[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 158 (Wednesday, November 10, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14563-S14567]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 1917. A bill to abolish the death penalty under Federal law; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.


            THE FEDERAL DEATH PENALTY ABOLITION ACT OF 1999

 Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act of 1999. This bill will abolish the 
death penalty at the federal level. It will put an immediate halt to 
executions and forbid the imposition of the death penalty as a sentence 
for violations of federal law.
  Since the beginning of this year, this Chamber has echoed with debate 
on violence in America. We've heard about violence in our schools and 
neighborhoods. Some say it's because of the availability of guns to 
minors. Some say Hollywood has contributed to a culture of violence. 
Others argue that the roots of the problem are far deeper and more 
complex. Whatever the causes, a culture of violence has certainly 
infected our nation. As schoolhouse killings have shown, our children 
now can be reached by that culture of violence. And they aren't just 
casual observers; some of them are active participants and many have 
been victims.
  But, Mr. President, I'm not so sure that we in government don't 
contribute to this casual attitude we sometimes see toward killing and 
death. With each new death penalty statute enacted and each execution 
carried out, our executive, judicial and legislative branches, at both 
the state and federal level, add to a culture of violence and killing. 
With each person executed, we're teaching our children that the way to 
settle scores is through violence, even to the point of taking a human 
life.
  At the same time, the public debate on the death penalty, which was 
an intense national debate not very long ago, is muted. As the online 
magazine Slate recently noted, with crime rates down and incomes up, 
``unspeakable crimes are no longer spoken of, murder is what happens to 
your portfolio on a bad day, `family values' are debated through the 
Internal Revenue code, and the `death penalty' is [often used as a term 
for] a tax issue.'' What has happened to our nation's sense of striving 
to do what we know to be the right thing? Those who favor the death 
penalty should be pressed to explain why fallible human beings should 
presume to use the power of the state to extinguish the life of a 
fellow human being on our collective behalf. Those who oppose the death 
penalty should demand that explanation adamantly, and at every turn. 
But only a zealous few try.
  Our nation is a great nation. We have the strongest democracy in the 
world. We have expended blood and treasure to protect so many 
fundamental human rights at home and abroad and not always for only our 
own interests. But we can do better. Mr. President, we should do 
better. And we should use this moment to do better as we step not only 
into a new century but also a new millennium, the first such landmark 
since the depths of the Middle Ages.
  Courtesy of the Internet and CNN International, the world observes, 
perplexed and sometimes horrified, the violence in our nation. When the 
Littleton tragedy erupted, newspapers all over the world marveled at 
how readily available guns are to American children. And across the 
globe, with every American who is executed, the entire world watches 
and asks how can the Americans, the champions of human rights, 
compromise their own professed beliefs in this way.
  Religious groups and leaders express their revulsion at the continued 
practice of capital punishment. Pope John Paul II frequently appeals to 
American governors when a death row inmate is about to die. I am 
pleased that in a recent case, involving an inmate on death row in 
Missouri, the Missouri governor heeded the good advice of the pontiff 
and commuted the killer's sentence to life without parole. That case 
generated a lot of press--but only as a political issue, rather than a 
moral question or a human rights challenge.
  But the Pope is not standing alone against the death penalty. He is 
joined by the chorus of voices of various people of faith who abhor the 
death penalty. Religious groups from the National Conference of 
Catholic Bishops, the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, 
the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Mennonites, the Central 
Conference of American Rabbis, and so many more people of faith have 
proclaimed their opposition to capital punishment. And, I might add, 
even conservative Pat Robertson protested the execution in 1998 of 
Karla Faye Tucker, a born-again Christian on Texas death row. Mr. 
President, I would like to see the commutation of sentences to life 
without parole for all death row inmates--whether they are Christians, 
Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, or some other faith, or no faith at all.
  The United States' casual imposition of capital punishment is 
abhorrent not only to many people of faith. Our use of the death 
penalty also stands in stark contrast to the majority of nations that 
have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. Even Russia and 
South Africa--nations that for years were symbols of egregious 
violations of basic human rights and liberties--have seen the error of 
the use of the death penalty. The United Nations Commission on Human 
Rights has called for a worldwide moratorium on the use of the death 
penalty. And soon, Italy and other European nations are expected to 
introduce a resolution in the UN General Assembly calling for a 
worldwide moratorium.
  The European Union denies membership in their alliance to those 
nations that use the death penalty. In fact, the European Union 
recently warned Turkey that if it executes the Kurdish leader, Abdullah 
Ocalan, Turkey would jeopardize its membership application. Just this 
past December, the European Union actually passed a resolution calling 
for the immediate and unconditional global abolition of the death 
penalty, and it specifically called on all states within the United 
States to abolish the death penalty. This is significant because it 
reflects the unanimous view of the nations with which the United States 
enjoys its closest relationships--nations that so often follow our 
lead.
  Mr. President, what is even more troubling in the international 
context is that the United States is now one of only six countries that 
imposes the death penalty for crimes committed by children. I'll repeat 
that because it is remarkable. We are one of only six nations on this 
earth that puts to death people who were under 18 years of age when 
they committed their crimes. The others are Iran, Pakistan, Nigeria, 
Saudi Arabia and Yemen. These are countries that are often criticized 
for human rights abuses. And let's look at the numbers. Since 1990, the 
United States has executed ten child offenders. That's more than any 
one of these five other countries and equal to all five countries 
combined. Even China --the country that many members of Congress, 
including myself, have criticized for its human rights violations--
apparently has the decency not to execute its children. This is 
embarrassing. Is this the kind of company we want to keep? Is this the 
kind of world leader we want to be? But these are the facts for this 
past decade, 1990 to the present.
  Now, let's look at the last two years. In the last two years, the 
United States has been the only nation in the world to put to death 
people who were minors when they committed their crimes. We have 
executed four child offenders during the last two years. Today, over 70 
child offenders remain on death row. No one, Mr. President, no one can 
reasonably argue that based on this data, executing child offenders is 
a normal or acceptable practice in the world community. And I 
don't think we should be proud of the fact that the United States is 
the world leader in the execution of child offenders.

