[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 35 (Tuesday, March 18, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1048-H1052]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                VICTIM RIGHTS CLARIFICATION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. McCollum. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 924) to amend title 18, Untied States Code, to give further 
assurance to the right of victims of crime to attend and observe the 
trials of those accused of the crime, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 924

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Victim Rights Clarification 
     Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. RIGHTS OF VICTIMS TO ATTEND AND OBSERVE TRIAL.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 223 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 3510. Rights of victims to attend and observe trial

       ``(a) Non-Capital Cases.--Notwithstanding any statute, 
     rule, or other provision of law, a United States district 
     court shall not order any victim of an offense excluded from 
     the trial of a defendant accused of that offense because such 
     victim may, during the sentencing hearing, make a statement 
     or present any information in relation to the sentence.
       ``(b) Capital Cases.--Notwithstanding any statute, rule, or 
     other provision of law, a United States district court shall 
     not order any victim of an offense excluded from the trial of 
     a defendant accused of that offense because such victim may, 
     during the sentencing hearing, testify as to the effect of 
     the offense on the victim and the victim's family or as to 
     any other factor for which notice is required under section 
     3593(a).
       ``(c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     `victim' includes all persons defined as victims in 
     section 503(e)(2) of the Victims' Rights and Restitution 
     Act of 1990.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 223 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``3510. Rights of victims to attend and observe trial.''.

       (c) Clarification of Grounds for Exclusion.--Section 
     3593(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting ``For the purposes of the preceding sentence, the 
     fact that a victim, as defined in section 3510, attended or 
     observed the trial shall not be construed to pose a danger of 
     creating unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, or 
     misleading the jury.'' after ``misleading the jury.''.
       (d) Effect on Pending Cases.--The amendments made by this 
     section shall apply in cases pending on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Wexler], 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Victims and their families often describe great frustration at the 
witnessing of the judicial process. Often this frustration comes from 
their feeling the process is not about them or their loss but all about 
the defendant. And while we all understand that the guilt or innocence 
of the defendant must be of primary concern to the Judiciary process, 
we become increasingly sensitive of the need to include the victim and 
victims' families in the criminal justice process in appropriate ways 
that they too can feel that justice has been done for them.
  In 1990, Congress passed a law requiring that Federal prosecutors and 
others make their best efforts to ensure that victims of crime were 
accorded a number of rights, including the right to be notified of 
court proceedings, the right to confer with the attorney for the 
Government in the case, the right for information about the 
convictions,

[[Page H1049]]

sentencing, imprisonment, and release of the offender, and the right to 
be present at all public proceedings related to the offense.
  In 1994, the crime bill of that Congress amended the Federal Rules of 
Criminal Procedure to provide that victims would have the right to make 
statements to the court in noncapital cases at the time of sentencing, 
in order to better ensure that the interests of the victims of crime 
would be known to the sentencing judges.
  Also in that bill Congress authorized the Government, in capital 
cases, after the guilty verdict is returned, to call victim and 
victims' family members to testify during the postverdict sentencing 
hearing. This testimony may be in connection with any aggravating 
factors that the Government wishes to prove or to rebut evidence of 
mitigating factors that the convicted defendant is attempting to prove.
  This so-called victim impact testimony often describes the effect of 
the crime on the victim or the victim's family. The Supreme Court has 
upheld the Government's right to present victim impact testimony 
against constitutional challenge.
  Mr. Speaker, a recent ruling in the Oklahoma City bombing case has 
caused concern that it may be possible for trial judges to exclude 
victims and their family members from attending the guilt phase of a 
criminal trial solely for the reason that these persons desire to make 
victim impact statements during the sentencing phase of the trial.
  While one of the Federal rules of evidence does allow judges to 
exclude witnesses from trial, this rule was formulated to prevent 
potential fact witnesses from changing their testimony after hearing 
the testimony of other fact witnesses during the guilt phase of the 
trial.
  The ruling in the Oklahoma City bombing case, which will prevent many 
of the victims of the crime from attending or observing the trial, is a 
situation that has never before occurred in a Federal court, to my 
knowledge. It is important for Members to understand that the victims 
affected by the ruling are not fact witnesses. They seek only the right 
that already exists in law to give the victim impact testimony at such 
time as the guilt of the defendants may be adjudicated. As such, the 
risk of the testimony somehow being tainted by merely listening to the 
fact witnesses during the guilt phase of the trial is minimal, if not 
nonexistent.

