[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 76 (Thursday, June 16, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 16, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 3355, VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND 
                      LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, as I announced yesterday, I offer a 
privileged motion to instruct conferees on the bill (H.R. 3355) to 
amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow 
grants to increase police presence, to expand and improve cooperative 
efforts between law enforcement agencies and members of the community 
to address crime and disorder problems, and otherwise to enhance public 
safety.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. McCollum moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the 
     bill H.R. 3355 be instructed not to agree to Title IX, 
     relating to racially discriminatory sentencing, of the House 
     amendment or to any similar provision.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and a Member opposed will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Edwards] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a motion to instruct conferees on the crime bill 
regarding the so-called Racial Justice Act. It is to instruct them to 
strike title IX, which is the Racial Justice Act in its entirety. This 
is singularly the most contentious issue facing the conferees and 
facing this Congress on the entire issue related to crime.
  Mr. Speaker, what this so-called provision does that was in the House 
bill, and is not in the Senate bill, and was adopted by this body when 
we tried to strike it by a virtual tie vote--it came out of the 
Committee on the Judiciary this way--what it does is it sets up a 
scheme whereby an inference of racial discrimination arises in cases 
involving capital punishment whenever there is a significant factor of 
racial disparity, either in the sentencing for capital punishment or in 
the recommendations of the prosecutors around the country in 
jurisdictions that have the death penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, the effective result of that process of using statistics 
is going to be that virtually every jurisdiction in this country, 
whether that is a State or a court jurisdiction, that has the death 
penalty is going to be found to have racially discriminated in death 
penalty cases because there will be a statistical disparity inherent in 
this process.
  The burden that then is placed upon a prosecutor to overcome this 
particular inference that is placed in law every time he tries to seek 
the death penalty in future cases, or tries to overcome the problems 
raised by those sitting on death row right now when they raised this 
point with him, that burden is so great that the prosecutors all tell 
us they will never be able to overcome it.
  They are not able to do things they would normally do, because the 
legislative or proposed language that would go into the law under this 
proposal is such that they cannot produce witnesses who say, ``We did 
not discriminate,'' they cannot produce a jury, they cannot produce the 
judge, they cannot produce anyone. They are going to have to use 
statistics to rebut statistics, which is absolute nonsense.
  Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that this provision is a back doorway 
to effectively end the death penalty in this country, and to abolish 
it. I think a lot of us understood that, Mr. Speaker, when it came up 
here, but many may not have when it came up on the House floor before.
  It is tonight an opportunity for this body to send a signal to our 
conferees that we have had time to think about this process, and that 
we understand it, and that we are ready now to instruct them to strike 
this provision and to not go forward with it in the conference with the 
Senate, since there is no like provision in the Senate version of it.
  Mr. Speaker, what I would suggest that we do in looking at this is to 
look at the overall picture just for a second. Mr. Speaker, if we are 
looking at race as a basis of sentencing in capital cases, we have to 
understand first of all that over the past 10 years or so, 
approximately 47 percent of all murder victims in this country were 
black; only 12 percent of the population is black. Ninety-four percent 
of those who murdered those 47 percent who were murder victims in the 
country were themselves black.
  If we start playing with statistics and basing the entire question of 
whether there is discrimination in capital cases on the basis of 
comparing the number of those who are in the minority, say blacks in 
this case, who receive the death penalty, versus those in the general 
population who are white versus those who are black, we wind up with a 
disparity, no matter how we look at it, in that sense.

  That, I venture to say, in most communities in this country that are 
minority communities, let us say black communities, if we would ask 
them, they would be more than happy to say, ``We want you to be tough. 
We want the death penalty to be given to people who are murdering our 
neighbors and our friends and our children.'' Almost all victims' 
organizations concur in that, regardless of their race.
  This is a bogeyman argument on the basis that there is some kind of 
discrimination going out there in our court jurisdictions. I do not 
think it exists personally, and to the degree it does exist, the way to 
address it is not with this absolutely rigid formula that is designed 
not to get at the problem of discrimination, but is designed to abolish 
the death penalty in this country and make it impossible to ever have 
it again.
  Mr. Speaker, we offered here on the floor, when the time arose 
earlier to do that and the bill was out, an alternative called the 
Equal Justice Act.

