[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 3 (Thursday, January 9, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S160-S164]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Corzine, and Mr. 
        Durbin):
  S. 132. A bill to place a moratorium on executions by the Federal 
Government and urge the States to do the same, while a National 
Commission on the Death Penalty reviews the fairness of the imposition 
of the death penalty; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this week, the University of Maryland 
released the findings of its landmark 2-year study on Maryland's death 
penalty system. The report reveals disturbing racial and geographic 
disparities in the administration of the death penalty in Maryland. It 
confirms the alarming conclusion that the administration of our 
criminal justice system's ultimate punishment is flawed and far from 
fair or just.
  That is why I rise today to reintroduce the National Death Penalty 
Moratorium Act. This bill seeks to apply the wisdom of out-going 
Maryland Governor Parris Glendening and out-going

[[Page S161]]

Illinois Governor George Ryan to the Federal Government and all States 
that authorize the use of capital punishment. The bill would place a 
moratorium on Federal executions and urge States to do the same. The 
bill would also create a National Commission on the Death Penalty to 
review the fairness of the administration of the death penalty at the 
State and Federal levels. This Commission would be an independent, blue 
ribbon panel of distinguished prosecutors, defense attorneys, jurists 
and others. I am pleased that my distinguished colleagues, Senators 
Levin, Corzine, and Durbin, have joined me in cosponsoring this bill.
  The University of Maryland study was conducted by Professor Raymond 
Paternoster of the University's Institute of Criminal Justice and 
Criminology, and is the most exhaustive study of Maryland's application 
of the death penalty in history. Professor Paternoster and other 
researchers examined records of every homicide prosecution in which the 
death penalty could have been sought, dating back to 1978.
  The study released this week found that blacks accused of killing 
whites are simply more likely to receive a death sentence than blacks 
who kill blacks, or than white killers. According to the report, black 
offenders who kill whites are four times as likely to be sentenced to 
death as blacks who kill blacks, and twice as likely to get a death 
sentence as whites who kill whites.
  The study also confirms geographic disparity in Maryland's death 
penalty system. Those convicted of murder in Baltimore County, a 
jurisdiction with a high number of white murder victims, are 26 times 
as likely to be sentenced to death as those convicted in Baltimore 
City, and 14 times as likely as those convicted in Montgomery County.
  Two years ago, when Governor Glendening learned of these suspected 
disparities, he did not look the other way. Then last year, faced with 
the rapid approach of a scheduled execution, he acknowledged that it 
was unacceptable to allow executions to take place while the study he 
had ordered was not yet complete. So, in May 2002, he placed a 
moratorium on executions. That was the right thing to do.

  I urge Governor-elect Ehrlich to do the right thing by extending the 
moratorium. It would be contrary to our Nation's founding principles of 
fairness and justice to execute anyone in Maryland before the questions 
raised by the study are addressed.
  The year 2002 was a landmark year for the examination of the death 
penalty. Last year the 102nd person was exonerated from death row in 
the modern death penalty era; 102 innocent people have been exonerated, 
in some cases just days from execution, after being found innocent of 
crimes for which they served sometimes years on death row. That is not 
a small number. In the modern death penalty era, our Nation has 
executed 820 people. That means that according to our best estimates, 
since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, for every 8 people 
executed, one who had been convicted and sentenced to death has been 
found innocent.
  That is an unacceptable high error rate in the administration of a 
punishment for which errors caught too late cannot be fixed. That's a 
rate of error with which none of us should be comfortable.
  We should learn from the example set by Governor Glendening and by 
Governor Ryan. Their voices are two of the many that have chimed in 
over recent years to express doubt about the fairness of our Nation's 
system of capital punishment. As evidence of the flaws in our system 
mounts, it has created an awareness that has not escaped the attention 
of the American people. Layer after layer of confidence in the death 
penalty system has been gradually peeling away, and the voices of those 
questioning its fairness are growing louder and louder. Now they can be 
heard from college campuses and court rooms and podiums across the 
nation, to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing room, to the Supreme 
Court. We must not ignore them.
  In 2002, Governor Ryan's Commission on Capital Punishment issued its 
report, which concluded with 85 recommendations for reforming the death 
penalty system. In June 2002, I held a hearing in the Judiciary 
Subcommittee on the Constitution on the report of the Illinois 
Governor's Commission on Capital Punishment. We were fortunate to have 
Governor Ryan and other members of the Commission testify about the 
many flaws in the Illinois death penalty system and their 
recommendations for reform.
  The Illinois study and report are invaluable to the study of fairness 
in our justice system. Governor Ryan's Commission provides a model for 
the nation for how we can respond to the indisputable proof of errors 
in our justice system. I am confident that as Governor Ryan leaves 
office next week, his greatest legacy to our nation will be the courage 
he showed three years ago when he suspended executions and acknowledged 
that the death penalty system in Illinois was broken.