                              {time}  1415

  The bill I have introduced on behalf of myself, the ranking minority 
member of the Subcommittee on Crime, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Schumer], and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Lucas] is intended to 
make it clear that victims and their family members are not excluded 
from attending a criminal trial in Federal court as an audience member 
simply because they may exercise their rights that currently exist 
under Federal law to make statements during the sentencing hearing that 
takes place after a guilty verdict is returned.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to my colleagues that this bill will 
not amend those provisions now in law that allow judges to sequester 
fact witnesses, including victims and victim family members who testify 
during the guilt phase of trials. This bill applies only to persons who 
may make statements during the sentencing hearing of a Federal trial, 
which always occurs after the defendant is found guilty beyond a 
reasonable doubt.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is an important clarification of the rights 
that victims have in Federal criminal trials. I believe that it 
achieves a balance between ensuring that fact witnesses are not 
influenced by other testimony at trial while also helping to ensure, 
when appropriate, that every opportunity is given to victims and their 
families to see firsthand that our system is providing justice for 
them.
  I want to thank the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on 
Crime, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], for his assistance in 
moving this bill. I also want to thank the other cosponsor of this 
bill, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Lucas], who represents the 
victims of the Oklahoma City bombing.
  At this time as well I would like to comment that I have a letter 
from the office of the attorney general of the State of Oklahoma, 
signed by attorneys general from a number of States, including 
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Louisiana, Idaho, et cetera, my home State of 
Florida. This letter supports the legislation we have today and 
explains why it is very important that it become law.
  Mr. Speaker, the letter referred to is as follows:

                                       Office of Attorney General,


                                            State of Oklahoma,

                                                   March 18, 1997.
     Re Legislation on victim impact witnesses observing trial.

     Sen. Don Nickles,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.

     Congressman Frank Lucas,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.

     Congressman Bill McCollum,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nickles and Congressmen Lucas and McCollum: On 
     the even of the trial in the Oklahoma City bombing case, as 
     Oklahoma's Attorney General, I join the undersigned Attorneys 
     General from across America in urging your support of 
     legislation to guarantee that surviving family members of all 
     homicide victims can attend the federal criminal trial of an 
     accused murder as well as provide victim impact testimony at 
     sentencing.
       Such legislation is desperately needed because of a ruling 
     in the Oklahoma City bombing case affirmed by the 10th 
     Circuit Court of Appeals. These courts have ruled that 
     current federal law permits the trial judge to exclude family 
     members who lost loved ones in the bombing from watching the 
     trial if they will provide ``victim impact'' testimony at 
     sentencing. Moreover, these courts held that current federal 
     law precludes either the government or victims from even 
     appealing such a ruling before the trial. This new 
     interpretation of federal law, if left uncorrected, will 
     deprive numerous family members of victims the chance to 
     observe the trial and learn the facts surrounding the 
     bombing, or worse, force them to forgo the right to testify 
     in the event of a penalty hearing of the impact of this 
     horrendous crime and the value of their loved ones.
       There is no legitimate ground for the ruling. The 
     traditional rationale behind sequestering witnesses--that a 
     witness might ``tailor'' his testimony to that of other 
     witnesses--has no application to surviving family members--
     they will not testify about issues pertaining to the guilt of 
     the defendants, but will only provide the jury with 
     sentencing information about the devastating effects of the 
     crime.
       In our states, family members who will only provide impact 
     testimony are routinely admitted to watch the trial. Indeed, 
     in many of our states, a constitutional amendment or other 
     victims rights legislation guarantees victims the right to 
     observe court hearings without sacrificing the opportunity to 
     provide victim impact testimony. Such an approach fully 
     protects defendants' rights, because defendants have no 
     legitimate interest in excluding from public court 
     proceedings those who have the most vital interest in 
     attending.
       The federal government needs to join the states and put in 
     place these protections for victims. Congress has the power 
     to set the rules for federal cases. The Tenth Circuit Court 
     of Appeals acknowledged that its ruling ``may be seen as 
     overly technical and unduly severe by those focused only on 
     this particular controversy,'' however, the Court explained 
     it must defer to the Constitutional authority of Congress, 
     concluding that ``[i]t is only through legislative 
     resolution'' that this painful result can be changed. 
     Accordingly, Congress should act quickly to make sure justice 
     is done in the Oklahoma City bombing case--and in the many 
     other federal capital cases to be tried in the future.
           Sincerely,
         Bruce Botelho, Attorney General of Alaska; W.A. Drew 
           Edmondson, Attorney General; Daniel E. Lungren, 
           Attorney General of California; M. Jane Brady, Attorney 
           General of Delaware; Margery S. Bronster, Attorney 
           General of Hawaii; Carla J. Stovall, Attorney General 
           of Kansas; Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General of 
           Massachusetts; Mike Moore, Attorney General of 
           Mississippi; Tom Udall, Attorney General of New Mexico; 
           Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General of Florida; 
           Alan G. Lance, Attorney General of Idaho; Richard P. 
           Ieyoub, Attorney General of Louisiana; Hubert H. 
           Humphrey III, Attorney General of Minnesota; Jeremiah 
           W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri; Michael 
           F. Easley, Attorney General of North Carolina; Heidi 
           Heitkamp, Attorney General of North Dakota; Jeffrey B. 
           Pine, Attorney General of Rhode Island; Jan Graham, 
           Attorney General of Utah; Christine O. Gregoire, 
           Attorney General of Washington; Betty D. Montgomery, 
           Attorney General of Ohio; Dan Morales, Attorney General 
           of Texas; J. Wallace Malley, Jr., Acting Attorney 
           General of Vermont; William U. Hill, Attorney General 
           of Wyoming.

