[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 45 (Thursday, April 21, 1994)] [Senate] [Page S] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov] [Congressional Record: April 21, 1994] From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE'S PASSAGE OF THE RACIAL JUSTICE ACT Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, yesterday, the other body voted, in effect, to repeal the death penalty in Utah and every other State which has a constitutional death penalty. It has voted to gut the existing Federal death penalty and every new Federal death penalty in the crime bill. While the House was doing this, there was not a word of protest from President Clinton--not one. Even though he has indicated in the past that he is against that provision. The other body's crime bill contains a misleadingly labeled ``Racial Discriminatory Capital Sentencing'' provision, commonly referred to as the so-called Racial Justice Act. It is really a provision intended to end the use of the death penalty unless it is imposed on a racial quota basis. The effort to delete this provision from the House crime bill was defeated 217 to 212, with 5 delegates voting in support of the Racial Justice Act. Members from the other side of the aisle accounted for 211 of the 217 members who voted for the Racial Justice Act. The Senate has overwhelmingly shared my opposition to these kinds of provisions every time it has considered the proposal. The so-called Racial Justice Act was stricken from the last Congress' crime bill, in 1991, by a vote of 55 to 41. It was rejected in 1990 by a vote of 58 to 38. A similar amendment was soundly defeated by the full Senate in 1988 by a vote of 52 to 35. Stated simply, the Racial Justice Act and its progeny have a history of failure because the Senate has seen it for what it is: for all intents and purposes, it is an effort to repeal every death penalty in the country. The National District Attorneys Association, the National Association of Attorneys General, law enforcement groups, and victims groups are all opposed to the measure, and yet the House enacts it. Congressional opponents of the death penalty know they are unable to defeat capital punishment head on. Instead, they offer catchy sounding provisions that have the effect of repealing the death penalty. I believe it is time to put an end to this sort of political gamesmanship. President Clinton claims to support the death penalty. He has been calling on Congress to pass a crime bill that contains the Federal death penalty. He has said that he is tough on crime. Where was his leadership against this provision which as a practical matter will end all capital punishment in this country? President Clinton and the Department of Justice sat silent while the House considered this proposal. Had they not been silent, it would have been defeated. If President Clinton truly supports the death penalty, if he truly wants a Federal death penalty provision in the crime bill, then he should speak out against the so-called Racial Justice Act. If he remains silent on this issue, I can only conclude that he supports the measure, that he is prepared to sign a bill that contains it, and that he is prepared to repeal the death penalty in every State in this country and in the Federal Government. The question Americans should be asking is, ``Does President Clinton support or oppose the Racial Justice Act?'' The future of the death penalty as punishment for the most heinous of crimes depends on his answer. To make the imposition of the death penalty on a quota basis rather than on the basis of the heinousness of the crime, the severity of the crime, the rottenness of the crime, the brutal cold-blooded murder of certain people is really a step in the wrong direction from trying to do things that are adequate against crime. ____________________