                              {time}  1810

  It would have gone step by step through the process of a court 
consideration of a capital case and set forth procedures that would 
assure there would be no discrimination in jury selection, in the 
arguments by prosecutors to the jurors, in the process of handling the 
case all the way through. But unfortunately that was not adopted, and 
we are left here tonight with the opportunity only to reject what 
actually is in the bill that left here and the words to conferees not 
to proceed.
  Mr. Speaker, 38 attorneys general of the various States have said 
what I am saying tonight. They are saying if this becomes law, there 
will not be a death penalty in this country again in any jurisdiction 
where it exists today, and if there is ever going to be another one 
tried in this country and prosecutors attempt to establish the death 
penalty in some jurisdiction where there has not been a track record, 
they are going to have to do it on the basis of quotas, racial quotas 
for murderers. I find that to be abhorrent. I do not think most of the 
body wants that. I am confident that they do not. That is the reason 
why I am offering this motion to instruct this evening. I want there to 
be no mistake about it. I understand the probability of success on this 
motion may be limited, but anybody who is going back home to face their 
voters this fall ought to know that they are going to be asked about 
this. They are going to be asked about it by the prosecutors in their 
jurisdictions in their home States, and they should be. They are going 
to be asked about it by the voters who have heard by now and certainly 
by then from their prosecutors and their attorneys general how terrible 
this provision is and what it really means, and, that is, the end of 
the death penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity for the House to correct a wrong 
and do it ourselves and make sure the conferees have a clear message. 
That is the reason for offering this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Mr. EDWARDS of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Speaker, this is a totally unnecessary 
motion by the gentleman from Florida. It needlessly makes it more 
difficult for the conferees to operate. The conferees have already met, 
we met this afternoon, and there are a lot of things going on, 
agreements and disagreements and compromises being made insofar as this 
racial justice portion of the bill. The bill that will come out of the 
conference will be entirely different from the racial justice portion 
of the bill that was approve by the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it would be helpful if the gentleman would 
withdraw his motion because we think it is unnecessary, it gets in the 
way, and perhaps is just a maneuver to complicate the crime bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner].
  (Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Edwards] is probably the most preeminent opponent of the death penalty 
in the Congress. I respect him for that. He takes a very sincere and 
intellectually consistent position. But I disagree with it. The Racial 
Justice Act very clearly is a way to prevent anybody from being 
executed in this county. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] is 
correct, and the fact that the gentleman from California [Mr. Edwards] 
has chosen to lead the opposition to this motion to instruct, I think 
lets the cat out of the bag.
  Mr. Speaker, really what we ought to be doing in terms of the context 
of the crime bill is making sure that justice is given with compassion 
to the victims of crime. As the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] 
has stated, most often the victims of crimes committed by members of 
minority groups are members of the same minority group. So we do not 
have a quota system for victims being discussed here, but we are having 
a quota system for criminals being discussed here.
  When a criminal who is convicted by a jury of their peers commits a 
crime on a victim of the same race or the same minority group, having 
this type of a quota system, I think, completely ignores what the 
rights of the victims are. Our criminal justice system has gotten off 
the track because it has become too defendant-oriented and not enough 
society-oriented and not enough victim-oriented. The Racial Justice Act 
is another case of a defendant-oriented provision that might find its 
way into law.
  Mr. Speaker, contrary to my friend, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Edwards] striking out the Racial Justice Act will make a crime 
bill a lot easier to pass through the Congress and to get on the 
President's desk. I believe that the Racial Justice Act is one of the 
principal impediments to getting a good crime bill through the 
conference, and through the Senate, and through the House of 
Representatives. That is why I think this motion to instruct is 
essential. If we get the Racial Justice Act out of the way, I think it 
will be much, much easier to get a crime bill through by the time of 
the Fourth of July recess.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the gentleman from California 
has any further speakers on his side. I have a number on mine.
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have reserved the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I join in the motion made by the gentleman from Florida. 
The fact of the matter is that the so-called Racial Justice Act means 
that in all probability there will be little or no death penalty 
actions in this county if it becomes law. That is not only true of the 
new death penalties that have been so touted by the administration in 
the crime bill that is pending before us, but it is also true of State 
government death penalty actions that are pending. That is why the 
National District Attorneys Association and the National Association of 
Attorneys General have come out against this act.
  The gentleman from California has suggested ``Well, it is already 
being change.'' My response is it has not changed yet. Right now the 
so-called Racial Justice Act is the act on the books. The reason that 
the District Attorneys and Attorneys General oppose it is that it 
provides an unlimited use of statistics to avoid the death penalty.
  In the first place, the Racial Justice Act is not limited by race. 
That is, there is no limitation of which persons of which race can 
raise this as a defense in a death penalty action. It applies, in other 
words, to everybody.