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H1050]]

  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum] to H.R. 924. The purpose of this bill is to 
permit victims of a violent crime, or those whose loved ones have been 
victimized, to watch the trial of the person accused of committing the 
crime.
  Traditionally, a criminal trial is viewed as being a confrontation 
between the State and the defendant. The victims of crime were left out 
of the picture. We need to make sure that victims are treated fairly by 
the justice system, especially when allowing greater victim 
participation will have no prejudicial impact on the trial and will not 
in any way compromise the defendant's rights.
  In recent years, the Congress, like many States, has allowed victims 
in certain circumstances to make victim impact statements at the 
sentencing phase of the trial. This bill does not expand or affect the 
right under existing law to make such statements. However, in the case 
of the Oklahoma City bombing trial, the judge recently held that people 
who will make victim impact statements, if the defendant or defendants 
are convicted, cannot watch the trial.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the judge's ruling in the Oklahoma City case 
was a misinterpretation of Federal Rule of Evidence 615, and we must 
now clarify that rule to make it absolutely clear that the intent is 
not to exclude victims from trials.
  The judge's ruling was apparently based on the evidentiary rule that 
in most cases people who are witnesses at a criminal trial cannot watch 
the testimony of other witnesses. The purpose for this rule is that we 
do not want one witness' recollections to be influenced by another 
witness' testimony. But that rationale simply does not apply to people 
making victim impact statements. The facts and issues they are 
addressing are totally different from the facts addressed by the other 
witnesses at trial. The idea that their testimony will be affected by 
watching the trial just does not make sense.
  As one of the Oklahoma City survivors put it, a man who lost one eye 
in the explosion, ``It's not going to affect our testimony at all. I 
have a hole in my head that's covered with titanium. I nearly lost my 
hand. I think about it every minute of the day.''
  That man, incidentally, is choosing to watch the trial and to forfeit 
his right to make a victim impact statement. Victims should not have to 
make that choice.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill was reported out of committee on voice vote. 
The manager's amendment makes a number of changes to the bill as 
reported, but they do not substantively change the bill, with one 
exception. The exception is that the manager's amendment adds a new, 
unrelated provision that would make a technical correction to a 
provision of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act that Congress changed 
last year. This correction is uncontroversial.
  Finally, I would like to note that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Conyers], the ranking minority member on the Committee on the 
Judiciary, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], the ranking 
minority member on the Subcommittee on Crime, have asked me to note 
their support on this bill for the Record.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this amendment and this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Lucas], a prime sponsor of this bill.
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
924, the Victim Allocution Clarification Act of 1997. On behalf of the 
victims of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building, and all 
victims and survivors, I call upon the Members of this body to support 
this legislation.
  I want first to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] and 
his staff for their tireless efforts in bringing this bill to the 
floor. They heard the cry of the victims in Oklahoma and have 
responded. On behalf of the victims and survivors of the Oklahoma City 
bombing, thank you.
  H.R. 924 addresses an important area of victims rights protections 
which has been overlooked before now. At stake is the right of victims 