  Is the death penalty a deterrent for our children's conduct, as well 
as that

[[Page S14564]]

of adult Americans? For those who believe capital punishment is a 
deterrent, they are sadly, sadly mistaken. The federal government and 
most states in the U.S. have a death penalty, while our European 
counterparts do not. Following the logic of death penalty supporters 
who believe it's a deterrent, you would think that our European allies, 
who don't use the death penalty, would have a higher murder rate than 
the United States. Yet, they don't and it's not even close. In fact, 
the murder rate in the U.S. is six times higher than the murder rate in 
Britain, seven times higher than in France, five times higher than in 
Australia, and five times higher than in Sweden.
  But we don't even need to look across the Atlantic to see that 
capital punishment has no deterrent effect on crime. Let's compare 
Wisconsin and Texas. I'm proud of the fact that my great state, 
Wisconsin, was the first state in this nation to abolish the death 
penalty completely, when it did so in 1853. Wisconsin has been death 
penalty-free for nearly 150 years. In contrast, Texas is the most 
prodigious user of the death penalty, having executed 192 people since 
1976. Let's look at the murder rate in Wisconsin and Texas. During the 
period 1995 to 1998, Texas has had a murder rate that is nearly double 
the murder rate in Wisconsin. This data alone calls into question the 
argument that the death penalty is a deterrent to murder.
  In fact, according to a 1995 Hart Research poll, the majority of our 
nation's police chiefs do not believe the death penalty is a 
particularly effective law enforcement tool. When asked to rank the 
various factors in reducing crime, police chiefs ranked the death 
penalty last. Rather, the police chiefs --the people who deal with 
hardened criminals day in and day out --cite reducing drug abuse as the 
primary factor in reducing crime, along with a better economy and jobs, 
simplifying court rules, longer prison sentences, more police officers, 
and reducing guns. It looks like most police chiefs recognize what our 
European allies and a few states like Wisconsin have known all along: 
the death penalty is not an effective deterrent.
  Mr. President, let me be clear. I believe murderers and other violent 
offenders should be severely punished. I'm not seeking to open the 
prison doors and let murderers come rushing out into our communities. I 
don't want to free them. The question is: should the death penalty be a 
means of punishment in our society? One of the most frequent refrains 
from death penalty supporters is the claim that the majority of 
Americans support the death penalty. It's repeated so often, everybody 
assumes it's true. Mr. President, the facts do not support this claim. 
Survey after survey, from around the country, shows that when offered 
sentencing alternatives, more Americans prefer life without parole plus 
restitution for the victim's family over the death penalty. For 
example, a 1993 national poll found that when offered alternatives to 
the death penalty, 44% of Americans supported the alternative of life 
without parole plus restitution over the death penalty. Only 41% 
preferred the death penalty and 15% were unsure. This is remarkable. 
Sure, if you ask Americans the simple, isolated question of whether 
they support the death penalty, a majority of Americans will agree. But 
if you ask them whether they support the death penalty or a realistic, 
practical alternative sentence like life without parole plus 
restitution, support for the death penalty falls dramatically to below 
50%. More Americans support the alternative sentence than Americans who 
support the death penalty.
  The fact that our society relies on killing as punishment is 
disturbing enough. Even more disturbing, however, is the fact that the 
States' and federal use of the death penalty is often not consistent 
with principles of due process, fairness and justice. These principles 
are the foundation of our criminal justice system and, in a broader 
sense, the stability of our nation. It is clearer than ever before that 
we have put innocent people on death row. In addition, those States 
that have the death penalty are more likely to put people to death for 
killing white victims than for killing black victims.
