[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 10 (Thursday, January 25, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S581-S585]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 191. A bill to abolish the death penalty under Federal Law; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal 
Death Penalty Abolition Act of 2001. 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.
  The most recent Gallup poll shows that, while a majority of Americans 
continue to support capital punishment, this support has reached a 
nearly 20-year low. This diminished support comes amid rising concern 
that the system by which we impose the sentence of death is seriously 
flawed. In the last year or so since I first introduced this bill, the 
American people have learned about the risk of executing innocent 
people and other fairness and reliability concerns with the 
administration of the death penalty. I am confident that in the weeks 
and months to come, the American people will continue to learn and 
continue to question the fairness of our death penalty system.
  In recent years, 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 are now reached by that 
culture of violence, not merely as casual observers, but as 
participants and victims.
  But, 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

[[Page S582]]

our children that the way to settle scores is through violence, even to 
the point of taking a human life. Sadly, total executions in the last 
two years--98 in 1999 and 85 in 2000--mark the highest number of total 
annual executions since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976.
  At the same time, I am pleased that the public debate on the death 
penalty, which was an intense national debate not very long ago, 
appears to have been revived. In the wake of recent controversies 
involving DNA technology and the discovery of condemned innocents, we 
are once again having a national debate on this important issue of 
justice. 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 extinguished 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. We should do better. Courtesy of 
the Internet and CNN International, the world observes, perplexed and 
sometimes horrified, the violence in our nation. 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 one case in January 1999, involving an inmate on death 
row in Missouri, the late Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan 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' imposition of capital punishment is abhorrent not 
only to 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 South Africa and Russia--nations that 
for years were violators of basic human rights and liberties--have 
abolished the death penalty or are moving toward abolition of the death 
penalty, respectively. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights 
has called for a worldwide moratorium on the use of the death penalty. 
The European Union denies membership in the alliance to those nations 
that use the death penalty. In fact, it 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 
closet relationships--nations that so often follow our lead.

  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. When will we rectify this clear human rights violation--the 
execution of people who were not even adults when they committed the 
crimes for which they were sentenced to die?
  Let's look at the numbers. Since 1990, the United States has executed 
14 child offenders. That's more than all of the five aforementioned 
nations combined. In 2000, the rest of the world watched as the United 
States not only executed four juvenile offenders, but was the only 
nation to engage in such an egregious practice at all. Even China--the 
country that many members of Congress, including myself, have 
criticized for its human rights abuses--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, from the last decade of the 20th century 
to the present. 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 of adult Americans? The numbers prove that those who believe 
that capital punishment is an effective deterrent 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 is 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, 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. The geographical 
disparities within the United States lead to the same conclusion. Let's 
compare Wisconsin and Texas. I'm proud of the fact that in 1853, my 
home state of Wisconsin became the first state in the nation to abolish 
the death penalty completely. Wisconsin has been death penalty-free for 
nearly 150 years. In contrast, Texas is the most prodigious user of the 
death penalty, having executed 241 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. The same trend can also be detected on a regional scale. The 
Southern region of the United States has a higher murder rate than any 
other region. Yet, executions taking place in that region constituted 
almost 90 percent of executions in the nation as a whole. These and 
countless other data continue to call 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 rank 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.
  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

[[Page S583]]

society? One of the most frequent refrains from death penalty 
supporters is the claim that the majority of Americans support the 
death penalty. But Mr. President, an August 2000 Gallup poll shows that 
while 67 percent of Americans support the death penalty, only 28 
percent do so without reservations. In contrast, 37 percent support the 
death penalty with reservations and 26 percent of Americans do not 
support the death penalty at all.

  Furthermore, surveys show that when sentencing alternatives are 
offered, support for the death penalty drops to below 50 percent. And a 
plurality of Americans prefer life without parole plus restitution for 
the victim's family to the death penalty. According to a 1993 national 
poll, 44 percent of Americans supported the alternative of life without 
parole plus restitution. Only 41 percent preferred the death penalty 
and 15 percent 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 percent. More 
Americans support the alternative sentence than 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, statistics show 
that those States that have the death penalty are more likely to put 
people to death for killing white victims than for killing black 
victims.
  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 93 men and women in 22 states from death row. Why? 
Because they were innocent. Ninety-three 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 wrongful conviction means that the real killer 
may have gotten away. 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, Anthony Porter, who was freed in 1999 after 16 years 
of his life were wasted awaiting execution for a crime he did not 
commit. Mr. Porter came within two days of execution when his life was 
spared only because of questions regarding his mental competency. Mr. 
Porter owes his freedom, as some previous Illinois death row inmates 
do, to investigation by Northwestern University journalism students. 
They persuaded the true killer to confess on videotape. A statement by 
the true killer's estranged wife that Chicago police pressured her into 
testifying against Porter further represents the level of unreliability 
and failures in the administration of the death penalty surrounding 
this case. College students were able to successfully spare the lives 
of innocent men. Men were freed from death row not because of 
technicalities, but because they were truly innocent. Mr. President, it 
is clear that our criminal justice system is sometimes far from just 
and sometimes just plain wrong.
  One is left with the inescapable conclusion that even if it is not 
absolutely certain, it is very possible that innocent people have been 
executed. Why? 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 make sure that the most sophisticated, modern 
DNA tests are made available to those on 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? A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll shows that 
63 percent of Americans favor suspending capital punishment until 
fairness questions can be adequately studied. Americans recognize the 
failures of our justice system and are demanding answers.
  A primary reason why our justice system has sometimes been less than 
just is a series of U.S. 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. 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 defendant might one day go free. The jurors 
therefore returned a sentence of death. The Supreme Court 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 ruse 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 and/or 
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 evidence of racial bias 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 
almost half a century 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

