```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 623 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 623

      To reform habeas corpus procedures, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 24 (legislative day, March 23), 1995

Mr. Specter (for himself and Mr. Hatch) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To reform habeas corpus procedures, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Habeas Corpus Reform Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. FILING DEADLINES.

    Section 2244 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(d)(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an 
application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant 
to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from 
the latest of--
            ``(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the 
        conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for 
        seeking such review;
            ``(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an 
        application created by State action in violation of the 
        Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the 
        applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;
            ``(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted 
        was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has 
        been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and is made 
        retroactively applicable; or
            ``(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim 
        or claims presented could have been discovered through the 
        exercise of due diligence.
    ``(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State 
post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the 
pertinent judgment or claim shall not be counted toward any period of 
limitation under this subsection.

SEC. 3. APPEAL.

    Section 2253 of title 28, United States Code, is amended to read as 
follows:
``Sec. 2253. Appeal
    ``(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 
2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to 
review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit in which the 
proceeding is held.
    ``(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a 
proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another 
district or place for commitment or trial a person charged with a 
criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of 
such person's detention pending removal proceedings.
    ``(c)(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 
appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals 
from--
            ``(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in 
        which the detention complained of arises out of process issued 
        by a State court; or
            ``(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.
    ``(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) 
only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 
constitutional right.
    ``(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall 
indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by 
paragraph (2).''.

SEC. 4. AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE.

    Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure is amended to 
read as follows:
``Rule 22. Habeas corpus and section 2255 proceedings
    ``(a) Application for the Original Writ.--An application for a writ 
of habeas corpus shall be made to the appropriate district court. If 
application is made to a circuit judge, the application shall be 
transferred to the appropriate district court. If an application is 
made to or transferred to the district court and denied, renewal of the 
application before a circuit judge shall not be permitted. The 
applicant may, pursuant to section 2253 of title 28, United States 
Code, appeal to the appropriate court of appeals from the order of the 
district court denying the writ.
    ``(b) Certificate of Appealability.--In a habeas corpus proceeding 
in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a 
State court, an appeal by the applicant for the writ may not proceed 
unless a district or a circuit judge issues a certificate of 
appealability pursuant to section 2253(c) of title 28, United States 
Code. If an appeal is taken by the applicant, the district judge who 
rendered the judgment shall either issue a certificate of appealability 
or state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. The 
certificate or the statement shall be forwarded to the court of appeals 
with the notice of appeal and the file of the proceedings in the 
district court. If the district judge has denied the certificate, the 
applicant for the writ may then request issuance of the certificate by 
a circuit judge. If such a request is addressed to the court of 
appeals, it shall be deemed addressed to the judges thereof and shall 
be considered by a circuit judge or judges as the court deems 
appropriate. If no express request for a certificate is filed, the 
notice of appeal shall be deemed to constitute a request addressed to 
the judges of the court of appeals. If an appeal is taken by a State or 
its representative, a certificate of appealability is not required.''.

SEC. 5. SECTION 2254 AMENDMENTS.

    Section 2254 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
    ``(b)(1) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a 
person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not 
be granted unless it appears that--
            ``(A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in 
        the courts of the State; or
            ``(B)(i) there is an absence of available State corrective 
        process; or
            ``(ii) circumstances exist that render such process 
        ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.
    ``(2) An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied on 
the merits, notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to exhaust the 
remedies available in the courts of the State.
    ``(3) A State shall not be deemed to have waived the exhaustion 
requirement or be estopped from reliance upon the requirement unless 
the State, through counsel, expressly waives the requirement.'';
            (2) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), and (f) as 
        subsections (e), (f), and (g), respectively;
            (3) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
        subsection:
    ``(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a 
person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not 
be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits 
in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim--
            ``(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or 
        involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established 
        Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United 
        States; or
            ``(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an 
        unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the 
        evidence presented in the State court proceeding.'';
            (4) by amending subsection (e), as redesignated by 
        paragraph (2), to read as follows:
    ``(e)(1) In a proceeding instituted by an application for a writ of 
habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a 
State court, a determination of a factual issue made by a State court 
shall be presumed to be correct. The applicant shall have the burden of 
rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing 
evidence.
    ``(2) If the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a 
claim in State court proceedings, the court shall not hold an 
evidentiary hearing on the claim unless the applicant shows that--
            ``(A) the claim relies on--
                    ``(i) a new rule of constitutional law, made 
                retroactive by the Supreme Court, that was previously 
                unavailable; or
                    ``(ii) a factual predicate that could not have been 
                previously discovered through the exercise of due 
                diligence; and
            ``(B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to 
        establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for 
        constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found 
        the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.''; and
            (5) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
    ``(h) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in all 
proceedings brought under this section, and any subsequent proceedings 
on review, appointment of counsel for an applicant who is or becomes 
financially unable to afford counsel shall be in the discretion of the 
court, except as provided by a rule promulgated by the Supreme Court 
pursuant to statutory authority. Appointment of counsel under this 
section shall be governed by section 3006A of title 18.
