[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 8, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1425-H1434]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1995
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, in continuing my opposition against the
biggest throwback amendment of all, I must express my shock and
disappointment at the gentleman from California for really attempting
to end Federal habeas corpus, if even the most minimal State guarantees
are satisfied.
[[Page H1426]] Presumably the bill, the crime bill, has been reported
by the subcommittee, the full committee, it is now on the floor, and
now from the Republican ranks we now have another amendment that even
vitiates the provisions, the very modest provisions, in the McCollum
bill, and so we would end up with not even one bite at the apple which
I thought was awfully scarce, no right to counsel even in a
postconviction proceeding.
So the result with the 50 States would have 50 different standards
for protecting Federal constitutional rights. I do not think that we
would want this kind of provision put in the bill under any
circumstances.
{time} 1850
The full and fair issue was deadlocked in the other body last year,
and this amendment is another attempt to pass it again.
I urge overwhelming rejection of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
[Mr. Watt].
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me, although I doubt I will take 4 minutes.
I do not know what I can say about this. I just want to make sure
people understand what it is we are doing here.
All of my colleagues and the American people are getting, if this
amendment passes, the Federal courts completely out of the habeas
business. You will not have any Federal habeas rights if this bill
passes, because in order for you to get in the Federal court, the
Federal court would have to find that a decision that was rendered in
the State court was arbitrary or unreasonable interpretation of clearly
established Federal law, resulted in a decision that was based on an
arbitrary and unreasonable application to the facts, resulted in a
decision that was based on an arbitrary and unreasonable determination
of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State
proceeding. And what you are doing, really, is inviting rock-throwing
between the Federal courts and State courts.
Now, we know how gentlemanly and cordial the courts have been with
each other. Federal courts never ever say to a State court that,
``Court, you have been arbitrary and unreasonable.'' That would not
even be gentlemanly, would not even be proper protocol, almost, in a
Federal court.
I have never seen a Federal court say to a State court, ``Judge, you
have been arbitrary and unreasonable.'' That is the kind of stuff that
we say to claimants when they file lawsuits.
So here we are now inviting the Federal courts to start throwing
rocks at the State court and the State court to start throwing rocks
back at the Federal court and doing away with even the one opportunity
that was guaranteed, or at least provided in the underlying bill. And
we are doing it, I would add, without the benefit of one iota of
discussion in committee about it.
I have been banging my head against this wall all day, and I am sure
you are going to do whatever you want to do. But at least if you are
going to do this, have somebody came in and present some evidence that
it makes sense. Ask Federal judges if they think it is a good idea for
them to start saying to State judges that, ``You are arbitrary and
unreasonable.'' It just does not happen.
So the practical effect of what you are doing is to say that you are
never going to have any rights in the habeas arena in Federal court.
I encourage my colleagues to be reasonable and defect this proposed
amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina, my colleague.
Mr. Chairman, may I remind my friends on the other side on the
Committee on the Judiciary that this matter has never come up before
that I can recall, before the Committee on the Judiciary. The gentleman
from California [Mr. Cox] has never appeared before the committee.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Not in this Congress, but it certainly came up in other
Congresses.
Mr. CONYERS. Just a minute, please. I will be happy to yield time. We
have never considered this matter in this 104th Congress. It has never
come up, was never the subject of an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I will give the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] a
chance to correct anything he would like to correct. But this has never
been put before the Committee on the Judiciary for a vote, and the
gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] has never presented this subject
matter before, and we are literally blind-sided in the last hour of
this debate on this very important part where you have advanced the
habeas part of the Contract With America, and now we have another
amendment that goes in a completely different way.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I would yield to my friend, the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Crime.
Mr. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out to the gentleman that at
hearings of the subcommittee, on January 19, 1995, we had two panels on
habeas corpus reform, and both panels addressed this question. One
panel involved the Attorney General of California, Daniel Lungren.
Attorney General Lungren spent a great deal of time discussing and
arguing for the full and fair concept that Mr. Cox is advocating here
tonight.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I was there. He did mention, it was rather
fulsome testimony on a great range of subjects. But I could hardly
consider that that was the notice that we needed to come here tonight.
In the markup, it was never mentioned at all. As a matter of fact, it
was the gentleman's provisions on habeas that we gave great attention
to.
Mr. Chairman, I yield further to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] if, in fact, testimony was
presented and the committee then dealt with this and thought it was a
wonderful idea, why was it not in the original bill? Why are we coming
to the floor with it at the 99th hour on this bill and dealing with it
in 10 minutes of debate?