  Mr. President, are we certain that innocent persons are not being 
executed? Obviously not. Are we certain that racial bias is not 
infecting the criminal justice system and the administration of the 
death penalty? I doubt it.
  It simply cannot be disputed that we are sending innocent people to 
death. Since the modern death penalty was reinstated in the 1970s, we 
have released 79 men and women from death row. Why? Because they were 
innocent. Seventy-nine men and women sitting on death row, awaiting a 
firing squad, lethal injection or electrocution, but later found 
innocent. That's one death row inmate found innocent for every seven 
executed. One in seven! That's a pretty poor performance for American 
justice. A wrong conviction means that the real killer may have gotten 
away. The real killer may still be on the loose and a threat to 
society. What an injustice that the victims' loved ones cannot rest 
because the killer is still not caught. What an injustice that an 
innocent man or woman has to spend even one day in jail. What a 
staggering injustice that innocent people are sentenced to death for 
crimes they did not commit. What a disgrace when we carry out those 
sentences, actually taking the lives of innocent people in the name of 
justice.
  I call my colleagues' attention to the recent example of an Illinois 
death row inmate, Ronald Jones, who had been sentenced to death for the 
rape and murder of a Chicago woman. After a lengthy interrogation in 
which Mr. Jones was beaten by police, he signed a confession. As a 
class assignment, a group of Northwestern University journalism 
students researched the case of Ronald Jones. What did they learn? They 
learned that Mr. Jones was clearly innocent and not for some technical 
reason--he just didn't do it. As a result of the students' efforts, Mr. 
Jones was later exonerated based on DNA evidence. Mr. President, our 
criminal justice system sent an innocent man to death row. Mr. Jones 
was tried and convicted in a justice system that is sometimes far from 
just and that sometimes just gets it wrong. And Mr. Jones is not alone. 
In Illinois alone, three death row inmates so far this year have been 
proven innocent. Since 1987, Illinois has freed 12 inmates from death 
row because they were later found innocent.
  Innocent, Mr. President, and they were sitting on death row. 
Innocent, and yet they were about to be killed. Why? Because our 
criminal justice system is sometimes far from fair and far from just. 
We can all agree that it is profoundly wrong to convict and condemn 
innocent people to death. But sadly, that's what's happening. With the 
greater accuracy and sophistication of DNA testing available today 
compared to even a couple of years ago, states like Illinois are 
finding that people sitting on death row did not commit the crimes to 
which earlier, less accurate DNA tests appeared to link them. This DNA 
technology should be further reviewed and compared to other tests. We 
should consider the role of DNA tests in all those committed to death 
row.
  Some argue that the discovery of the innocence of a death row inmate 
proves that the system works. This is absurd. How can you say the 
criminal justice system works when a group of students--not lawyers or 
investigators but students with no special powers, who were very much 
outside the system--discover that a man about to be executed was in 
fact innocent? That's what happened in Illinois to Ronald Jones. The 
system doesn't work. It has failed us.
  A primary reason why justice has been less than just is a series of 
Supreme Court decisions that seem to fail to grasp the significance and 
responsibility of their task when a human life is at stake. The Supreme 
Court has been narrowly focused on procedural technicalities, ignoring 
the fact that the death penalty is a unique punishment that cannot be 
undone to correct mistakes. One disturbing decision was issued by the 
Supreme Court just a few months ago. In Jones v. United States, which 
involved an inmate on death row in Texas and the interpretation of the 
1994 Federal Death Penalty Act, the judge refused to tell the jury that 
if they deadlocked on the sentence, the law required the judge to 
impose a sentence of life without possibility of parole. As a result, 
some jurors were under the grave misunderstanding that lack of 
unanimity would mean the judge could give a sentence where the