  If we are prepared to admit, as Illinois and Maryland have, that 
there are flaws in the death penalty system, then it is unconscionable 
to allow executions to continue without a thorough, nationwide review. 
The problems in the Illinois and Maryland systems are not unique to 
their states. Since reinstatement of the modern death penalty, 81 
percent of capital cases have involved white victims, even though only 
50 percent of murder victims are white. Nationwide, more than half of 
the death row inmates are African-Americans or Hispanic-Americans. 
There is evidence of racial disparities, inadequate counsel, 
prosecutorial misconduct, and false scientific evidence in death 
penalty systems across the country.
  In 2002, we saw progress here in Congress in addressing problems 
plaguing the death penalty. The Innocence Protection Act, introduced by 
my distinguished colleague and ranking member on the Judiciary 
Committee, Senator Leahy, was favorably reported from the Judiciary 
Committee in July. This legislation takes an important step by 
recognizing the need for access to modern DNA testing and certain 
minimum standards of competency for defense counsel in capital cases.
  I commend Senator Leahy and the bipartisan effort of my colleagues 
who helped move this important bill and I hope we will finish the job 
and enact it into law this year. But I also urge them and the rest of 
the Senate to recognize that if we are prepared to admit that we need 
these reforms, a time-out is also needed to ensure that we do not 
execute a single innocent person. The stakes are too high and the 
consequences are far too devastating to allow executions to proceed.
  Also in 2002, in a significant turning point for our Nation, the 
Supreme Court reversed itself and ruled unconstitutional the execution 
of the mentally retarded in Atkins versus Virginia. The Court's 
decision further confirms that our Nation's standards of decency 
concerning the ultimate punishment are indeed evolving and maturing.
  While last year's events are steps toward fairness and indications of 
progress, they also serve as shocking reminders that our system is 
seriously flawed. The statistics reflecting unfairness and stories of 
innocent people wrongly convicted are clear and disturbing to all 
Americans who believe in the founding principles of our Nation, liberty 
and justice for all.
  When examined collectively, these facts paint a devastating picture 
that needs to be examined in much greater detail.
  That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the 
National Death Penalty Moratorium Act.
  The courts in this country have already made, by our best, 
conservative estimates, 102 very grave mistakes. One hundred and two 
mistakes in the death penalty system qualifies as a crisis. And a 
crisis calls for immediate action. The time for a moratorium is now.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 132

       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 ``National Death Penalty 
     Moratorium Act of 2003''.

                TITLE I--MORATORIUM ON THE DEATH PENALTY

     SEC. 101. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:

[[Page S162]]