to watch the trial proceedings and provide victim impact testimony.
  In many States, family members who will only provide impact testimony 
are routinely admitted to watch trials. Many States have constitutional 
amendments or other victims rights legislation guaranteeing the right 
to observe court hearings without sacrificing the opportunity to 
provide victim impact testimony.
  It is time that the Federal courts provide the same protections for 
victims. H.R. 924 guarantees the rights of surviving family members of 
all homicide victims to attend the Federal criminal trial of an accused 
murderer as well as provide victim impact testimony at sentencing. In 
1990, Congress passed the Victim's Bill of Rights, and today, we are 
simply clarifying the protections which are currently in law.
  Passing this legislation today will ensure that victims of the 
Oklahoma City bombing will be able to watch the trial proceedings and 
testify at any subsequent sentencing hearing. Many of these victims are 
my constituents, and I have seen firsthand the pain and devastation 
this bombing has brought. For many victims, the healing process is 
twofold. These men and women desperately want to know what activities 
led to this terrorist attack. In the words of one victim, ``When I saw 
my husband's body, I began a quest for information as to exactly what 
happened. The culmination of that quest, I hope and pray, will be 
hearing the evidence at trial.''
  This woman, and many others like her also, want the opportunity to 
express the pain and devastation this act has brought to their lives. 
They want the chance for their story to be heard; to know they played 
an important part in ensuring a punishment equal to the crime. They 
want, and need, to express their loss in their own words.
  The time has come for Congress to make its voice known on this issue, 
and protecting the rights of victims to both watch the trial and 
testify at sentencing is that needed statement. I ask all Members of 
this body to join me today and pass this legislation.
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, our Constitution created a government which 
is premised on checks and balances through a separation of powers among 
independent branches of government. The legislative branch is empowered 
to make laws subject to certain limitations such as constitutional 
prohibitions against bills of attainder, that special legislation, and 
ex post facto laws, those that are retroactively applied. The function 
of the legislative branch is to enforce the laws. The judiciary 
interprets the laws and adjudicates cases and controversies arising 
under them. In 1803, the Supreme Court said in the landmark Marbury 
versus Madison, ``One branch is not permitted to encroach on the domain 
of another.''
  H.R. 924 violates the constitutional framework of separation of 
powers and its undue retroactive interference with a ruling in a 
pending criminal case. It is an obvious attempt to obtain legislatively 
a ruling in the Oklahoma bombing case different from the one already 
entered into by a Federal judge according to the law and according to 
the facts in the particular case and twice sustained on appellate 
review.
  The constitutional prohibitions against the enactment of ex post 
facto laws and bills of attainder reflect the constitutional concern 
that the political process might be abused to unduly punish the 
unpopular or impose by legislation a special penalty against specific 
persons or classes of persons. As James Madison put it, retroactive 
legislation of this kind abusively affords special opportunities for 
the politically popular and powerful to obtain improper legislative 
benefits. Mr. Speaker, it is, therefore, unseemly for someone in the 
middle of a trial to seek congressional assistance to affect the 
outcome of that case.
  Mr. Speaker, the judge in this case has determined that such 
sequestration of the impact witnesses was necessary to ensure that 
their testimony will remain in fact crime impact statements and not 
trial process impact statements. Whether or not Congress agrees with 
this ruling, the judge should have the ability to render it according 
to

