamlining the process, 
     this legislation will provide convicted criminals with 
     more opportunities to challenge their conviction and 
     sentence than under current law. The legislation also 
     fails to respect the state trial as the ``main event'' in 
     our criminal justice process, and is inconsistent with 
     established comity doctrines respecting the role of state 
     court proceedings in the enforcement of state criminal 
     law.
       Fifth, the last-minute efforts of some to offer new habeas 
     amendments to the crime bill on the House floor deprive 
     members of Congress and the public from a full and fair 
     opportunity to study and comment on the legislation. In 
     congressional committee hearings or mark-up concerning 
     specific bill language, law enforcement and victim rights 
     groups normally are given a chance to apprise the Congress of 
     their views concerning the impact of new language or 
     standards. When amendments are patched together at the last 
     minute, this opportunity is denied.
       These concerns are especially true for habeas corpus 
     reform. New proposals, which have not been subject to public 
     review, may also have drastic ramifications on the operations 
     and costs of our departments and the criminal justice system 
     and have serious consequences on finality, the enforcement of 
     state laws, and victims. Any habeas reforms included in the 
     crime bill would constitute the first major change to the 
     federal habeas statute since 1966. Because of the tremendous 
     changes to current law which would result under any last-
     minute amendments, we believe Congress should proceed 
     carefully and deliberately before considering any new habeas 
     reform proposals.
       For example, over the last several years, the U.S. Supreme 
     Court has rendered many opinions which have clarified the 
     role of federal court review of state court judgments; 
     promoted the interest in finality and closure for surviving 
     victims; and respected the interests of states and the 
     enforcement of state laws in our federalism system. We fear 
     that if Congress does not fully and fairly consider the 
     import of proposed new language, these and other precedents 
     will be cast aside and more delay and litigation will result. 
     In addition, concerns have been noted over the impact of new 
     amendments on the deterrent objective of the death penalty. 
     All of these consequences should be carefully studied before 
     Congress considers Amendments offered on the floor of the 
     House for the first time. We believe the public would best be 
     served by complete congressional hearings before any new 
     Amendments are debated in the House.
       We understand that a new habeas amendment is also expected 
     to be offered by Congressman Butler Derrick of South 
     Carolina. Preliminary review shows that this amendment is 
     also worse than current law and would overturn numerous key 
     U.S. Supreme Court cases governing habeas corpus. For these 
     reasons, we therefore oppose the Derrick Amendment or any 
     other amendments which may be offered at the last minute to 
     Title VIII of H.R. 4092. Any habeas reform measure should be 
     considered in a separate bill, after the public has had a 
     full and fair opportunity to comment on the proposed 
     legislation.
       In sum, while we strongly support habeas corpus reform, we 
     believe it should be accomplished in a deliberative, studied 
     and independent manner. For these reasons, we wholeheartedly 
     support the Hyde Amendment to strike the habeas provisions 
     (Title VIII) from H.R. 4092.


Support the Mc Collum Amendment (and Any Other Efforts to Strike Title 
IX); Oppose All Other Amendments to Title IX (Including the Edwards or 
                         Washington Amendments)

       With regard to Title IX of H.R. 4092, concerning racially 
     discriminatory capital sentencing, we strongly support the 
     McCollum Amendment, and any other efforts to strike Title IX 
     of H.R. 4092, as discussed below. The McCollum Amendment, 
     which passed the House in the last Congress, would (1) strike 
     Title IX (which provides relief based on mere statistical 
     showings from unrelated cases), and (2) substitute the Equal 
     Justice Act.
       Significantly, the McCollum Amendment would apply to all 
     penalties, not merely capital punishment, and would codify 
     existing case law protections against racial bias. The Equal 
     Justice Act expressly prohibits racially discriminatory 
     policies. The legislation states that any penalty ``shall be 
     administered . . . without regard to the race or color of the 
     defendant or the victim'' and prohibits ``any racial quota or 
     statistical test'' for any penalties. Finally, the Equal 
     Justice Act provides safeguards during the trial, not after-
     the-fact like statistical showings legislation.
       As the recent NAAG Resolution noted, NAAG opposes ``any 
     measure that would allow a capital defendant to make a 
     statistical showing from unrelated cases as the basis for 
     appellate or collateral relief.'' Such statistical showings 
     legislation seriously undermines enforcement of the death 
     penalty.
       In McCleskey v. Kemp, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a 
     claim which would allow capital defendants to make a 
     statistical showing of potential race discrimination from 
     unrelated cases as a basis for collateral relief. The Court 
     correctly held that a defendant who contests his capital 
     sentence on the basis of racial discrimination is required to 
     prove that the decision makers in his or her own case acted 
     with a discriminatory purpose.
       For these reasons, we strongly oppose title IX of H.R. 
     4092, or any amendment (including the Edwards and Washington 
     Amendments) which would overturn McCleskey v. Kemp or provide 
     appellate or collateral relief based on mere statistical 
     showings from unrelated cases.