    ``(i) The ineffectiveness or incompetence of counsel during Federal 
or State collateral post-conviction proceedings shall not be a ground 
for relief in a proceeding arising under section 2254.''.

SEC. 6. SECTION 2255 AMENDMENTS.

    Section 2255 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking the second and fifth paragraphs; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
    ``A one-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under 
this section. The limitation period shall run from the latest of--
            ``(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes 
        final;
            ``(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion 
        created by governmental action in violation of the Constitution 
        or laws of the United States is removed, if the movant was 
        prevented from making a motion by such governmental action;
            ``(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially 
        recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly 
        recognized by the Supreme Court and is made retroactively 
        applicable; or
            ``(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or 
        claims presented could have been discovered through the 
        exercise of due diligence.
    ``In all proceedings brought under this section, and any subsequent 
proceedings on review, appointment of counsel for a movant who is or 
becomes financially unable to afford counsel shall be in the discretion 
of the court, except as provided by a rule promulgated by the Supreme 
Court pursuant to statutory authority. Appointment of counsel under 
this section shall be governed by section 3006A of title 18.
    ``A second or successive motion must be certified as provided in 
section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals to 
contain--
            ``(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed 
        in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to 
        establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable 
        factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; 
        or
            ``(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive by 
        the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.''.

SEC. 7. LIMITS ON SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE APPLICATIONS.

    (a) Conforming Amendment to Section 2244(a).--Section 2244(a) of 
title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking ``and the 
petition'' and all that follows through ``by such inquiry.'' and 
inserting ``, except as provided in section 2255.''.
    (b) Limits on Second or Successive Applications.--Section 2244(b) 
of title 28, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
    ``(b)(1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus 
application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior 
application shall be dismissed.
    ``(2) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus 
application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior 
application shall be dismissed unless--
            ``(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new 
        rule of constitutional law, made retroactive by the Supreme 
        Court, that was previously unavailable; or
            ``(B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have 
        been discovered previously through the exercise of due 
        diligence; and
            ``(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed 
        in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to 
        establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for 
        constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found 
        the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.
    ``(3)(A) Before a second or successive application permitted by 
this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move 
in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the 
district court to consider the application.
    ``(B) A motion in the court of appeals for an order authorizing the 
district court to consider a second or successive application shall be 
determined by a three-judge panel of the court of appeals.
    ``(C) The court of appeals may authorize the filing of a second or 
successive application only if it determines that the application makes 
a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the requirements 
of this subsection.
    ``(D) The court of appeals shall grant or deny the authorization to 
file a second or successive application not later than 30 days after 
the filing of the motion.
    ``(E) The grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals 
to file a second or success application shall not be appealable and 
shall not be the subject of a petition for rehearing or for a writ of 
certiorari.
    ``(4) A district court shall dismiss any claim presented in a 
second or successive application that the court of appeals has 
authorized to be filed unless the applicant shows that the claim 
satisfies the requirements of this section.''.

SEC. 8. DEATH PENALTY LITIGATION PROCEDURES.

    (a) Addition of Chapter to Title 28, United States Code.--Title 28, 
United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 153 the 
following new chapter:

    ``CHAPTER 154--SPECIAL HABEAS CORPUS PROCEDURES IN CAPITAL CASES

``Sec.
``2261. Prisoners in State custody subject to capital sentence; 
                            appointment of counsel; requirement of rule 
                            of court or statute; procedures for 
                            appointment.
``2262. Mandatory stay of execution; duration; limits on stays of 
                            execution; second or abusive petitions.
``2263. Filing of habeas corpus application; time requirements; tolling 
                            rules.
``2264. Scope of Federal review; district court adjudications.
``2265. Application to State unitary review procedure.
``2266. Limitation periods for determining applications and motions.
``Sec. 2261. Prisoners in State custody subject to capital sentence; 
              appointment of counsel; requirement of rule of court or 
              statute; procedures for appointment
    ``(a) This chapter shall apply to cases arising under section 2254 
brought by prisoners in State custody who are subject to a capital 
sentence. It shall apply only if the provisions of subsections (b) and 
(c) are satisfied.
    ``(b) This chapter is applicable if a State establishes by statute, 
rule of its court of last resort, or by another agency authorized by 
State law, a mechanism for the appointment, compensation, and payment 
of reasonable litigation expenses of competent counsel in State post-
conviction proceedings brought by indigent prisoners whose capital 
convictions and sentences have been upheld on direct appeal to the 
court of last resort in the State or have otherwise become final for 
State law purposes. The rule of court or statute must provide standards 
of competency for the appointment of such counsel.
    ``(c) Any mechanism for the appointment, compensation, and 
reimbursement of counsel as provided in subsection (b) must offer 
counsel to all State prisoners under capital sentence and must provide 
for the entry of an order by a court of record--
            ``(1) appointing one or more counsel to represent the 
        prisoner upon a finding that the prisoner is indigent and 
        accepted the offer or is unable competently to decide whether 
        to accept or reject the offer;
            ``(2) finding, after a hearing if necessary, that the 
        prisoner rejected the offer of counsel and made the decision 
        with an understanding of its legal consequences; or
            ``(3) denying the appointment of counsel upon a finding 
        that the prisoner is not indigent.