[[Page H1051]]

the law and the facts before him in this particular case. He is in the 
best position to make such a difficult determination. The judge should 
be allowed to run his courtroom and conduct these trials without 
Congress grabbing the gavel from him after a ruling not to our 
political liking.
  Intervention by Congress in a pending case is not only a blatant 
intrusion upon the constitutional principles of separation of powers, 
it also exposes a criminal trial to problematic publicity because the 
U.S. Congress has obviously weighed in on one side of a pending case. 
Due to the enormous pretrial publicity surrounding the Oklahoma bombing 
case, the trial of the case has already been removed not just from 
Oklahoma City, but entirely outside the State of Oklahoma. Additional 
complaints of prejudicial and pretrial publicity are under 
consideration in connection with alleged breaches of attorney-client 
confidentiality privileges. And so this highly politicized intervention 
in the case by Congress will only add to the possible case infirmities 
and, while addressing the understandable concerns of victims, may 
jeopardize the Government's case altogether.
  H.R. 924 requires the court to allow victim impact witnesses to 
observe court proceedings, including viewing trial exhibits and the 
defendants and their lawyers over several months. This requirement 
stays in effect whether or not the judge determines that such viewing 
will prejudicially taint their testimony. While prejudicially tainted 
testimony is a problem in any case, it is especially problematic in a 
Federal death penalty case, and the legislation before us fails to 
consider the stark differences between the trial of a capital and 
noncapital case. In noncapital cases, the victims' crime impact 
statements are made directly to the judge alone during the sentencing 
phase of the trial. The judge has the experience in properly weighing 
emotional, inflammatory rhetoric and separating that which is relevant 
and irrelevant. In capital cases, however, the crime impact statements 
are made directly to a jury and may well include emotional, 
inflammatory and irrelevant testimony.
  Unfortunately, an amendment to limit the application of this bill to 
noncapital cases was defeated in committee, and therefore all pending 
and future capital cases will be exposed to new challenges because of 
the passage of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time in recent years that Congress 
has acted as a super appellate court by intervening in a pending case 
to impose a politically popular ruling different from the results 
achieved through court deliberations. In the Morgan-Foretich custody 
case, Congress served as a super Supreme Court to overturn court 
decisions Members did not like. Just last week, the House served as an 
adviser to the Alabama Supreme Court in a pending case involving the 
Ten Commandments.
  Furthermore, this is not even the first time that Congress has acted 
to control a court determination in the Oklahoma bombing case itself. 
Last year Congress added a special provision to the antiterrorism bill 
directing that in any trial where a venue is changed by ``more than 350 
miles'' the court shall ``order closed circuit televising of the 
proceedings.''