[[Page S584]]

death penalty-eligible, bringing the total to about 60 federal crimes 
today. At the federal level, 20 people currently sit on death row. 
Another seven men sit on the military's death row. Of those 2 
defendants on the federal government's death row, 14 are black and only 
4 are white. One defendant is Hispanic and another Asian. That means 16 
of the 20 people on federal death row are members of a racial or ethnic 
minority. That's 80 percent. And the numbers are worse on the 
military's death row. Six of the seven, or 86 percent, 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 racial bias in the administration 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 strong as against 
perpetrators of white homicide. I believe such arguments displayed a 
shocking insensitivity to racial bias in our criminal justice system.
  Problems with bias and arbitrariness have not escaped the federal 
death penalty system. In September 2000, the Department of Justice 
released a report on the federal death penalty system. That report that 
whether one will live or die in the federal system appears to be 
related to the color of one's skin or the federal district in which the 
prosecution takes place. I think we can all agree that the report is 
deeply disturbing. There is a glaring lack of uniformity in the 
application of the federal death penalty. Why do these disparities 
exist? How can they be addressed? The Justice Department report doesn't 
have answers to these and other questions. I am pleased that Attorney 
General Janet Reno initiated additional, internal reviews, and it is my 
fervent hope that the next Attorney General will follow through on this 
important further study and analysis.
  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 be unable to apply the death penalty in a fair and just manner. 
The risk that we will condemn innocent people to death will always 
lurk. Mr. President, let's restore some certainty, fairness, and 
justice to our criminal justice system. Let's have the courage to 
recognize human fallibility.

  The American Bar Association has also raised fairness and due process 
concerns. In 1997, the American Bar Association became the first 
organization to call for a moratorium on the death penalty. Several 
states are finally beginning to recognize the great injustice when the 
ultimate punishment is carried out in a biased and unfair way. In 
January 2000, Governor George Ryan became the first chief executive to 
place a moratorium on executions. Moratorium bills have been considered 
by the legislatures of at least ten states over the last two years.
  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.
  I haven't forgotten that experience or what I thought and felt on 
that day. At the beginning of 2001, at the end of a remarkable century 
and millennium of progress and at the beginning of a new century and 
millennium with hopes for even greater progress, I cannot help but 
believe that our progress has been tarnished by our Nation's not only 
continuing, but increasing use of the death penalty. As of today, the 
United States has executed 690 people since the reinstatement of the 
death penalty in 1976. 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 re-
visit its support for this form of punishment.
  At the beginning of 2001, as we enter a new millennium, our society 
is still far from fully just. The continued use of the death demenas 
us. The 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. 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 close with the following remarks from Aundre Herron, an attorney 
who was recently honored in California for her outstanding service in 
defense of those charged with capital crimes:

       .  .  . [T]he death penalty is America's dark underbelly--
     the worst of America--the part we seek desperately to hide 
     from public view. . . . It is here--in the worst of America--
     that the death penalty finds its truest and most sinister 
     meaning--the death penalty is where all the contradictions 
     converge. It is this country's way of destroying the evidence 
     of its failures, its hypocrisy, its shame. It is the last 
     relic of America's worst

[[Page S585]]

     legacies--slavery, segregation, lynching, racism, classism 
     and violence.

  Abolishing the death penalty will not be an easy task. It will take 
patience, persistence and courage. As we head to a new millennium, let 
us leave this archaic practice behind.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in taking the first step in abolishing 
the death penalty in our great nation. I also call on each state that 
authorizes the use of the death penalty to cease this practice. Let us 
step away from the culture of violence and restore fairness and 
integrity to our criminal justice system.
  I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record following my 
remarks.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 191

       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 2001''.

     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)(A) 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''.
       (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 ``shall 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.
                                 ______