If you all thought it was a great idea, I would have thought you
would have incorporated it into the bill.
Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentleman will yield further.
Mr. CONYERS. Briefly.
Mr. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman.
Briefly, the idea of 10 minutes of debate was by unanimous consent
request. We did not have to follow that.
Second, it has come to the floor the way it has. The gentleman from
California [Mr. Cox] is not a member of the committee. We did not bring
it up, the committee did not bring it up. He has a right to bring it
up, to bring it forward, and he has.
The CHAIRMAN. The time is controlled by the gentleman from California
[Mr. Cox], who has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. COX of California. I thank the Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I just point out that the language of the amendments
says reasonable. It also says arbitrary. But a separate standard is
reasonable. It is arbitrary or unreasonable.
Obviously, the reasonableness test is the more difficult to meet.
Simply stated, the Federal courts will defer to reasonable decisions
on the facts, reasonable decisions on the law, and reasonable decisions
on mixed questions of law and fact made at the State courts.
That is exactly what they should do because after all we are already
requiring in this bill that criminal defendants exhaust all of their
State remedies, if they go through trial, if they have an appeal, if
they have another appeal, and so on. All of this within the State court
system.
But if habeas corpus, statutory habeas corpus is available simply to
throw out the whole State judicial system, why do we have it in the
first place? If we are going to look at all of these questions from
scratch, de novo, facts, evidence, law, the whole thing, as if the
State proceeding had never happened, then Robert Alton Harris would be
able to, in the future, to be able to delay his execution for 13 more
years.
[[Page H1427]]
(The letter referred to by Mr. Cox of California is as follows:)
February 8, 1995.
Hon. Henry Hyde,
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hyde: We would first of all like to thank you
for your tireless effort on behalf of habeas corpus reform.
As Attorneys General for our respective states we are
confronted with a system of federal habeas review that is
often intrusive, cumbersome, and time consuming. It also
imposes a great cost on victims of crime and undermines
finality in our criminal justice system.
The central problem underlying federal habeas corpus review
is a lack of comity and respect for state judicial decisions.
The lower federal courts should simply not be relitigating
matters that were handled properly and reasonably by the
state judicial systems. This not in any way a criticism of
those who serve in the federal judiciary, but rather a
demonstration of the need for Congressional action to reform
the federal statutory scheme.
In this regard, we strongly support an amendment that will
be offered by Congressman Christopher Cox to title I H.R.
729, which would give deference to state court decisions on
federal habeas review, as long as the state courts acted
reasonably in their adjudication of the case. Specifically,
the amendment would provide:
An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a
person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court
shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was
decided on the merits in state proceedings unless the
adjudication of the claim:
1. resulted in a decision that was based on an arbitrary or
unreasonable interpretation of clearly established federal
law as articulated in the decisions of the Supreme Court of
the United States;
2. resulted in a decision that was based on an arbitrary or
unreasonable application to the facts of clearly established
federal law as articulated in the decisions of the Supreme
Court of the United States; or
3. resulted in a decision that was based on an arbitrary or
unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the
evidence presented in the state proceeding.
We believe that meaningful habeas corpus reform must
contain such a standard of deference to reasonable state
court decisions. This is essential if the trial of criminal
defendants is to be the ``main event'' rather than a sideshow
for ultimate resolution of the case on federal habeas corpus
review.
Thank you again for your continued effort on behalf of
prosecutors and crime victims. We look forward to working
with you on this and other issues in the future.
Sincerely,
Dan Morales, Attorney General of Texas; Grant E. Woods,
Attorney General of Arizona; Franie Sue Del Papa,
Attorney General of Nevada; Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney
General of California; W. A. Drew Edmondson, Attorney
General of Oklahoma; Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney
General of Montana; Pamela Carter, Attorney General of
Indiana, Jeff Sessions, Attorney General of Alabama;
Ernest D. Preate, Jr., Attorney General of
Pennsylvania.
____
The Harris Case for Habeas Corpus Reform
On July 5, 1978, Robert Alton Harris murdered two teenage
boys in San Diego. Two days later, he was arraigned.
On March 6, 1979, the San Diego Superior Court pronounced
judgment on Harris, following a trial in which the jury
convicted him of two counts of first degree murder and
returned a death sentence.