[[Page S14565]]

defendant might one day go free. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the 
lower court's imposition of the death penalty. And one more person will 
lose a life, when a simple correction of a misunderstanding could have 
resulted in a severe yet morally correct sentence of life without 
parole.
  As legal scholar Ronald Dworkin recently observed, ``[t]he Supreme 
Court has become impatient, and super due process has turned into due 
process-lite. Its impatience is understandable, but is also 
unacceptable.'' Mr. President, America's impatience with the protracted 
appeals of death row inmates is understandable. But this impatience is 
unacceptable. The rush to judgment is unacceptable. And the rush to 
execute men, women and children who might well be innocent is 
horrifying.
  The discovery of the innocence of death row inmates and misguided 
Supreme Court decisions disallowing potentially dispositive exculpatory 
evidence, however, aren't the only reasons we need to abolish the death 
penalty. Another reason we need to abolish the death penalty is the 
continuing racism in our criminal justice system. Our nation is facing 
a crucial test. A test of moral and political will. We have come a long 
way through this nation's history, and especially in this century, to 
dismantle state-sponsored and societal racism. Brown v. Board of 
Education, ensuring the right to equal educational opportunities for 
whites and blacks, was decided only 45 years ago. Unfortunately, 
however, we are still living with vestiges of institutional racism. In 
some cases, racism can be found at every stage of a capital trial--in 
the selection of jurors, during the presentation of evidence, when the 
prosecutor contrasts the race of the victim and defendant to appeal to 
the prejudice of the jury, and sometimes during jury deliberations.
  After the 1976 Supreme Court Gregg decision upholding the use of the 
death penalty, the death penalty was first enacted as a sentence at the 
federal level with passage of the Drug Kingpin Statute in 1988. Since 
that time, numerous additional federal crimes have become death 
penalty-eligible, bringing the total to about 60 statutes today. At the 
federal level, 21 people have been sentenced to death. Another eight 
men sit on the military's death row. Of those 21 defendants on the 
federal government's death row, 14 are black and only 5 are white. One 
defendant is Hispanic and another Asian. That means 16 of the 21 people 
on federal death row are minorities. That's just over 75%. And the 
numbers are worse on the military's death row. Seven of the eight, or 
87.5%, on military death row are minorities.
  Some of my colleagues may remember the debates of the late 1980's and 
early 1990's, when Congress considered the Racial Justice Act and other 
attempts to eradicate racism in the use of capital punishment. A noted 
study evaluating the role of race in death penalty cases was frequently 
discussed. This was the study by David Baldus, a professor at the 
University of Iowa College of Law. The Baldus study found that 
defendants who kill white victims are more than four times more likely 
to be sent to death row than defendants who kill black victims. An 
argument against the Baldus study was made by some opponents of the 
Racial Justice Act. They argued that we just needed to ``level up'' the 
playing field. In other words, send all the defendants who killed black 
victims to death row, too. They argued that legislative remedies were 
not needed, just tell prosecutors and judges to go after perpetrators 
of black homicide as strongly as against perpetrators of white 
homicide.
  In theory, this may sound reasonable but one thing is clear: no 
matter how hard we try, we cannot overcome the inevitable fallibility 
of being human. That fallibility means that we will not be able to 
apply the death penalty in a fair and just manner. We will always run 
the risk that we will condemn innocent people to death. Mr. President, 
let's restore some certainty, fairness, and justice to our criminal 
justice system. Let's have the courage to recognize our human 
fallibilities. Let's put a halt to capital punishment.