       (1) General findings.--
       (A) The administration of the death penalty by the Federal 
     government and the States should be consistent with our 
     Nation's fundamental principles of fairness, justice, 
     equality, and due process.
       (B) Congress should consider that more than ever Americans 
     are questioning the use of the death penalty and calling for 
     assurances that it be fairly applied.
       (C) Documented unfairness in the Federal system requires 
     Congress to act and suspend Federal executions. Additionally, 
     substantial evidence of unfairness throughout death penalty 
     States justifies further investigation by Congress.
       (2) Administration of the death penalty by the federal 
     government.--
       (A) The fairness of the administration of the Federal death 
     penalty has recently come under serious scrutiny, 
     specifically raising questions of racial and geographic 
     disparities:
       (i) Almost 75 percent of Federal death row inmates are 
     members of minority groups.
       (ii) A report released by the Department of Justice on 
     September 12, 2000, found that 80 percent of defendants who 
     were charged with death-eligible offenses under Federal law 
     and whose cases were submitted by the United States attorneys 
     under the Department's death penalty decision-making 
     procedures were African American, Hispanic American, or 
     members of other minority groups.
       (iii) The Department of Justice report shows that United 
     States attorneys in only 5 of 94 Federal districts--1 each in 
     Virginia, Maryland, Puerto Rico, and 2 in New York--submit 40 
     percent of all cases in which the death penalty is 
     considered.
       (iv) The Department of Justice report shows that United 
     States attorneys who have frequently recommended seeking the 
     death penalty are often from States with a high number of 
     executions under State law, including Texas, Virginia, and 
     Missouri.
       (v) The Department of Justice report shows that white 
     defendants are more likely than black defendants to negotiate 
     plea bargains saving them from the death penalty in Federal 
     cases.
       (vi) A study conducted by the House Judiciary Subcommittee 
     on Civil and Constitutional Rights in 1994 concluded that 89 
     percent of defendants selected for capital prosecution under 
     the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 were either African American 
     or Hispanic American.
       (vii) The National Institute of Justice has already set 
     into motion a comprehensive study of these racial and 
     geographic disparities.
       (viii) Federal executions should not proceed until these 
     disparities are fully studied, discussed, and the federal 
     death penalty process is subjected to necessary remedial 
     action.
       (B) In addition to racial and geographic disparities in the 
     administration of the federal death penalty, other serious 
     questions exist about the fairness and reliability of federal 
     death penalty prosecutions:
       (i) Federal prosecutors rely heavily on bargained-for 
     testimony from accomplices of the capital defendant, which is 
     often obtained in exchange for not seeking the death penalty 
     against the accomplices. This practice creates a serious risk 
     of false testimony.
       (ii) Federal prosecutors are not required to provide 
     discovery sufficiently ahead of trial to permit the defense 
     to be prepared to use this information effectively in 
     defending their clients.
       (iii) The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in 
     increasing isolation from the rest of the nation's law 
     enforcement agencies, refuses to make electronic recordings 
     of interrogations that produce confessions, thus making 
     subsequent scrutiny of the legality and reliability of such 
     interrogations more difficult.
       (iv) Federal prosecutors rely heavily on predictions of 
     ``future dangerousness''--predictions deemed unreliable and 
     misleading by the American Psychiatric Association and the 
     American Psychological Association--to secure death 
     sentences.
       (3) Administration of the death penalty by the states.--
       (A) The punishment of death carries an especially heavy 
     burden to be free from arbitrariness and discrimination. The 
     Supreme Court has held that ``super due process'', a higher 
     standard than that applied in regular criminal trials, is 
     necessary to meet constitutional requirements. There is 
     significant evidence that States are not providing this 
     heightened level of due process. For example:
       (i) In the most comprehensive review of modern death 
     sentencing, Professor James Liebman and researchers at 
     Columbia University found that, during the period 1973 to 
     1995, 68 percent of all death penalty cases reviewed were 
     overturned due to serious constitutional errors. In the wake 
     of the Liebman study, 6 States (Arizona, Maryland, North 
     Carolina, Illinois, Indiana, and Nebraska) have conducted 
     additional studies. These studies expose additional problems.
       (ii) Forty percent of the cases overturned were reversed in 
     Federal court after having been upheld by the States.
       (B) The high rate of error throughout all death penalty 
     jurisdictions suggests that there is a grave risk that 
     innocent persons may have been, or will likely be, wrongfully 
     executed. Although the Supreme Court has never conclusively 
     addressed the issue of whether executing an innocent person 
     would in and of itself violate the Constitution, in Herrara 
     v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993), a majority of the court 