                               Conclusion

       In sum, we strongly urge the U.S. House of Representatives 
     to: (1) support the Hyde Amendment and oppose all other 
     amendments which may be offered on Title VIII; and (2) 
     support the McCollum Amendment and oppose Title IX or any 
     other amendments which may be offered on Title IX. We oppose 
     any amendments or legislation which would weaken current law 
     or provide convicted individuals with greater opportunities 
     to challenge their conviction or sentence. We remain 
     available to work with you to accomplish meaningful federal 
     habeas corpus reform through separate legislation.
           Sincerely,
         Larry Echohawk, Attorney General of Idaho; Frankie Sue 
           Del Papa, Attorney General of Nevada; Dan Morales, 
           Attorney General of Texas; Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney 
           General of California; Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney 
           General of Montana; Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney 
           General of Florida; Grant Woods, Attorney General of 
           Arizona; Mark Barnett, Attorney General of South 
           Dakota; Michael F. Easley, Attorney General of North 
           Carolina; Bruce Botelho, Attorney General of Alaska; 
           James S. Gilmore, Attorney General of Virginia; Ernest 
           D. Preate, Jr., Attorney General of Pennsylvania; Heidi 
           Heitkamp, Attorney General of North Dakota; Jeff 
           Amestoy, Attorney General of Vermont; Jimmy Evans, 
           Attorney General of Alabama; Gale A. Norton, Attorney 
           General of Colorado; Robert A. Marks, Attorney General 
           of Hawaii; Deborah T. Portiz, Attorney General of New 
           Jersey; Joseph B. Meyer, Attorney General of Wyoming; 
           Jan Graham, Attorney General of Utah; Tom Udall, 
           Attorney General of New Mexico; Don Stenberg, Attorney 
           General of Nebraska; Jeffrey B. Pine, Attorney General 
           of Rhode Island; T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of 
           South Carolina; Robert T. Stephan, Attorney General of 
           Kansas; Pamela Carter, Attorney General of Indiana.
                                  ____


National Association of Attorneys General--Resolution Adopted March 21, 
                                  1994

       Whereas, the National Association of Attorneys General is 
     an organization composed of the Attorneys General of the 50 
     states and 6 jurisdictions of the United States;
       Whereas, the Attorneys General have been deeply involved in 
     seeking to influence comprehensive federal legislation in 
     order to achieve a meaningful and effective impact upon the 
     national scourge of violent crime;
       Whereas, the Congress has attempted several times in the 
     past three years to pass omnibus anti-crime measures with 
     provisions essential to combating violent crime, but has been 
     unsuccessful for various reasons;
       Whereas, the U.S. Senate passed an omnibus crime bill on 
     November 19, 1993, but purposefully did not include any 
     habeas corpus provisions, and it appears that including such 
     provisions in the U.S. House bill will unnecessarily 
     complicate the House's approval of a consensus-oriented bill, 
     as well as delay the passage of any worthwhile anti-crime 
     bill;
       Whereas, the National Association of Attorneys General has 
     previously resolved to oppose federal habeas reform 
     legislation which undermines finality and which promotes 
     unnecessary delay;
       Whereas, the National Association of Attorneys General 
     strongly supports existing protections against racial 
     prejudice in individual cases, but opposes any legislation 
     which provides appellate or collateral relief based on mere 
     statistical showings from unrelated cases;
       Whereas, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee recently 
     reported out: (1) legislation inconsistent with the 
     Association's previous resolutions addressing habeas corpus 
     reform; and (2) a measure that would allow a capital 
     defendant to make a statistical showing from unrelated cases 
     as the basis for appellate or collateral relief;
       Whereas, such legislation would adversely affect all 
     capital and non-capital habeas litigation in the States and 
     effectively stop all state capital case prosecutions and 
     executions under valid state capital sentencing schemes.
       Now, therefore, be it resolved that the National 
     Association of Attorneys General:
       (1) strongly supports all efforts to strike the following 
     provisions from an omnibus anti-crime bill: (1) any habeas 
     corpus reform legislation; and (2) any statistical showings 
     legislation; and
       (2) opposes H.R. 4018, or any federal habeas legislation 
     which undermines finality and promotes unnecessary delay, and 
     H.R. 4017, or any measure that would allow a capital 
     defendant to make a statistical showing from unrelated cases 
     as the basis or appellate or collateral relief; and
       (3) authorizes its Executive Director and General Counsel 
     to transmit this resolution to the Administration and Members 
     of Congress.
                                  ____

                                   Office of the Attorney General,


                                                State of Utah,

                                                   April 11, 1994.
     Re Habeas Corpus/Sentencing Legislation.