  The American Bar Association agrees. In 1997, the American Bar 
Association called for a moratorium on the death penalty because it 
found that the application of the death penalty raises fairness and due 
process concerns. Several states are finally beginning to recognize the 
great injustice when the ultimate punishment is carried out in a biased 
and unfair way. Moratoriums have been considered by the legislatures of 
at least ten states over the last several months. The legislatures of 
Illinois and Nebraska have made the most progress. They actually passed 
moratorium measures earlier this year.
  I am glad to see that some states are finally taking steps to correct 
the practice of legalized killing that was again unleashed by the 
Supreme Court's Gregg decision in 1976. The first post-Gregg execution 
took place in 1977 in Utah, when Gary Gilmore did not challenge and 
instead aggressively sought his execution by a firing squad. The first 
post-Gregg involuntary execution took place on May 25, 1979. I vividly 
remember that day. I had just finished my last law school exam that 
morning. Later that day, I recall turning on the television and 
watching the news report that Florida had just executed John 
Spenkelink. I was overcome with a sickening feeling. Here I was, fresh 
out of law school and firm in my belief that our legal system was 
advancing through the latter quarter of the twentieth century. Instead, 
to my great dismay, I was witnessing a throwback to the electric chair, 
the gallows, and the routine executions of our nation's earlier 
history.
  Mr. President, I haven't forgotten that experience or what I thought 
and felt on that day. At the end of 1999, at the end of a remarkable 
century and millennium of progress, I cannot help but believe that our 
progress has been tarnished with our nation's not only continuing, but 
increasing use of the death penalty. As of today, the United States has 
executed 584 people since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 
1976. In those 23 years, there has been a sharp rise in the number of 
executions. This year the United States has already set a record for 
the most executions in our country in one year, 84--the latest 
execution being that of Thomas Lee Royal, Jr., who was executed by 
lethal injection just last night by the state of Virginia. And the year 
isn't even over yet. We are on track to hit close to 100 executions 
this year. This is astounding and it is embarrassing. We are a nation 
that prides itself on the fundamental principles of justice, liberty, 
equality and due process. We are a nation that scrutinizes the human 
rights records of other nations. We are one of the first nations to 
speak out against torture and killings by foreign governments. It is 
time for us to look in the mirror.
  Two former Supreme Court justices did just that. Justice Harry 
Blackmun penned the following eloquent dissent in 1994:
       From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the 
     machinery of death. For more than 20 years I have 
     endeavored--indeed, I have struggled--along with a majority 
     of this Court, to develop procedural and substantive rules 
     that would lend more than the mere appearance of fairness to 
     the death penalty endeavor. Rather than continue to coddle 
     the Court's delusion that the desired level of fairness has 
     been achieved and the need for regulation eviscerated, I feel 
     morally and intellectually obligated simply to concede that 
     the death penalty experiment has failed. It is virtually 
     self-evident to me now that no combination of procedural 
     rules or substantive regulations ever can save the death 
     penalty from its inherent constitutional deficiencies. The 
     basic question--does the system accurately and consistently 
     determine which defendants ``deserve'' to die?--cannot be 
     answered in the affirmative. . . . The problem is that the 
     inevitability of factual, legal, and moral error gives us a 
     system that we know must wrongly kill some defendants, a 
     system that fails to deliver the fair, consistent, and 
     reliable sentences of death required by the Constitution.