     expressed the view that a persuasive demonstration of actual 
     innocence would violate substantive due process rendering 
     imposition of a death sentence unconstitutional. In any 
     event, the wrongful conviction and sentencing of a person to 
     death is a serious concern for many Americans. For example:
       (i) After 13 innocent people were released from Illinois 
     death row in the same period that the State had executed 12 
     people, on January 31, 2000, Governor George Ryan of Illinois 
     imposed a moratorium on executions until he could be ``sure 
     with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing 
     a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate''.
       (ii) Since 1973, over 100 innocent persons sitting on death 
     rows across the country have been exonerated, most after 
     serving lengthy sentences.
       (C) Wrongful convictions create a serious public safety 
     problem because the true killer is still at large, while the 
     innocent person languishes in prison.
       (D) There are many systemic problems that result in 
     innocent people being convicted such as mistaken 
     identification, reliance on jailhouse informants, reliance on 
     faulty forensic testing and no access to reliable DNA 
     testing. For example:
       (i) A study of cases of innocent people who were later 
     exonerated, conducted by attorneys Barry Scheck and Peter 
     Neufeld with ``The Innocence Project'' at Cardozo Law School, 
     showed that mistaken identifications of eyewitnesses or 
     victims contributed to 84 percent of the wrongful 
     convictions.
       (ii) Many persons on death row were convicted prior to 1994 
     and did not receive the benefit of modern DNA testing. At 
     least 10 individuals sentenced to death have been exonerated 
     through post-conviction DNA testing, some within days of 
     execution. Yet in spite of the current widespread prevalence 
     and availability of DNA testing, many States have procedural 
     barriers blocking introduction of post-conviction DNA 
     testing. More than 30 States have laws that require a motion 
     for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence to be 
     filed within 6 months or less.
       (iii) The widespread use of jailhouse snitches who earn 
     reduced charges or sentences by fabricating ``admissions'' by 
     fellow inmates to unsolved crimes can lead to wrongful 
     convictions.
       (iv) The misuse of forensic evidence can lead to wrongful 
     convictions. A report from the Texas Defender Service 
     entitled ``A State of Denial: Texas and the Death Penalty'' 
     found 160 cases of official forensic misconduct including 121 
     cases where expert psychiatrists testified ``with absolute 
     certainty that the defendant would be a danger in the 
     future'', often without even interviewing the defendant.
       (E) The sixth amendment to the Constitution guarantees all 
     accused persons access to competent counsel. The Supreme 
     Court set out standards for determining competency in the 
     case of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 
     Unfortunately, there is unequal access to competent counsel 
     throughout death penalty States. For example:
       (i) Ninety percent of capital defendants cannot afford to 
     hire their own attorney.
       (ii) Fewer than one-quarter of the 38 death penalty States 
     have set any standards for competency of counsel and in those 
     few States, these standards were set only recently. In most 
     States, any person who passes a bar examination, even if that 
     attorney has never represented a client in any type of case, 
     may represent a client in a death penalty case.
       (iii) Thirty-seven percent of capital cases were reversed 
     because of ineffective assistance of counsel, according to 
     the Columbia study.
       (iv) The Texas report noted problems with Texas defense 
     attorneys who slept through capital trials, ignored obvious 
     exculpatory evidence, suffered discipline for ethical lapses 
     or for being under the influence of drugs or alcohol while 
     representing an indigent capital defendant at trial.
       (v) Poor lawyering was also cited by Governor Ryan in 
     Illinois as a basis for a moratorium. More than half of all 
     capital defendants there were represented by lawyers who were 
     later disciplined or disbarred for unethical conduct.
       (F) The Supreme Court has held that it is a violation of 
     the eighth amendment to impose the death penalty in a manner 
     that is arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory. McKlesky v. 
     Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987). Studies consistently indicate 
     racial disparity in the application of the death penalty both 
     for the defendants and the victims. The death penalty is 
     disparately applied in various regions throughout the 
     country, suggesting arbitrary administration of the death 
     penalty based on where the prosecution takes place. For 
     example:
       (i) Since 1976, 45 percent of death row inmates were white, 
     43 percent were black, 9 percent were Hispanic, and 2 percent 
     were of other racial groups. Of the victims in the underlying 
     murder, 81 percent were white, 14 percent were black, and 4 
     percent were Hispanic. While over 80 percent of completed 
     capital cases involve white victims, nationally only 50 
     percent of murder victims are white. These figures show a 
     continuing trend since reinstatement of the modern death 
     penalty of a predominance of white victims' cases and implies 
     that white victims are considered more valuable in the 
     criminal justice system.
       (ii) Executions are conducted predominately in southern 
     States. Ninety percent of