Five days before execution, Gov. Wilson denied Harris's
application for clemency. Harris filed his 9th state habeas
corpus petition and 4th federal habeas corpus petition.
In the next four days, Harris filed his 5th and 6th federal
habeas corpus petitions.
Harris was even the named plaintiff in a class action filed
in U.S. district court on behalf of all California death-row
inmates. The suit alleged that the gas chamber was a cruel
and unusual means of execution and sought a stay on Harris'
execution.
On April 21, 1992, Harris was finally executed.
The total delay from judgment to execution was 13 years.
In all, Harris filed 6 federal habeas corpus petitions.
69% of the 141 significant events in the Harris proceedings
occurred in federal court. Only 31% occurred at the state
level.
the harris case is not unique--that's the tragedy
One Ninth Circuit Judge has called the Harris case, even
before its particularly egregious final rounds of litigation,
``a textbook example'' of the abuse of federal habeas corpus.
While 400 prisoners have been sentenced to death in
California since the state reinstated the death penalty in
1978, only Robert Alton Harris and David Mason have been
executed.
Today, there are 125 California death penalty cases before
the federal courts.
A similar case in Washington state: 4 federal habeas corpus
petitions dragged out for 12 years the execution of Charles
Campbell. Campbell was a convicted rapist who murdered 3
people while on work furlough from prison. The victims were
his earlier rape victim, a neighbor who had testified against
him, and her 8-year-old daughter. The 9th Circuit took 5
years to resolve must one of the habeas corpus petitions.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] to
close.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
would like to say that everything we are doing here is reasonable. If
there is a full and fair review of the provisions by the courts, the
Federal courts, of what is going on underneath, and if the lower courts
have made this decision, why should one Federal judge overturn the
rulings of the State court judge, five State intermediate appellate
courts, and perhaps nine Supreme Court justices.?
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 30
additional seconds.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
{time} 1900
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I just want everybody in this Chamber to
know that, as opposed as I am to this Draconian amendment offered by
the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], ironically, if adopted, it may
be the kiss of death for any habeas corpus reform since we know that
the Senate is almost sure to deadlock.
So, Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, Have it your way,
gentlemen. The McCollum habeas and the Cox habeas are in direct
contradiction, and you----
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Cox].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 291,
noes 140, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No 106]
AYES--291
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Menendez
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
[[Page H1428]] Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wyden
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--140
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Coyne
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
LaFalce
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--3
Andrews
Collins (MI)
Metcalf
{time} 1919
Ms. FURSE, Mr. POMEROY, and Mr. RAHALL changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 1920
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
amendment offered by mr. fields of louisiana
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Fields of Louisiana: In the matter
proposed to be inserted in section 3593(e) of title 18,
United States Code, by section 201, insert ``or a sentence of
life imprisonment without the possibility of release'' after
``shall recommend a sentence of death''.
Strike subsection (b) of section 201 and eliminate the
subsection designation and heading of subsection (a).
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
time on my amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 10
minutes, equally divided on both sides.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] will be
recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 5
minutes.
Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] wish to manage the
opposition to the Fields amendment?
Mr. GEKAS. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields].
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may
consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
(Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, today my Republican friends continue along with their
stampede to undo over 200 years of constitutional rights and
protections afforded all of our citizens. I have decided that the GOP
should rename their 100-day legislative agenda the Assault on America.
I am truly disturbed with the short-sighted and politically misguided
attempts by those on the other side of the aisle to limit individual
liberties and establish an eye-for-an-eye justice system in the United
States. Their irrational cries for vengeance as a form of crime control
do nothing but blind society to the real solutions to the problems with
which we are confronted and inevitably heighten divisiveness among
varying races and socioeconomic classes across our Nation.
We have a perfect example of this, Mr. Chairman, in the bill before
us, H.R. 729, the Effective Death Penalty Act. The title of this
legislation is an absolute oxymoron. No study that I am aware of has
ever proven the deterrent effect of the death penalty, and yet the
leadership wants to accelerate the rate of executions in this country
while at the same time greatly curtailing the rights of defendants to
receive not only adequate representation and fair trials, but also
sufficient protections against wrongful executions.
No matter what your stance on the death penalty, I firmly believe
that few in America wish to run the risk of putting an innocent person
to death. However, this bill clearly heightens that risk.
Not only does H.R. 729 fail to require that States provide defendants
with competent lawyers at the critical trial stage of death penalty
cases, it also effectively bars defendants from second habeas corpus
petitions even where newly discovered evidence shows that the defendant
is most likely innocent of the charges leveled against him or her.