  Second of all, it is not limited in terms of who the person in the 
criminal case is for whom these statistics should apply. It could be 
the defendant, but it could also be the victim.
  Third, it is not limited to how the statistics are applied. The 
argument could be made that whatever statistical analysis is presented 
that the statistics between this defendant and defendants in comparable 
cases are different. It could be argued that the cases between this 
defendant and all persons arrested for murder are different. It could 
be argued that the statistics between this defendant or this victim and 
that person's racial numbers in the general population are different.
  Putting all those together presents a combination that can be argued 
virtually endlessly. For example, a Caucasian defendant in a death 
penalty case could argue that he received the death penalty case could 
argue that he received the death penalty because of racially motivated 
reasons because his victim was Caucasian and the number of cases that 
received the death penalty where Caucasians are victims exceeds the 
percentage of Caucasians in the population generally. That is just one 
example about how all of these statistics can be put together. If they 
are put together, the next step is the burden goes to the prosecutor. 
If there is a statistical showing in any one of these endless ways of 
racial disparity, the prosecutor must then prove that the racial 
disparity is not due to racial discrimination. This forces the 
prosecutor to prove a negative which is an impossibility to begin with.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by alluding to what I think was the 
reference by the gentleman from California to propose changes in the 
so-called Racial Justice Act presuming that we may, in fact, get there. 
At least the press discussions are that the so-called compromise would 
make the death penalty subject to employment type of pattern and 
practice discrimination cases.
  Mr. Speaker, that is still a problem and it is still an equal 
problem. In the first place, the death penalty and murder cases are not 
like employment. A number of jobs in an assembly line at a business may 
be the same. I can say after a career as a criminal prosecutor, having 
prosecuted personally many murder cases, having defended some murder 
cases, that no two murder cases are ever the same. Further, the pattern 
and practice approach to employment is argued when there is one 
employer making a decision. In other words, the statistics are argued 
that this employer hired this person and this person and did not hire 
that person and another person. In the death penalty and in murder 
cases, there is more than one decisionmaker. There is a prosecutor, 
there is a judge, and there is a jury and they can be different in each 
case. That is why I think the compromise that is supposedly coming will 
not work, either.