[[Page S163]]

     all executions in 2000 were conducted in the south. Only 3 
     States outside the south, Arizona, California, and Missouri, 
     conducted an execution in 2000. Texas accounted for almost as 
     many executions as all the remaining States combined.
       (G) The Supreme Court recently reversed itself and has 
     ruled the execution of the mentally retarded unconstitutional 
     and in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Atkins v. 
     Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)).

     SEC. 102. FEDERAL AND STATE DEATH PENALTY MORATORIUM.

       (a) In General.--The Federal Government shall not carry out 
     any sentence of death imposed under Federal law until the 
     Congress considers the final findings and recommendations of 
     the National Commission on the Death Penalty in the report 
     submitted under section 202(c)(2) and the Congress enacts 
     legislation repealing this section and implements or rejects 
     the guidelines and procedures recommended by the Commission.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     each State that authorizes the use of the death penalty 
     should enact a moratorium on executions to allow time to 
     review whether the administration of the death penalty by 
     that State is consistent with constitutional requirements of 
     fairness, justice, equality, and due process.

           TITLE II--NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE DEATH PENALTY

     SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be 
     known as the National Commission on the Death Penalty (in 
     this title referred to as the ``Commission'').
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) Appointment.--Members of the Commission shall be 
     appointed by the President in consultation with the Attorney 
     General and the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the 
     Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate.
       (2) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 15 
     members, of whom--
       (A) 3 members shall be Federal or State prosecutors;
       (B) 3 members shall be attorneys experienced in capital 
     defense;
       (C) 2 members shall be current or former Federal or State 
     judges;
       (D) 2 members shall be current or former Federal or State 
     law enforcement officials; and
       (E) 5 members shall be individuals from the public or 
     private sector who have knowledge or expertise, whether by 
     experience or training, in matters to be studied by the 
     Commission, which may include--
       (i) officers or employees of the Federal Government or 
     State or local governments;
       (ii) members of academia, nonprofit organizations, the 
     religious community, or industry; and
       (iii) other interested individuals.
       (3) Balanced viewpoints.--In appointing the members of the 
     Commission, the President shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, ensure that the membership of the Commission is 
     fairly balanced with respect to the opinions of the members 
     of the Commission regarding support for or opposition to the 
     use of the death penalty.
       (4) Date.--The appointments of the initial members of the 
     Commission shall be made not later than 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Period of Appointment.--Each member shall be appointed 
     for the life of the Commission.
       (d) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Commission shall not 
     affect the powers of the Commission, but shall be filled in 
     the same manner as the original appointment.
       (e) Initial Meeting.--Not later than 30 days after all 
     initial members of the Commission have been appointed, the 
     Commission shall hold the first meeting.
       (f) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairperson.
       (g) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum for conducting business, but a 
     lesser number of members may hold hearings.
       (h) Chair.--The President shall designate 1 member 
     appointed under subsection (a) to serve as the Chair of the 
     Commission.
       (i) Rules and Procedures.--The Commission shall adopt rules 
     and procedures to govern the proceedings of the Commission.

     SEC. 202. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall conduct a thorough 
     study of all matters relating to the administration of the 
     death penalty to determine whether the administration of the 
     death penalty comports with constitutional principles and 
     requirements of fairness, justice, equality, and due process.
       (2) Matters studied.--The matters studied by the Commission 
     shall include the following:
       (A) Racial disparities in capital charging, prosecuting, 
     and sentencing decisions.
       (B) Disproportionality in capital charging, prosecuting, 
     and sentencing decisions based on geographic location and 
     income status of defendants or any other factor resulting in 
     such disproportionality.
       (C) Adequacy of representation of capital defendants, 
     including consideration of the American Bar Association 
     ``Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Counsel 
     in Death Penalty Cases'' (adopted February 1989) and American 
     Bar Association policies that are intended to encourage 
     competency of counsel in capital cases (adopted February 
     1979, February 1988, February 1990, and August 1996).
       (D) Whether innocent persons have been sentenced to death 
     and the reasons these wrongful convictions have occurred.
       (E) Whether the Federal Government should seek the death 
     penalty in a State with no death penalty.
       (F) Whether courts are adequately exercising independent 
     judgment on the merits of constitutional claims in State 
     post-conviction and Federal habeas corpus proceedings.
       (G) Whether persons who were under the age of 18 at the 
     time of their offenses should be sentenced to death after 
     conviction of death-eligible offenses.
       (H) Procedures to ensure that persons sentenced to death 
     have access to forensic evidence and modern testing of 
     forensic evidence, including DNA testing, when modern testing 
     could result in new evidence of innocence.
       (I) Any other law or procedure to ensure that death penalty 
     cases are administered fairly and impartially, in accordance 
     with the Constitution.
       (b) Guidelines and Procedures.--
       (1) In general.--Based on the study conducted under 
     subsection (a), the Commission shall establish guidelines and 
     procedures for the administration of the death penalty 
     consistent with paragraph (2).
       (2) Intent of guidelines and procedures.--The guidelines 
     and procedures required by this subsection shall--
       (A) ensure that the death penalty cases are administered 
     fairly and impartially, in accordance with due process;
       (B) minimize the risk that innocent persons may be 
     executed; and
       (C) ensure that the death penalty is not administered in a 
     racially discriminatory manner.
       (c) Report.--
       (1) Preliminary report.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to 
     the President, the Attorney General, and the Congress a 
     preliminary report, which shall contain a preliminary 
     statement of findings and conclusions.
       (2) Final report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit a report 
     to the President, the Attorney General, and the Congress 
     which shall contain a detailed statement of the findings and 
     conclusions of the Commission, together with the 
     recommendations of the Commission for legislation and 
     administrative actions that implement the guidelines and 
     procedures that the Commission considers appropriate.