I am particularly alarmed because, as Supreme Court Justice Harry
Blackmun stated last year, ``the death penalty experiment has failed *
* * it remains fraught with arbitrariness, discrimination, and caprice,
and mistake.'' Given that this is the case, why in the world would the
GOP want to expand its use?
It is becoming increasingly clear, Mr. Chairman, that the Republicans
believe the Constitution applies only selectively to those individuals
and groups that they deem acceptable or deserving--poor, underserved,
minority Americans need not apply.
Mr. Chairman, the fate of our system of justice rests on the
citizenry believing that it is fair. Whenever that fairness is lost, so
follows the justice. Unfortunately, the bill before us would only bring
greater unfairness to the system.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on this nonsensical attempt to
accelerate government-sanctioned executions in the United States.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume. Let me briefly explain the amendment.
The amendment under the present piece of legislation that is before
us--it provides in no uncertain terms that the jury or, if there is no
jury, the court shall recommend a sentence of death. What this
amendment simply would do is not take out, it would not take out the
sentence of death, as much as I would want to do that, but it would
maintain that language, but it would add to, to give the jury and the
court the opportunity of not only being able to recommend a sentence of
death but give them the option to either recommend a sentence of death
or a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of release.
That is all the amendment does.
Now, philosophically, I am very strongly and adamantly opposed to
capital punishment, but it does not do away with capital punishment in
the bill. But I do think if we leave the bill as it is in its present
form, we will have a bill that would give the judge and would give the
jury no option whatsoever. Due to the fact that many of the people who
are victims of capital punishment are the people who do not have
capital, many times he who does not have the capital normally get
punished.
So this amendment certainly gives us an opportunity to give the judge
and the jury the option of either imposing capital punishment or giving
a person life in prison without parole.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman's amendment should be accepted by the
House, it would in effect make the
[[Page H1429]] present bill that calls for instructions to the jury to
carry a certain essence with them, would make those provisions
unconstitutional.
We have to recall that in the crime bill that is now the law of the
land the flawed language, which we consider to be flawed, calling for
instructions to the jury that no matter what the aggravating
circumstances and mitigating circumstances might be, no matter what
weight is placed on them allowing the jury to find life or the sentence
of death is clearly unconstitutional.
What we do is implant language into the bill which makes it mandatory
to find the death penalty, if a jury, in the second hearing, in the
bifurcated hearing, determines that the aggravating circumstances
outweigh the mitigating circumstances.
That conforms with many of the States who have crafted death
penalties of their own with respect to the jury instructions, and the
Supreme Court has blessed the language of at least 15 States who have
similar mandatory language, finding that the aggravating circumstances
outweighing the mitigating circumstances requires a death penalty.
Now, what this gentleman's amendment does is allow another
alternative to the jury, as I understand it, life imprisonment without
patrol, which means that the mandatory feature, that which the Supreme
Court has found to be constitutional and which forms the bedrock of the
provisions in the present legislation, which we are offering to the
House, would render it unconstitutional.
We have gone through this road many times. In a strange way, adopting
this amendment would be like repeating last year's error in the crime
bill, which itself took us back to prior to 1974, before the Supreme
Court struck down the death penalty. And provides for a jury
deliberation on the death penalty that allows for so much discretion
that discrimination or racial or gender basis or age or any of those
things could enter into the picture, where in our language, in our
bill, because of the mandatory features, if aggravating circumstances
outweigh mitigating, the chances for discrimination, bias, gender,
race, all of those are eliminated.
So we would ask that the gentleman's amendment be defeated.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has nothing to
do with race. There is not race in the bill. It has nothing to do with
race.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
I think the Fields amendment is eminently sensible.
At a time when many of our friends are saying, get the big, bad
Federal Government off the backs of local communities, what the Fields
amendment says to judges and juries all over America, if they
understand what the circumstances are in the case and if they want to
rule for the death penalty, OK, they can do that, but if they want to
rule for life imprisonment, they also have that right.
{time} 1930
It is flexible, it is consistent with local control.
In a more general sense, Mr. Chairman, I get a little bit nervous
with the fervor that we hear here about the death penalty. I would
point out to my friends that to the best of my knowledge, the United
States of America remains the only major industrialized nation on Earth
that allows for the death penalty in all circumstances other than war
crimes and in treason. Our friends in Canada do not have the death
penalty. Our friends south of us in Mexico do not have the death
penalty.