     Representative James Hansen,
     Rayburn Building, Washington, DC.
     Representative William H. Orton,
     South Langworth Office, Washington, DC.
     Representative Karen Shepherd,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives Hansen, Orton, and Shepherd: I am 
     writing this letter to advise you of my position relating the 
     Titles VIII and IX and H.R. 4092, the omnibus crime bill. My 
     comments are based not only on my office's analysis of the 
     issue but also my understanding of the position of the Utah 
     law enforcement community as a whole. I have had an 
     opportunity to talk with many of the top law enforcement 
     individuals in the State of Utah and I think we all agree on 
     the following analysis:
       H.R. 4092, Title VIII (concerning federal habeas corpus): I 
     oppose this title because, rather than curtaining habeas 
     litigation, it would multiply postconviction litigation, 
     overturn significant and very helpful U.S. Supreme Court 
     precedent, and further undermine the finality of state 
     criminal convictions.
       I support the Hyde Amendment, which would excise the 
     controversial habeas provisions from the present crime bill 
     and allow them to be considered separately on their own 
     merits.
       H.R. 4092, Title IX (concerning race in capital 
     sentencing): I oppose this title (the so-called ``Racial 
     Justice Act'') because it would impose an unworkable 
     statistically-based procedure on the states and in Utah's 
     case create a system that would be unworkable.
       I support the McCollum Amendment (the ``Equal Justice 
     Act'') because it would prohibit racial discrimination in all 
     sentencing without imposing unworkable statistical models.
       The Utah law enforcement community believes that Title VIII 
     and IX of H.R. 4092 would effectively abolish capital 
     punishment, weaken law enforcement, and suspend closure for 
     victims of violent crime. The provisions would also impose 
     significant new financial burdens on the State of Utah. I 
     urge you to oppose these provisions.
           Very truly yours,
                                                       Jan Graham,
                                                 Attorney General.
                                  ____

                                               California District


                                        Attorneys Association,

                                   Sacramento, CA, April 29, 1994.
     Re opposition to the Racial Justice Act.

     Mark Krotoski,
     Special Assistant Attorney General, Sacramento, CA.
       Dear Mr. Krotoski: I am enclosing a copy of the California 
     District Attorneys Association's unanimous resolution 
     opposing the Racial Justice Act.
       All 58 Elected District Attorneys in the State of 
     California believe that adoption of the Racial Justice Act 
     will effectively destroy the death penalty. We also oppose a 
     Racial Justice Act which would be limited to federal capital 
     cases, since it would be easy to extend the statute's 
     application to the States, in the next crime bill.
       We urge you to support an effort to strike this measure 
     from the Federal Crime Bill.
           Very truly yours,
                                                Gregory D. Totten,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____


California District Attorneys Association--Resolution Adopted April 29, 
                                  1994