     SEC. 203. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Information From Federal and State Agencies.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission may secure directly from 
     any Federal or State department or agency information that 
     the Commission considers necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of this title.
       (2) Furnishing of information.--Upon a request of the 
     Chairperson of the Commission, the head of any Federal or 
     State department or agency shall furnish the information 
     requested by the Chairperson to the Commission.
       (b) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
       (c) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of 
     gifts or donations of services or property.
       (d) Hearings.--The Commission or, at the direction of the 
     Commission, any subcommittee or member of the Commission, 
     may, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this 
     title--
       (1) hold hearings, sit and act at times and places, take 
     testimony, receive evidence, and administer oaths that the 
     Commission, subcommittee, or member considers advisable; and
       (2) require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and 
     testimony of witnesses and the production of books, records, 
     correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, tapes, and 
     materials that the Commission, subcommittee, or member 
     considers advisable.
       (e) Issuance and Enforcement of Subpoenas.--
       (1) Issuance.--Subpoenas issued pursuant to subsection 
     (d)--
       (A) shall bear the signature of the Chairperson of the 
     Commission; and
       (B) shall be served by any person or class of persons 
     designated by the Chairperson for that purpose.
       (2) Enforcement.--
       (A) In general.--In the case of contumacy or failure to 
     obey a subpoena issued under subsection (d), the district 
     court of the United States for the judicial district in which 
     the subpoenaed person resides, is served, or may be found, 
     may issue an order requiring that person to appear at any 
     designated place to testify or to produce documentary or 
     other evidence.
       (B) Contempt.--Any failure to obey a court order issued 
     under subparagraph (A) may be punished by the court as a 
     contempt.
       (3) Testimony of persons in custody.--A court of the United 
     States within the jurisdiction in which testimony of a person 
     held in custody is sought by the Commission or within the 
     jurisdiction of which such person is held in custody, may, 
     upon application by the Attorney General, issue a writ of 
     habeas

[[Page S164]]

     corpus ad testificandum requiring the custodian to produce 
     such person before the Commission, or before a member of the 
     Commission or a member of the staff of the Commission 
     designated by the Commission for such purpose.
       (f) Witness Allowances and Fees.--
       (1) In general.--The provisions of section 1821 of title 
     28, United States Code, shall apply to witnesses requested or 
     subpoenaed to appear at any hearing of the Commission.
       (2) Travel expenses.--The per diem and mileage allowances 
     for witnesses shall be paid from funds available to pay the 
     expenses of the Commission.

     SEC. 204. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.

       (a) Compensation of Members.--Members of the Commission 
     shall serve without compensation for the services of the 
     member to the Commission.
       (b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Commission shall 
     be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of services for the Commission.
       (c) Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The Chairperson of the Commission may, 
     without regard to the civil service laws and regulations, 
     appoint and terminate an executive director and such other 
     additional personnel as may be necessary to enable the 
     Commission to perform the duties of the Commission.
       (2) Executive director.--The employment of an executive 
     director shall be subject to confirmation by the Commission.
       (3) Compensation.--The Chairperson of the Commission may 
     fix the compensation of the executive director and other 
     personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and 
     subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, 
     relating to classification of positions and General Schedule 
     pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the executive 
     director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable 
     for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of 
     title 5.
       (d) Detail of Government Employees.--Any Federal Government 
     employee may be detailed to the Commission without 
     reimbursement, and the detail shall be without interruption 
     or loss of civil service status or privilege.
       (e) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
     The Chairperson of the Commission may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, at rates for individuals which do not 
     exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay 
     prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5316 of title 5.

     SEC. 205. TERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION.

       The Commission shall terminate 90 days after the date on 
     which the Commission submits its report under section 202.

     SEC. 206. FUNDING.

       (a) In General.--The Commission may expend an amount not to 
     exceed $850,000, as provided by subsection (b), to carry out 
     this title.
       (b) Availability.--Sums appropriated to the Department of 
     Justice shall be made available to carry out this title.
                                 ______