What the amendment of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] says
is, give juries and give judges the option. I think it is a sensible
proposal.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will inform the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Fields] that he has 2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is well-known, and it is so well-embedded in the Congressional
Record in previous sessions and in newspaper reports, television
reports, and in every poll known to mankind that the American people,
by a wide margin, 75, 80 percent, favor the imposition of the death
penalty in a proper case. They do not exactly favor the imposition of
the death penalty, they favor the concept of allowing a jury that hears
the facts to have the option of listening to whether aggravating
circumstances appear in a particularly vicious case to determine that a
death penalty is the proper sentence.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment that we have here returns us to the stone
age of the death penalty, where discretion was so freakishly applied by
the jury, and that word ``freakishly'' is in the Supreme Court opinion
that struck down the death penalty, that we cannot be certain that bias
and prejudice would not enter into the final decision made by the jury.
The amendment that we have at hand would do much of the same. In
giving unfettered discretion to the jury to determine, regardless of
the aggravating circumstances or the mitigating circumstances, that
they could find death or life throws us back to the unconstitutional
days of the death penalty, which we are trying to avoid, and which this
bill corrects and brings into play language already approved by the
Supreme Court. Thereby we avoid the possibility of the death penalty.
The Supreme Court has said that this language, as it appears in the
State criminal statutes in 10, 12, 15 States, is sound, is
constitutional, is proper, and we are lifting it from a Supreme Court
opinion already in existence, so that we would be safe in assuming that
this language cures our constitutional problems with the imposition of
the death penalty.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas]
has expired.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct, I think, in
saying that polls in America support the death penalty. People want
judges and juries to have the option to use the death penalty. I think
the gentleman will not disagree with me that polls and studies also
indicate that the public wants judges and juries to have the option to
use the death penalty or not to use the death penalty to allow for life
imprisonment. That is precisely what the Fields amendment is.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] to close the debate.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from
Louisiana, for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to the committee that I have a different
position on the death penalty than the gentleman who has offered the
amendment. I favor the death penalty, he opposes it, but I still
believe he offers a valuable amendment.
If Members believe in the bedrock of the American judicial system, it
is trial by jury. It is a decision by America's citizens as to the
guilt or innocence of an individual.
What the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] is suggesting is that
that jury, under the most heinous crimes and heinous circumstances,
would be given two options and not one. Under the bill, they have only
one option, the death penalty. Under the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields], they have a second option of
life in prison without parole.
It strikes me we are dealing with factors that are somewhat
subjective, aggravating and mitigating factors. I think that if we
believe in the Constitution and the bedrock of our judicial system, we
give to that jury these two options.
Both options protect society from those individuals who have
committed such violent crimes that we no longer want to see them on the
streets or in our neighborhoods, but I think it is reasonable to offer
this option. I salute my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana, for
offering that option.
I hope that my colleagues, despite their fervor over the death
penalty, will understand that this gets to the
[[Page H1430]] bedrock principle of justice in this country, whether or
not a decision is to be made by a jury of a person's peers.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Fields].
The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 15-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 139,
noes 291, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No 107]
AYES--139
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Boucher
Brewster
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Coyne
de la Garza
DeFazio
Dellums
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
LaFalce
LaTourette
Laughlin
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McKinney
McNulty
Meek
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Rahall
Rangel
Reynolds
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roth
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--291
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meehan
Menendez
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Wyden
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--4
Andrews
Collins (MI)
Metcalf
Wilson
{time} 1951
Mr. SMITH of Michigan changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment offered by mr. smith of texas
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Texas: Proposed section
2257 of title 28, United States Code, in section 111 of H.R.
729, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``, or fails to make a timely application
for court of appeals review following the denial of such a
petition by a district court'' in paragraph (1);
(B) by striking paragraph (2);
(C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2);
(D) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) as
so designated and inserting ``; or''; and
(E) by adding a new paragraph (3) as follows:
``(3) a State prisoner files a habeas corpus petition under
section 2254 within the time required in section 2258 and
fails to make a substantial showing of the denial of a
Federal right or is denied relief in the district court or at
any subsequent stage of review.''; and
(2) in subsection (c), by striking ``If one of the
conditions in subsection (b) has occurred, no Federal court
thereafter'' and inserting ``On a second or later habeas
corpus petition under section 2254, no Federal court''.
