Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 5269 - Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1990

(House)
(Brooks (D) Texas and Hughes (D) New Jersey)

If H.R. 5269 were presented to the President in its current form, his senior advisors would recommend a veto.

The President supports anti-crime legislation along the lines of the "Comprehensive Violent Crime Control Act of 1989" that he transmitted to Congress last year. Major provisions of that measure (H.R. 2709) would: (1) establish the procedures necessary to institute the death penalty for certain Federal offenses; (2) restore an appropriate degree of finality to State and Federal criminal convictions by curtailing abuses of the writ of habeas corpus: and (3) reform the "exclusionary rule" by making admissible evidence obtained as a result of a search or seizure undertaken in objectively reasonable good faith in cases where warrants are not required.

H.R. 5269 would accomplish none of these objectives. On the contrary, it would:

• Effectively abolish the death penalty in the United States by increasing delay in State cases and imposing a racial quota system on both State and Federal capital punishment cases.
• Reduce the degree of finality of convictions by weakening procedures relating to habeas corpus.
• Establish "exclusionary rule" procedures that would narrow existing case law by creating additional barriers to the admissibility of evidence.
• Excessively increase authorization levels beyond those provided in the President's 1991 Budget for Federal grants for State and local law enforcement and criminal justice systems. The President's Budget already provides for a 21 percent increase in State and local drug assistance, which will expand funding 161 percent since FY 1989.

The Administration urges the House to adopt the following amendments:

• The Hyde amendment, which embodies the President's proposal on habeas corpus reform. By enacting these habeas corpus reforms proposed by the Powell Committee, the Hyde amendment would curb the abuse of habeas corpus that has virtually nullified the death penalty laws of the States through a seemingly endless system of repetitive litigation and review. In contrast, both the current habeas corpus provisions of H.R. 5269 (title XIII and section 2212), and the Hughes habeas corpus amendment, would increase abuse and delay in both capital and non-capital cases.
• The Douglas amendment to reform the exclusionary rule. This would strike the regressive exclusionary rule provisions that now appear in H.R. 5269, and extend the objective reasonableness ("good faith") exception to cases where a warrant is not required.
• The Sensenbrenner amendment to strike the so-called "Racial Justice Act." This would eliminate provisions of H.R. 5269 (title XVIII) which are neither necessary nor appropriate to guard against racial discrimination in capital punishment, but would actually make continued use of the death penalty impossible in the United States. The proposed Hughes amendment to title XVIII would have the same unacceptable effect as the provisions now contained in H.R. 5269.
• The Gekas amendment to reinstate an enforceable death penalty for highly aggravated Federal crimes and to establish effective death penalty procedures. Based on the Administration's proposals, this amendment would provide fair and effective procedures and adequate authorizations for using the death penalty against the most heinous Federal crimes. In contrast, the current death penalty provisions of H.R. 5269 (title II) and the Hughes amendment incorporate procedures that would thwart the death penalty. The Hughes amendment also severely limits the availability of capital punishment for offenses it purports to include within its scope of coverage.
• The McCollum amendment to provide a death penalty for drug kingpins. This incorporates the critical reform of extending the death penalty to the most aggravated drug offenses and offenders.