                              {time}  1820

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Canady].
  Mr. CANADY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that if the Members of this House would be out 
and talking to the American people, they would find that the last thing 
the American people want is a new law giving death row inmates more 
opportunities to challenge their death sentences, and that is exactly 
what the so-called Racial Justice Act will give death row inmates.
  It is undeniable that this new law would substantially impede the 
application of death sentences in jurisdictions throughout this 
country. That means that a vote against the motion to instruct 
conferees is a clear vote against a workable death penalty in this 
country. That in itself should be enough to settle the matter. But 
there is more.
  The Racial Justice Act flies in the face of the foundational 
principles of the American system of justice. Under that system, the 
administration of justice is individualized. Individuals charged with a 
crime are tried and sentenced based on the unique facts of their case. 
It is the circumstances of the particular crime which are at issue when 
the case goes before the judge and jury. Individuals are sentenced to 
death because their individual conduct merits the ultimate penalty.
  The Racial Justice Act would destroy this structure of justice in 
America. It would create an environment in which considerations of race 
are central to death penalty cases. It would force prosecutors, judges, 
and juries to focus on the issue of race in all murder cases. Is that 
what this House really wants?
  Nothing could be more out of step with the ideals and goals of our 
system of justice. It would be a travesty for the House to allow this 
attack on the fundamental principles of justice to go forward.
  Individuals should be tried and sentenced based on the facts of their 
individual case. Our system of trial by jury should not be subordinated 
to studies concocted by sociologists. Justice is not about statistics. 
Americans do not want punishment meted out by statisticians. They 
certainly do not want racial quotas for the death penalty.
  This House should adopt the motion to instruct conferees.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to our distinguished 
minority whip, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich].
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to first of all commend the 
gentleman from Florida for bringing up this motion to instruct 
conferees.
  I think there are a number of reasons to vote for this motion to 
instruct. As my colleagues know, the other body has voted down the idea 
of establishing quotas for convicted murderers, and the other body will 
not accept this particular provision. So if you want to pass a crime 
bill in a reasonably prompt manner, we should take this out.
  But there is a deeper principle at stake here. Most Americans believe 
in an effective, believable death penalty. Most Americans know that the 
long, drawn-out appeals process has undermined the death penalty.
  As the attorney general of Georgia, Michael Bowers, pointed out 
recently, we had a killer who was executed in Georgia 16 years after he 
was convicted. Attorney General Bowers was a law student when this 
killer was tried. He is now the attorney general of Georgia, and has 
been reelected twice during the period that this particular murderer 
was on death row appealing.
  The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that there are 4,000 convicted 
murderers on death row across America already trapped into an appeals 
process that makes no sense, an appeals process that, for example, has 
people like John Wayne Gacy, who was convicted of killing over a dozen 
young men and has admitted to killing 33, who spent over a decade 
sitting and waiting. In John Wayne Gacy's case, it was such a sickening 
process, when he was finally executed, we had a week of television 
coverage of the art work he had done while in prison. We did not have 
coverage of the 33 families who lost a loved one because this man had 
killed a member of their family.
  So we have this process by which defense attorneys and liberals do 
everything they can to destroy the death penalty by delay and by 
avoidance, and now what happens; here is a provision which the 
Philadelphia Inquirer estimated would apply to 4,000 already convicted 
murderers. This would give them another automatic right of appeal. It 
would in fact require the taxpayers to pay for the appeal. You would 
have another year or 2 years or 3 years of additional appeals.
  Attorney general of California Dan Lungren testified that in one case 
the appeal cost the State of California over $1 million because this 
type of argument required that the State prove a negative, that it 
prove that it did not in any way under any circumstance have any 
discrimination of any kind, rather than requiring the murderer to prove 
a positive, namely, that there was discrimination. Now, at $1 million a 
case, that means the people of America who want an effective, 
believable death penalty are being asked to accept an additional 2 or 3 
years of appeals at a potential cost of $4 billion for people who are 
already convicted of murder and have already been sentenced to the 
death penalty.
  There is a deeper problem with this particular provision. It ceases 
to deal with murderers as individuals. It ceases to deal with crimes as 
individual acts, and it begins to group people together on a fairly 
bizarre principle, the principle that who you kill racially matters, or 
that your own race matters.
  Let me just give you two examples: Imagine that a murderer is 
convicted who is 50-percent Chinese and 50-percent Hispanic. Is the 
prosecutor to look at that year's quota system to decide whether this 
should count as an Asian or a Hispanic based on the number of people 
who have been sentenced to death? Or imagine that you have five white 
potential murderers, five Hispanic potential murderers, five Asian 
potential murderers, five black potential murderers, all coming up in 
New York City or Los Angeles, and the district attorney is sitting 
there looking at the cases. Do you decide based on convictions attained 
so far this year which ones you try for life and which ones you try for 
the death penalty? And you weight them based on how many death 
penalties you already have gotten this year by race?
  It seems to me this is the most grotesque anti-American concept I 
have heard of. It is profoundly wrong to start lumping Americans 
together based on genetic code. Americans should be tried as 
individuals for crimes they commit as individuals. They should be 
sentenced as individuals. They should appeal as individuals.
  Anyone who votes against this motion to instruct needs to understand 
what you are doing. If you vote against this motion to instruct, you 
are voting for more appeals. If you vote against this motion to 
instruct, you are voting to ask the taxpayers to pay at least $4 
billion, paying for defending against these appeals.
  If you vote against this motion to instruct, you are voting to allow 
murderers to sit even longer and be even further away from the act for 
which they were sentenced to death.
  If you vote against this motion to instruct, you are voting to count 
people by racial blocks rather than as individuals, and you are voting 
to create a quota system in the most grotesque way possible, a quota 
for murderers on death row.
  I beg my colleagues to look at this carefully and for the good of 
this country to vote yes on this motion to instruct.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to first of all inquire how 
much time I have, and I ask the Chair if I have the right to close.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wise). The gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum] has the right to close, and the gentleman from Florida has 9 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers but myself, and I 
would be the closing speaker for our side, I say to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will close at this point by reiterating what it is we 
are about today. We are about an opportunity to instruct the conferees 
on the part of the House to strike in essence from the House provisions 
the so-called Racial Justice Act. We are the only body in the 
conference on the crime bill who have this provision.
  I would like to do a couple of quotes for everybody here so we 
understand what we are dealing with. First of all, the idea that there 
is, indeed, a problem of racial discrimination in the whole area of 
capital sentencing has been pretty well debunked.
  I have here a newspaper article from a May issue of the Washington 
Times, May 16, 1994, a very long article. It says, ``Research Debunks 
Idea of Racial Bias in Death Sentences.'' In the very first section of 
this long article, it says the study by the Rand Corp. in California 
found that with controls for variables such as severity and number of 
crimes committed, there is no disparity between those sentences to 
death for killing whites and those on death row for killing blacks.