Proposed section 2260 of title 28, United States Code, in
section 111 of H.R. 729, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 2260. Certificate of probable cause
``An appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from
the final order of a district court denying relief in a
habeas corpus proceeding that is subject to the provisions of
this chapter unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of probable cause. A certificate of probable
cause may only issue if the petitioner has made a substantial
showing of the denial of a Federal right. The certificate of
probable cause must indicate which specific issue or issues
satisfy this standard.''.
In the table of sections for proposed chapter 154 of title
28, United States Code, in section 111 of H.R. 729, the item
relating to proposed section 2260 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``inapplicable''.
Mr. SMITH of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate
on my amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 10 minutes, 5
minutes per side.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the committee bill provides for an automatic stay of
execution throughout all stages of federal review for the first federal
habeas petition for states that provide counsel on state collateral
review. Some States had raised concerns that this provision may have
the unintended effect of prolonging litigation by allowing a stay of
execution even where the federal habeas petition presents no
substantial claim for the federal court to consider.
[[Page H1431]] This amendment has bipartisan support.
I would like to read an excerpt from a letter from the attorney
general of Texas, a Democrat, Dan Morales. This letter reads in part,
Providing for an automatic stay regardless of the merit of
the issues raised is inconsistent with the purpose of federal
habeas review, and as a practical matter, will lead to
unwarranted delay in the imposition of valid sentences. The
goal of affording death sentence inmates ``one bite of the
apple'' should at the very least be accomplished without
staying an execution while a petitioner pursues frivolous
appeals.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us provides that the automatic
stay will terminate once State court review is completed if that
petitioner fails to make a substantial showing of the denial of a
Federal right or a denied relief on his petition in the Federal
district court or at a later stage of Federal habeas review. Under
current law, Federal courts routinely must evaluate whether an issue
exists to warrant review in granting of a stay, so the rights of the
inmate are still protected.
This amendment improves the legislation, Mr. Chairman, and I urge its
adoption.
Office of the Attorney General
Austin, TX, February 7, 1995.
Hon. Lamar S. Smith,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Smith: The recently introduced House of
Representatives Bill 729 raises significant concerns for the
State of Texas in the post-conviction litigation of capital
cases. Specifically, I am concerned with the provision of
proposed Sec. 2257 for an automatic stay of execution while a
death-sentenced inmate litigates a complete round of federal
habeas review, from district court through the circuit courts
of appeals and the Supreme Court and the provision of
proposed Sec. 2258 eliminating the certificate of probable
cause requirement for appeals. Providing for an automatic
stay, regardless of the merit of the issues raised, is
inconsistent with the purpose of federal habeas review and,
as a practical matter, will lead to unwarranted delay in the
imposition of valid death sentences. The goal of affording
death-sentenced inmates ``one bite of the apple'' should at
the very least be accomplished without staying an execution
while a petitioner pursues frivolous appeals. I urge you to
support a floor amendment eliminating these two provisions.
As I'm sure you are aware, death-sentenced petitioners
pursuing federal habeas review have, virtually without
exception, pursued a direct appeal to the state's highest
court of the review, and, in most instances, sought
certiorari review of the state court's disposition of the
direct appeal. Further, most if not all such petitioners have
litigated at least one complete round of state habeas review.
Under these circumstances, if a petitioner cannot satisfy the
standard of Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983), which
requires a substantial showing of the denial of a federal
right, then a stay is unwarranted. As demonstrated by
existing practice, United States district courts, circuit
courts of appeals and the Supreme Court are fully able to
evaluate whether there exists an issue which warrants review
and a stay.
Notably, the certificate of probable cause requirement was
originally enacted to eliminate or reduce the number of
unwarranted stays of execution entered while death-sentenced
inmates pursued frivolous appeals. Barefoot v. Estelle, 463
U.S. at 892 n.3 (and citations therein). Thus, the proposed
automatic stay, which would extend through the appeal and
disposition of a petition for certiorari review, represents a
step backward rather than forward in the goal of expediting
post-conviction review. Indeed, the automatic stay is an
unwarranted step in the opposite
direction from the ``full and fair'' provisions that have
garnered so much support in the past. Rather than
deferring to a state court's reasonable disposition of
constitutional issues, the automatic stay provisions
disregard the significant amount of review that precedes
federal habeas review. The ``full and fair'' concept
aside, the current practice of allowing each federal court
from the district court through the Supreme Court to
determine whether a stay is warranted is preferable.