       Whereas, the California District Attorneys Association is 
     an organization composed of the elected District Attorneys of 
     California's fifty-eight counties and 3,000 deputy district 
     attorneys and city prosecutors;
       Whereas, on April 21, 1994, the U.S. House of 
     Representatives adopted the omnibus crime bill, H.R. 4092, 
     which included in Title IX legislation, referred to, and 
     known as, the Racial Justice Act (or the Racially 
     Discriminatory Capital Sentencing Act);
       Whereas, on April 20, 1994, the U.S. House of 
     Representatives narrowly defeated the McCollum Amendment to 
     strike the Racial Justice Act from the House crime bill and 
     substitute in its place the Equal Justice Act. [The vote was 
     an effective 212 to 212 tie, after the votes of the five 
     Delegate members were excluded under recent House Rules.];
       Whereas, the Racial Justice Act would, first, permit a 
     capital case defendant to make a statistical showing that 
     death sentences are being imposed or administered in a 
     disproportionate manner upon (1) persons of one race or (2) 
     as punishment for capital offenses against persons of one 
     race, and, second, require the prosecutor to rebut this 
     statistical showing ``by a preponderance of the evidence'';
       Whereas, in the 102d Congress, on June 20, 1991, the U.S. 
     Senate voted to strike a similar measure entitled the Racial 
     Justice Act, out of the omnibus crime measure by a bipartisan 
     vote of 55 to 41 (this was the third successive Congress in 
     which the U.S. Senate rejected the Racial Justice Act), and 
     on October 22, 1991, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 
     to strike a similar measure by a bipartisan vote of 223 to 
     191;
       Whereas, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a discrimination 
     claim founded solely upon statistics, in McClesky v. Kemp, 
     481 U.S. 279 (1987).
       Now, therefore, be it resolved that in light of the urgency 
     and importance of this matter, all 58 California district 
     attorneys, having been polled, unanimously.
       (1) oppose any version of the Racial Justice Act, for the 
     following reasons:
       (a) the Racial Justice Act would result in the effective 
     abolition of capital punishment.
       This would result because of the inherent evidentiary 
     difficulties and inevitable vast expenditures of time and 
     money in litigation in every post-conviction capital case, to 
     prove by at least a preponderance of the evidence a negative, 
     to wit, that race was not the basis for any of the 
     prosecutor's jury's, or judge's decisions. [The Racial 
     Justice Act contains a virtually impossible rebuttal burden: 
     ``Unless [the prosecutor or State] can show that the death 
     penalty was sought in all cases fitting the statutory 
     criteria for imposition of the death penalty, the government 
     cannot rely on mere assertions that it did not intend to 
     discriminate or that the cases in which death was imposed fit 
     the statutory criteria for imposition of the death penalty.];
       (b) moreover, as to adjudicated cases, the retroactive 
     application of the Racial Justice Act would permit convicted 
     capital defendants to reopen their cases by presenting 
     discrimination claims (regardless of whether such claims had 
     previously been rejected). In California, there are currently 
     376 individuals on death row. The retroactive provision in 
     the Racial Justice Act as passed by the House would 
     potentially affect these cases as well as others around the 
     nation;
       (c) the statistical premise of any version of the Racial 
     Justice Act is unsound, for several reasons, including:
       (i) it disregards the fundamental precept of our criminal 
     justice system that an individual is tried on the facts of 
     his or her case, not on the facts or circumstances or 
     statistics from unrelated cases;
       (ii) it overturns the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of 
     such a statistical premise, where the Court noted with regard 
     to the Baldus study: ``Even Professor Baldus does not contend 
     that his statistics prove that race enters into any capital 
     sentencing decisions or that race was a factor in McCleskey's 
     particular case. Statistics at most may show only a 
     likelihood that a particular factor entered into some 
     decisions.'' McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 308 (1987) 
     (emphasis in original); and
       (iii) its statistical showing fails to establish that the 
     imposition of capital punishment in a particular case is 
     predicated on any bias; and
       (d) the Racial Justice Act would permit the ``second-
     guessing'' of capital case decisions by prosecutors, defense 
     counsel, judges and juries based upon the information and 
     statistics required to be maintained under the Act;
       (e) the Racial Justice Act eliminates the traditional 
     deference to state-court findings of fact, 28 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 2254(d); Summer v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539 (1981), if the 
     state fails to collect or maintain adequate records required 
     under the Act, and causes the individual conviction, though 
     lawfully and justifiably imposed, to be unduly placed in 
     jeopardy;
       (f) the potential cost of compliance on states and local 
     entities would be exorbitant, as demonstrated by one 
     California case (In re Earl Jackson) which took three years 
     to prepare for an evidentiary hearing and cost more than 
     $1,000,000. The evidentiary hearing was never held, after the 
     McCleskey v. Kemp ruling was rendered;
       (g) the Racial Justice Act encourages a quota system for 
     capital punishment cases by in effect introducing ``race 
     consciousness'' into capital case decisions.
       (2) opposes any legislation which would undermine or 
     otherwise modify the holding in McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 
     279 (1987);
       (3) calls upon the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. 
     Senate to reject any version of the Racial Justice Act as 
     part of any package of federal habeas corpus reform or any 
     crime bill;
       (4) opposes any legislation, including the omnibus crime 
     bill to be reported by the conference committee, which 
     includes any version of the Racial Justice Act. Any 
     meaningful provisions contained in the crime bill are 
     completely undermined by inclusion of the Racial Justice Act, 
     which is antithetical to fundamental notions under our 
     criminal justice system. If the omnibus crime bill contains 
     any version of the Racial Justice Act, we recommend it be 
     voted down until this legislation is removed.
       Be it further resolved by the California District Attorneys 
     Association that its Executive Director shall transmit a copy 
     of this resolution to the U.S. Senators and Representatives 
     in the California delegation and to members of the Senate and 
     House Committees on the Judiciary.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________