  Justice Lewis Powell also had a similar change of mind. Justice 
Powell dissented from the Furman decision in 1972, which struck down 
the death penalty as a form of cruel and unusual punishment. He also 
wrote the decision in McCleskey v. Kemp in 1987, which denied a 
challenge to the death penalty on the grounds that it was applied in a 
discriminatory manner against African Americans. In 1991, however, 
Justice Powell told his biographer that he had decided that capital 
punishment should be abolished.
  After sitting on our nation's highest court for over 20 years, 
Justices Blackmun and Powell came to understand the randomness and 
unfairness of the death penalty. Mr. President, it is time for our 
nation to follow the lead of these two distinguished jurists and

[[Page S14566]]

re-visit its support for this form of punishment.
  At the end of 1999, as we enter a new millennium, our society is 
still far from fully just. The continued use of the death penalty 
demeans us. The death penalty is at odds with our best traditions. It 
is wrong and it is immoral. The adage ``two wrongs do not make a 
right,'' could not be more appropriate here. Our nation has long ago 
done away with other barbaric punishments like whipping and cutting off 
the ears of suspected criminals. Just as our nation did away with these 
punishments as contrary to our humanity and ideals, it is time to 
abolish the death penalty as we enter the next century. And it's not 
just a matter of morality. Mr. President, the continued viability of 
our justice system as a truly just system requires that we do so. And 
in the world's eyes, the ability of our nation to say truthfully that 
we are the leader and defender of freedom, liberty and equality demands 
that we do so.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in taking the first step in abolishing 
the death penalty in our great nation. Today, I introduce a bill that 
abolishes the death penalty at the federal level. I call on all states 
that have the death penalty to also cease this practice. Let us step 
away from the culture of violence and restore fairness and integrity to 
our criminal justice system. I close with this reminder to my 
colleagues. Where would our nation be if members of Congress were 
followers, not leaders, of public opinion? We, of course, would still 
be living with slavery, segregation and without a woman's right to 
vote. Like abolishing slavery and segregation and establishing a 
woman's right to vote, abolishing the death penalty will not be an easy 
task. It will take patience, persistence and courage. As we head into 
the next millennium, let us leave this archaic practice behind.
  Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  The bill follows:

                                S. 1917

       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 ``Federal Death Penalty 
     Abolition Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF FEDERAL LAWS PROVIDING FOR THE DEATH 
                   PENALTY.