The effect of the automatic stay is not ameliorated by the
time limits imposed on adjudication at each stage or by the
designation of a finite period of time to go from state
review into federal habeas review. The time limits imposed do
very little, if anything, to streamline the process of the
United States District Courts in Texas, the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court. For example, a death-
sentenced inmate has normally delineated his grounds for
relief in state court and exhausted state remedies with
respect to those grounds. It simply does not require 180 days
to transform a state petition into a federal petition founded
on the same legal bases and, in practice, federal district
courts in Texas normally require a petition to be filed if
the petitioner has been allowed, on the average, 60 or more
days following state habeas review. Similarly, the time
limits imposed for adjudication at each stage do not impose
real limitations. For example, allowing the district court 60
days after argument to rule does not limit the time a
petition may languish on the court's docket before argument.
Finally, by staying an execution until the Supreme Court
denies a petition for certiorari review, the legislation
almost assures additional litigation by death-sentenced
inmates. Capital litigation will expand to fill anytime
allowed. If an execution date cannot be set until after the
Supreme Court's disposition of a certiorari petition, the
time between the vacating of the stay and the scheduled
execution date will afford a petitioner the opportunity to
formulate a second round of review, which will have to be
resolved regardless of the limitations imposed on successive
petitions. By contrast, if a state is able to schedule an
execution date to coincide approximately with the filing of a
certiorari petition, the initial round of review is likely to
be the only round.
In short, I urge you to support an amendment to the
expedited procedures providing for the retention of the
certificate of probable cause requirement for the first tour
of federal habeas review and eliminating the automatic stay.
The provisions of the ``expedited'' federal habeas procedures
would lengthen the time between conviction and imposition of
sentence beyond the current 8.5 year average for Texas.
Indeed, although it is expected that the Texas legislature
will, in the immediate future, enact habeas reform that fully
complies with the requirements of proposed Sec. Sec. 2256-
2262, federal habeas review would be expedited by Texas
choosing not to ``opt in'' to those provisions.
In addition, I urge you to support the amendment sponsored
by Representative Cox which would require federal habeas
courts to defer to state court decisions as long as the state
courts acted reasonably in their adjudication of the case and
application of federal law. As I noted earlier, the State of
Texas expends considerable judicial and law enforcement
resources assuring that capital convictions comply with the
constitutions of the United States and Texas. Relitigation of
issues fully and fairly resolved by the state courts is
unnecessary and inappropriate unless those issues have not
been reasonably resolved by the state courts in accord with
federal constitutional principles.
Very best wishes,
Sincerely,
Dan Morales,
Attorney General.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member who wishes to speak in opposition to
the amendment?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
The gentleman from Texas, with this amendment, has unerringly gone to
the one part of the McCollum habeas reform matter that we could have
complimented him on, because he institutes an automatic stay of
execution while the habeas petition is pending.
By honing in on this one provision, we are now saying that there will
not be any need for Federal habeas because the petitioner may be
executed while his petition is pending. He might not ever live to find
out that he was granted habeas.
This is the most ultimately inhumane proposal that we have heard
tonight.
It is amazing that we have had these contradictory provisions coming
from the side of the aisle that wrote the habeas bill that we do not
like, and now we have these worsening amendments as the night goes on.
I urge the strong strenuous rejection of this proposal by the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
As has been the case so often this evening, the real question is
whether we are going to allow those who have been convicted of capital
crimes to indulge themselves in almost endless appeals. I think the
American people would answer ``no'' to that question. I think Congress
should answer ``no'' to that question.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time, 3 minutes, to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the chairman of the
subcommittee.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
I simply wanted to point to everybody here, and I will not consume
the entire 3 minutes, but the amendment before us provides the
automatic stay that we are going to routinely have in the bill
underlying will terminate once
[[Page H1432]] State court review is completed, if the petitioner fails
to make a ``substantial showing of the denial of a Federal right'' or
is denied relief on his petition in the Federal district court or at a
later stage of Federal habeas review.
It really is only a statement of what the law truly is and is
intended to be in a codified form. If somebody does not make a
substantial showing after denial of a Federal right, there should not
be any stay. It seems self-evident, but we have had problems
technically with this during the courts and the process.
If there is an appeal ongoing and there obviously is a request for a
stay, if the appeal has any meaning at all, the Federal court is going
to grant the stay.