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. Speaker, the Oklahoma bombing case is the only one which fits 
that description.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation violates the fundamental constitutional 
principle of separation of powers. It also risks further prejudicing 
the outcome of the pending criminal case which has already been moved 
out of State due to extensive pretrial publicity, and it fails to 
differentiate between the potential impact of inflammatory testimony in 
a capital case and a noncapital case. Finally, it creates the unseemly 
spectacle of Congress intervening to affect the outcome of a pending 
capital case.
  Mr. Speaker, high profile cases are the truest test of the American 
Constitution. Congress should not act as an interlocutory court of 
appeals. In such cases, tinkering with the judicial process to affect 
the outcome of a particular pending case holds the entire process up to 
ridicule.
  Mr. Speaker, I therefore ask that our colleagues vote no on this 
motion.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I simply want to point out to the Members that while I 
have great respect for the gentleman from Virginia that this particular 
matter is one where nobody is going to be negatively impacted that I 
can see, the Oklahoma City bombing case is an ongoing, in progress 
trial, but we have not yet had it proceed. We are talking about the 
sentencing phase in this bill, we are not talking about the guilt or 
fact-finding phase, and there is no way I can conceive of anyone being 
prejudiced or any lawsuit or any of the criminal trial process being 
biased by allowing this bill to go through and become law.
  Mr. Speaker, what it does is simply say that victims and their family 
members who want to testify under the law that we now have in the 
sentencing phase will be allowed to do that while at the same time 
being permitted to sit in and observe and watch the regular trial 
process on the guilt and innocence phase where they have no role 
whatsoever. So I really do not see any harm in doing this, and I do not 
think there is any harm doing it to affect the situation at hand. In 
fact, I cannot imagine that we would pass this bill for the future and 
not take care of it in terms of the ongoing criminal trial, 
particularly one as prominent as Oklahoma City.
  For the benefit of the other Members, I would like to also take an 
opportunity to explain the manager's amendment that is part of this 
bill that I offer today. I will not be very long with that, but the 
changes made to 924 have been requested by the representatives of the 
victims of the Oklahoma City bombing and by Members of the other body 
on both sides of the aisle who support similar bills pending in that 
body. The sponsors of the bill in the House have agreed to these 
changes to improve it, and I believe that it will be very good and will 
get this bill passed, I hope, in both bodies before the President has 
an opportunity to sign it tomorrow when he leaves for his trip to 
Helsinki. So we are all hopeful we can get this legislation through 
both bodies and signed into law.
  The amendment makes these changes:
  First, the language has been added to make it clear that the 
provisions of this bill are to control over any other statute, rule, or 
provision of law, and while I believe the rules of statutory 
construction would have required the courts to interpret the bill in 
this manner without the language, I have agreed to put this in to make 
it less contentious.
  Second, we have added the definition of victim to the bill by making 
reference to the definition of victim in the Victims' Rights and 
Restitution Act of 1990.
  Third, we have restructured the operative portion of the bill in 
order to make it easier to read but without making any changes in the 
result that the bill will accomplish, and we have also added 
subheadings to these new sections to help people understand exactly how 
it fits into the situation. In addition, we have added a provision to 
the bill to make it clear that once a victim or family members have 
attended the trial, the fact that they have done so may not allow a 
judge to disqualify such individual from exercising the rights that 
presently exist under the law to make statements during the sentencing 
hearing that takes place after the guilty verdict is returned, which is 
another way of saying we have added clarifying language because that is 
the trust of the bill.
  And finally we have amended the short title of the bill to read the 
Victim Rights Clarification Act of 1997 in order to make it more clear 
what the purpose of the bill is.
  I believe Mr. Speaker, these amendments strengthen the bill. It was 
favorably reported by the Committee on the Judiciary by a voice vote 
and will not change the result that was intended. In fact it will, I 
think, clarify it. I know the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] and 
the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Lucas] reported the amendment, and 
that is why it is part of the bill here today.
  Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the other Members, I wish to explain 
the changes made by the manager's amendment that I have offered to the 
bill, H.R. 924. The changes made by the manager's amendment have been 
requested by representatives of the victims of

[[Page H1052]]