       (a) Homicide-Related Offenses.--
       (1) Murder related to the smuggling of aliens.--Section 
     274(a)(1)(B)(iv) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(B)(iv)) is amended by striking ``punished 
     by death or''.
       (2) Destruction of aircraft, motor vehicles, or related 
     facilities resulting in death.--Section 34 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``to the death 
     penalty or''.
       (3) Murder committed during a drug-related drive-by 
     shooting.--Section 36(b)(2)(A) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``death or''
       (4) Murder committed at an airport serving international 
     civil aviation.--Section 37(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended, in the matter following paragraph (2), by 
     striking ``punished by death or''.
       (5) Civil rights offenses resulting in death.--Chapter 13 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in section 241, by striking ``, or may be sentenced to 
     death'';
       (B) in section 242, by striking ``, or may be sentenced to 
     death'';
       (C) in section 245(b), by striking ``, or may be sentenced 
     to death''; and
       (D) in section 247(d)(1), by striking ``, or may be 
     sentenced to death''.
       (6) Murder of a member of congress, an important executive 
     official, or a supreme court justice.--Section 351 of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``death or''; and
       (B) in subsection (d)(2), by striking ``death or''.
       (7) Death resulting from offenses involving transportation 
     of explosives, destruction of government property, or 
     destruction of property related to foreign or interstate 
     commerce.--Section 844 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (d), by striking ``or to the death 
     penalty'';
       (B) in subsection (f)(3), by striking ``subject to the 
     death penalty, or'';
       (C) in subsection (i), by striking ``or to the death 
     penalty''; and
       (D) in subsection (n), by striking ``(other than the 
     penalty of death)''.
       (8) Murder committed by use of a firearm during commission 
     of a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime.--Section 
     924(j)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``by death or''.
       (9) Genocide.--Section 1091(b)(1) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``death or''.
       (10) First degree murder.--Section 1111(b) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``by death or''.
       (11) Murder by a federal prisoner.--Section 1118 of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``by death or''; and
       (B) in subsection (b), in the third undesignated 
     paragraph--
       (i) by inserting ``or'' before ``an indeterminate''; and
       (ii) by striking ``, or an unexecuted sentence of death''.
       (12) Murder of a state or local law enforcement official or 
     other person aiding in a federal investigation; murder of a 
     state correctional officer.--Section 1121 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``by sentence of death 
     or''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``or death''.
       (13) Murder during a kidnaping.--Section 1201(a) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``death or''.
       (14) Murder during a hostage-taking.--Section 1203(a) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``death 
     or''.
       (15) Murder with the intent of preventing testimony by a 
     witness, victim, or informant.--Section 1512(a)(2)(A) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``the 
     death penalty or''.
       (16) Mailing of injurious articles with intent to kill or 
     resulting in death.--Section 1716(i) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``to the death penalty 
     or''.
       (17) Assassination or kidnaping resulting in the death of 
     the president or vice president.--Section 1751 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``death or''; and
       (B) in subsection (d)(2), by striking ``death or''.
       (18) Murder for hire.--Section 1958(a) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``death or''.
       (19) Murder involved in a racketeering offense.--Section 
     1959(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``death or''.
       (20) Willful wrecking of a train resulting in death.--
     Section 1992(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``to the death penalty or''.
       (21) Bank robbery-related murder or kidnaping.--Section 
     2113(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``death or''.
       (22) Murder related to a carjacking.--Section 2119(3) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``, or 
     sentenced to death''.
       (23) Murder related to aggravated child sexual abuse.--
     Section 2241(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``unless the death penalty is imposed,''.
       (24) Murder related to sexual abuse.--Section 2245 of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``punished by 
     death or''.
       (25) Murder related to sexual exploitation of children.--
     Section 2251(d) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``punished by death or''.
       (26) Murder committed during an offense against maritime 
     navigation.--Section 2280(a)(1) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``punished by death or''.
       (27) Murder committed during an offense against a maritime 
     fixed platform.--Section 2281(a)(1) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``punished by death or''.
       (28) Terrorist murder of a united states national in 
     another country.--Section 2332(a)(1) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``death or''.
       (29) Murder by the use of a weapon of mass destruction.--
     Section 2332a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``punished by death 
     or''; and
       (B) in subsection (b), by striking ``by death, or''.
       (30) Murder by act of terrorism transcending national 
     boundaries.--Section 2332b(c)(1) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``by death, or''.
       (31) Murder involving torture.--Section 2340A(a) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``punished by 
     death or''.
       (32) Murder related to a continuing criminal enterprise or 
     related murder of a federal, state, or local law enforcement 
     officer.--Section 408 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
     U.S.C. 848) is amended--
       (A) in each of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection 
     (e)(1), by striking ``, or may be sentenced to death'';
       (B) by striking subsections (g) and (h) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(g) [Reserved.]
       ``(h) [Reserved.]'';
       (C) in subsection (j), by striking `` and as to 
     appropriateness in that case of imposing a sentence of 
     death'';
       (D) in subsection (k), by striking ``, other than death,'' 
     and all that follows before the period at the end and 
     inserting ``authorized by law''; and
       (E) by striking subsections (l) and (m) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(l) [Reserved.]
       ``(m) [Reserved.]''.
       (33) Death resulting from aircraft hijacking.--Section 
     46502 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``put to death or''; 
     and
       (B) in subsection (b)(1)(B), by striking ``put to death 
     or''.

[[Page S14567]]

       (b) Non-Homicide Related Offenses.--
       (1) Espionage.--Section 794(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``punished by death or'' and all 
     that follows before the period and inserting ``imprisoned for 
     any term of years or for life''.
       (2) Treason.--Section 2381 of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``suffer death, or''.
       (c) Repeal of Criminal Procedures Relating To Imposition of 
     Death Sentence.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 228 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is repealed.
       (2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of 
     chapters for part II of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking the item relating to chapter 228.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSITION OF DEATH SENTENCE.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no person may be sentenced to death or put to death on 
     or after the date of enactment of this Act for any violation 
     of Federal law .
       (b) Persons Sentenced Before Date of Enactment.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person 
     sentenced to death before the date of enactment of this Act 
     for any violation of Federal law shall serve a sentence of 
     life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
                                 ______