This does not say you cannot have it. It just is not going to be
automatic. There can be somebody who stops that stay along the process
before you go through a whole bunch of hoops to go in there and say,
``Look, this is not a substantial showing of the denial of a Federal
right. Let's go on and get the execution carried out'' instead of
having automatic stuff that the statute would otherwise require.
I think what we did when we wrote this bill was probably err in going
overboard on these automatic stays, so the gentleman from Texas is
correcting a flaw in the underlying bill.
I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, the question here is, and again being
mindful of the fact that we do not want to allow endless appeals, but
let us say that the defendant is in the process of going to the judge
to ask for an appeal, can the State rush him to execution before that
appeal is adjudicated one way or another?
{time} 2000
As I understand it, that is the purpose of the automatic stay, that
you do not have this sort of very obscene sort of beat-the-clock game,
``we can rush him to do it before you can rush to the judge.'' An
automatic stay, my understanding has always been, usually works for a
very short period of time. Again, the great length of appeals that we
have heard in the cases has been dealt with in the main body of the
bill, something that I agree with. Now answer that question.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, I would simply say the difference
is that the stay is not automatic.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the gentleman for his continued generosity in
yielding.
My specific question is that: While the defendant's attorney is
making a petition to the judge, a motion to the appellate judge for
appeal, could the State execute that gentleman while they are trying to
get that appeal, under the gentleman from Texas' amendment?
Mr. McCOLLUM. Theoretically, I suppose that could occur, but it would
be an awfully fast execution because you could certainly get that
effort up there very quickly to the courts. That is the way that things
work. You have people working the midnight oil in all the courts in the
country and certainly in that State during the time under
consideration.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
will not take a minute.
I would just rise in opposition to this amendment and say that this
bill already speeds up the appeals process. My amendment that I offered
that would have tried to redeem people who come forward with evidence
of innocence was defeated, and now we are going to rush to judgment
without any stay, and this is just criminal.
I urge strongly that this amendment be defeated.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, just summing up to my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle what the gentleman from Florida, Mr. McCollum's answer to the
question would mean: It would indeed mean that there could in case
after case be a sort of rush, petitioners' attorneys rushing to get a
judge to authorize a stay and the State, in many cases, rushing to
execute the defendants.
That kind of result, those of us who are for the death penalty, those
who are against the death penalty, that is not the kind of result we
would want. And there are better ways to cure the endless appeals that
have gone on than this. I think this amendment deserves to be defeated
in a bipartisan way. It just besmirches some of the food efforts the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] is trying to do.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining and is entitled to close debate on this amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Ladies and gentlemen, we are now taking out the one
redeeming feature in McCollum habeas reform. I want to just point out
that the section providing for automatic stays of execution while a
habeas is pending was a much needed improvement on the current system
where the fate of a condemned man hangs in the balance while lawyers
scramble at the last minute to find a judge that will stay the
execution. We had corrected that.
Why on Earth he got talked into having that undone at the last minute
of the final minutes of debate on the floor amazes me. It was the
gentleman's amendment all the time. Mr. McCollum literally wrote this
bill. He put in the stay. Now it is being taken out.
Did we do something wrong? Have we disappointed you in some way?
Please let us keep the automatic stay feature in. It will not make
this habeas bill much better, but it will certainly be a lot better
than going back to the system of lawyers scrambling around looking for
judges before a person is executed, who may find out or who may never
find out that his habeas was in fact granted.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith].
The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241,
noes 189, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 108]
AYES--241
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Richardson
[[Page H1433]] Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Wyden
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--189
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
LaFalce
Lantos
Laughlin
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--4
Andrews
Collins (MI)
Frank (MA)
Yates
{time} 2021
Messrs. DeFAZIO, BEVILL, and JOHNSON of South Dakota changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to the bill? If not, the
question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute,
as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of yesterday, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Quinn) having assumed the chair, Mr. Dreier, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 729) to
control crime by a more effective death penalty, pursuant to the order
of the House of Tuesday, February 7, 1995, he reported the bill back to
the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the order of the House of yesterday,
the previous question is ordered.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment
to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted in the
Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of
the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 297,
noes 132, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 109]
AYES--297
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wyden
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--132
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Coyne
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Dixon
Doggett
Durbin
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
[[Page H1434]] Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--5
Andrews
Clinger
Collins (MI)
Houghton
Yates
{time} 2041
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________