the Oklahoma City bombing and by Members of the other body, on both 
sides of the aisle, who support a similar bill pending in that body. 
The sponsors of the bill on the House side have agreed to these changes 
in order to improve the bill before it becomes law and to help ensure 
passage of the House bill in the other body. It is the hope of those of 
us on the House side that the other body will act on the House bill 
tomorrow, and that the President will sign the bill before he leaves 
for his trip to Helsinki tomorrow night.
  The manager's amendment makes the following changes: First, language 
has been added to make it clear that the provisions of this bill are to 
control over any other statute, rule, or other provision of law. While 
I believe that the rules of statutory construction would have required 
courts to interpret the bill in this manner without this language, I 
have agreed to specifically state this in the bill so that there is no 
doubt as to the intent of the Congress.
  Second, we have added a definition of ``victim'' to the bill by 
making reference to the definition of victim in the Victims' Rights and 
Restitution Act of 1990. Third, we have restructured the operative 
portion of the bill in order to make it easier to read, but without 
making any change in the result the bill will accomplish. We have also 
added subheadings to these new sections to help reinforce the fact that 
this bill will benefit both those persons who are allowed by existing 
law--18 United States Code section 3593(a)--to testify as to ``the 
effect of the offense on the victim and the victim's family'' and other 
factors during the sentencing hearing of a capital case, and those 
persons who are allowed by existing law--Federal Rules of Criminal 
Procedure 32(c)(3)(E)--to ``make a statement or present any information 
in relation to the sentence'' during the sentencing hearing of a 
noncapital case.
  Additionally, we have added a provision to the bill to make it clear 
that once a victim or family members have attended a trial, that fact 
may not allow a judge to disqualify such individuals from exercising 
the rights that presently exist under the law to make statements during 
the sentencing hearing that takes place after a guilty verdict is 
returned.
  Finally, we have amended the short title of the bill to the Victims' 
Rights Clarification Act of 1997 in order to make more clear the 
purpose of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that these amendments strengthen the bill that 
was favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee by voice vote, and 
will not change the result that was intended by the bill as it was 
introduced. I want to again note that these changes are made at the 
request of victims' groups and the supporters of a similar bill in the 
other body. And I want to note that the changes have been agreed to by 
the two other sponsors of this bill--Mr. Schumer and Mr. Lucas.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Delahunt].
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill. From the 
extraordinary dispatch with which this measure has been rushed, one 
might suppose it to be an uncontroversial piece of consensus 
legislation. We marked it up in the Committee on the Judiciary without 
so much as a hearing, and now it is being considered under suspension 
of the rules. Not only that, but this morning I was informed that the 
text that the House would be considering is a Senate version of that 
which never came before our committee at all.
  What is the reason for such haste? And the proponents are quite 
honest about their intentions. They want the bill to become law in time 
to apply to a pending case, the Oklahoma City bombing case, because 
they wish to overturn a pretrial ruling made by the trial justice. The 
ruling that should be noted, and my friend from Virginia alluded to 
that, was affirmed by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Now I do not 
necessarily dispute the merits of the bill as to future cases, but we 
have not had a sufficient time nor opportunity to properly evaluate 
this proposal's merits. However, I oppose the bill because I believe 
its efforts to influence a case now before the court strikes at the 
integrity of the judicial process and threatens the separation of 
powers doctrine on which our constitutional system is in fact based.
  Congress should not be changing the rules in the middle of a trial; 
yet this is the second time that Congress has sought to create a 
special rule to govern this particular case.
  Now I share the deep sympathy of every Member of this Chamber for the 
victims of the Oklahoma tragedy and their family. But we have a system 
in this country that, however imperfect, is still the best means yet 
devised for reaching a just result. We can all cite judicial decisions 
of which we personally disapprove, but there is nothing that qualifies 
us sitting in this House to substitute our judgment for that of the 
presiding judge. It is one thing for us to change the rules 
prospectively, but to interject ourselves into an ongoing trial is a 
dangerous and possibly unconstitutional assault on the judicial process 
itself.
  Perhaps it is not surprising that we should be considering such a 
measure, given recent comments that we should consider impeaching 
judges who render unpopular decisions. Such talk should be deeply 
troubling to everyone who values the rule of law and this bill should 
be no less so. The irony is that our intervention may ultimately do far 
more harm than benefit. Judges are there to see that the trial is fair 
and impartial. This is just as important to those seeking a conviction 
as to those who seek an acquittal.
  As a former district attorney, I know it does no good to secure a 
guilty verdict that is vulnerable to reversal on appeal. Defense 
attorneys have already announced their intention to challenge 
congressional action in this case. Whether or not their challenge 
succeeds, why would we go out of our way to increase the Government's 
burden and put a possible guilty verdict at risk?
  While I am sure that this legislation is genuinely well intentioned, 
the proponents may ultimately do a disservice to the very victims to 
whom they purport to give voice. It would be truly unfortunate were our 
actions to create the possibility of a retrial, further compounding the 
terrible trauma suffered by both the victims and their families.
  So let us think again, Mr. Speaker, before we take a step we may come 
to regret.
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I do not intend to consume much, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts that I respect his views. I know he has had a 
prosecutorial background that in my judgment and I think in all the 
judgment of all of these attorneys general to support this bill there 
is no real risk at all in this, and the only conceivable way if any 
court were to return a decision based upon what we are doing today, the 
only conceivable effect would be on the sentencing phase, not on the 
actual fact determination of guilt or innocence.
  But in any event I do not believe, nor do any of the experts I have 
consulted, that this matter would in any way or could in any way affect 
the outcome or the possibility of having to have a retrial or be 
successful in any motion to contest a pending trial where the new law 
comes into play.
  In any event, Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' favorable vote on 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 924, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  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. Pursuant to clause 5, rule I, and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________