                              {time}  1830

  And this is a real long statistical study in itself. I also would 
like to point to the absurdity of this which has been written about by 
a distinguished columnist, Mr. George Will, in his column of May 19, 
1994, which was produced after this body had passed this particular 
provision. He says, in part, and I quote,

       About half of America's murder victims are white, about 
     half are black. But about 85 percent of the victims whose 
     killers have been executed were white. So juries place a 
     higher value on the deaths of whites, right? Not so fast.
       Capital punishment is especially apt to be imposed on 
     killers of police officers. Eighty-five percent of murdered 
     police officers are white. Are juries placing high value on 
     the lives of white people or police officers?
       Juries' sympathies may vary with the moral character of the 
     victim. A higher percentage of black murder victims than of 
     white victims are killed while involved in illegal drug 
     activities.
       Prosecutors are more apt to seek capital punishment when a 
     murder is committed during the commission of another crime 
     such as robbery or rape. According to one broad survey, 20 
     percent of white murder victims and 12 percent of black 
     victims are killed by persons committing another crime.
       Since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976, 232 
     persons (as of several weeks ago) have been executed. Of 
     those, 91--39 percent--were black, more than three times the 
     black percentage of the population. However, since 1976 the 
     annual percentages of blacks among those convicted of 
     homicide have ranged from 44 to 52. If those statistics prove 
     discrimination, does it favor or injure blacks?

  The bottom line of all of this, I think, is pretty simple, given that 
95 percent, I say it is 94 but I will not quibble over 1, but Mr. Will 
says of murdered blacks are killed by blacks, the result might be more 
executions of blacks if we harshly impose a rigid quota system. The 
bottom line is a number of studies and distinguished commentators do 
not believe we have a racially biased system in capital punishment, and 
I do not. But even more telling is the fact that the attorneys general 
and the District Attorneys Associations have said this is really going 
to mess up the whole works and going to mean the end of capital 
punishment.
  I have a letter here dated June 16, 1994, to me, addressed by William 
C. O'Malley, the president of the National District Attorneys 
Association. And I read it:

       It is the understanding of this Association that you will 
     introduce a motion instructing the members of the House at 
     the Conference on the Crime Bill not to agree to Title IX 
     (the ``Racial Justice Act''). The National District Attorneys 
     Association gives full support to this motion and urges the 
     members of the House to give full weight of consideration to 
     the voices of their district attorneys.
       The 7000 members of this organization serve daily as the 
     ``people prosecutors;'' we lead them in their fight against 
     crime in every city and county across America. We hear and 
     understand their frustration with a system of criminal law 
     that leads to endless delays and we do, despite the beliefs 
     of some members of Congress, understand the implications of 
     this Act.
       We cannot support an Act that attacks the very foundation 
     of our system nor can we ignore the voices of the people we 
     serve. If the people of the United States are against 
     imposition of the death penalty, then let them attest to such 
     in their state legislatures; if they believe that an 
     individual should not be held accountable for his or her 
     acts, then let us make the decision in open debate.
       If passed, the ``Racial Justice Act'' will lead to never-
     ending litigation and a mounting frustration by the American 
     people that the system of law does not work. You, as the 
     members of Congress, and we, as the peoples prosecutors, will 
     ultimately be held accountable to our citizens for this 
     frustration and fear. The Crime Bill has many features to 
     recommend it, we urge you not to let the provisions 
     pertaining to racially discriminatory sentencing condemn it 
     to ignominy.

  I would suggest, my colleagues, that we listen to the prosecutors of 
this Nation who have stated it correctly, this is not the kind of 
provision we want in a crime bill. We have again tonight the 
opportunity to do something about it by passing this motion to instruct 
conferees. One of the district attorneys wrote a letter, of which I 
have a copy, to the Los Angeles Times. The letter is reproduced with a 
caption that reads, ``Bill Seeks Racial Quotas on Death Row.'' I should 
correct that; it was not the Times, it was the Los Angeles Daily News, 
dated June 6, 1994. This is by Gil Garcetti, the Los Angeles district 
attorney, who says, and I quote:

       Rather than consider capital punishment on a case by case 
     basis, the act would bog down the criminal justice system 
     with impossible and inappropriate statistical comparisons 
     that would result in the elimination of the death penalty.

  How more precise can you be than Mr. Garcetti, the prosecutor, chief 
prosecutor of one of the largest counties, maybe the largest county in 
our Nation? The attorney general of California has also written, making 
the same kind of statement to us, Dan Lungren, who once served in this 
body, a distinguished Member at the time and now the attorney general 
of that great State. The bottom line is very simple for this body, we 
have the opportunity tonight to instruct our conferees to strike this 
ridiculous and harmful position and not go forward in conference with 
it. We have an opportunity to say to our conferees on the crime bill, 
``When you come up in the next couple of days and make your final 
decisions, then drop this provision.'' I think if Members have 
reflected, heard from their constituents, heard from their attorneys 
general in the States where the death penalty is there and the 
attorneys general of all the States, Democrat and Republican alike, 
then the vote tonight will be clearly the right vote. That will be to 
vote to instruct the conferees to strike title 9 as I have proposed. I 
fear that indeed the circumstances will be otherwise. But again I wish 
to admonish my colleagues that this is a very significant thing. There 
is probably nothing more significant that we will vote on in terms of 
crime legislation in this Congress or perhaps in many a Congress than 
taking out and making sure that this provision never becomes law, that 
will effectively end the death penalty in the Nation as we know it 
today. And if we do not act tonight accordingly, if this motion goes 
down, make no mistake, the voters of this Nation will speak in 
November, they will remember how you voted on this legislation, and I 
strongly in the strongest of words encourage you to do the responsible 
thing, vote for the McCollum motion to instruct conferees to strike and 
not go along with the title 9 Racial Justice Act in the crime bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wise). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
conferees offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 264, 
nays 149, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 253]

                               YEAS--264

     Allard
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Castle
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Weldon
     Whitten
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--149

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Grandy
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hastings
     Hinchey
     Hochbrueckner
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kopetski
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Long
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Pickle
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Bereuter
     Brooks
     Clay
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Fish
     Grams
     Hilliard
     Hyde
     McCurdy
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Murphy
     Reynolds
     Ridge
     Rush
     Schroeder
     Tucker
     Valentine
     Washington
     Yates

                              {time}  1858

  Mr. de la GARZA, Ms. FURSE, and Mrs. MALONEY changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. KLECZKA, PETERSON of Florida, DURBIN, PARKER, GORDON, STUPAK, 
FAZIO, PASTOR, and ROEMER, Ms. ENGLISH of Arizona, and Ms. LAMBERT 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to instruct conferees was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________