    ``(d) No counsel appointed pursuant to subsections (b) and (c) to 
represent a State prisoner under capital sentence shall have previously 
represented the prisoner at trial or on direct appeal in the case for 
which the appointment is made unless the prisoner and counsel expressly 
request continued representation.
    ``(e) The ineffectiveness or incompetence of counsel during State 
or Federal post-conviction proceedings in a capital case shall not be a 
ground for relief in a proceeding arising under section 2254. This 
limitation shall not preclude the appointment of different counsel, on 
the court's own motion or at the request of the prisoner, at any phase 
of State or Federal post-conviction proceedings on the basis of the 
ineffectiveness or incompetence of counsel in such proceedings.
``Sec. 2262. Mandatory stay of execution; duration; limits on stays of 
              execution; successive petitions
    ``(a) Upon the entry in the appropriate State court of record of an 
order under section 2261(c), a warrant or order setting an execution 
date for a State prisoner shall be stayed upon application to any court 
that would have jurisdiction over any proceedings filed under section 
2254. The application shall recite that the State has invoked the post-
conviction review procedures of this chapter and that the scheduled 
execution is subject to stay.
    ``(b) A stay of execution granted pursuant to subsection (a) shall 
expire if--
            ``(1) a State prisoner fails to file a habeas corpus 
        application under section 2254 within the time required in 
        section 2263;
            ``(2) before a court of competent jurisdiction, in the 
        presence of counsel, unless the prisoner has competently and 
        knowingly waived such counsel, and after having been advised of 
        the consequences, a State prisoner under capital sentence 
        waives the right to pursue habeas corpus review under section 
        2254; or
            ``(3) a State prisoner files a habeas corpus petition under 
        section 2254 within the time required by section 2263 and fails 
        to make a substantial showing of the denial of a Federal right 
        or is denied relief in the district court or at any subsequent 
        stage of review.
    ``(c) If one of the conditions in subsection (b) has occurred, no 
Federal court thereafter shall have the authority to enter a stay of 
execution in the case, unless the court of appeals approves the filing 
of a second or successive application under section 2244(b).
``Sec. 2263. Filing of habeas corpus application; time requirements; 
              tolling rules
    ``(a) Any application under this chapter for habeas corpus relief 
under section 2254 must be filed in the appropriate district court not 
later than 180 days after final State court affirmance of the 
conviction and sentence on direct review or the expiration of the time 
for seeking such review.
    ``(b) The time requirements established by subsection (a) shall be 
tolled--
            ``(1) from the date that a petition for certiorari is filed 
        in the Supreme Court until the date of final disposition of the 
        petition if a State prisoner files the petition to secure 
        review by the Supreme Court of the affirmance of a capital 
        sentence on direct review by the court of last resort of the 
        State or other final State court decision on direct review;
            ``(2) from the date on which the first petition for post-
        conviction review or other collateral relief is filed until the 
        final State court disposition of such petition; and
            ``(3) during an additional period not to exceed 30 days, 
        if--
                    ``(A) a motion for an extension of time is filed in 
                the Federal district court that would have jurisdiction 
                over the case upon the filing of a habeas corpus 
                application under section 2254; and
                    ``(B) a showing of good cause is made for the 
                failure to file the habeas corpus application within 
                the time period established by this section.
``Sec. 2264. Scope of Federal review; district court adjudications
    ``(a) Whenever a State prisoner under capital sentence files a 
petition for habeas corpus relief to which this chapter applies, the 
district court shall only consider a claim or claims that have been 
raised and decided on the merits in the State courts, unless the 
failure to raise the claim properly is--
            ``(1) the result of State action in violation of the 
        Constitution or laws of the United States;
            ``(2) the result of the Supreme Court recognition of a new 
        Federal right that is made retroactively applicable; or
            ``(3) based on a factual predicate that could not have been 
        discovered through the exercise of due diligence in time to 
        present the claim for State or Federal post-conviction review.
    ``(b) Following review subject to subsections (a), (d), and (e) of 
section 2254, the court shall rule on the claims properly before it.
``Sec. 2265. Application to State unitary review procedure
    ``(a) For purposes of this section, a `unitary review' procedure 
means a State procedure that authorizes a person under sentence of 
death to raise, in the course of direct review of the judgment, such 
claims as could be raised on collateral attack. This chapter shall 
apply, as provided in this section, in relation to a State unitary 
review procedure if the State establishes by rule of its court of last 
resort or by statute a mechanism for the appointment, compensation, and 
payment of reasonable litigation expenses of competent counsel in the 
unitary review proceedings, including expenses relating to the 
litigation of collateral claims in the proceedings. The rule of court 
or statute must provide standards of competency for the appointment of 
such counsel.
    ``(b) To qualify under this section, a unitary review procedure 
must include an offer of counsel following trial for the purpose of 
representation on unitary review, and entry of an order, as provided in 
section 2261(c), concerning appointment of counsel or waiver or denial 
of appointment of counsel for that purpose. No counsel appointed to 
represent the prisoner in the unitary review proceedings shall have 
previously represented the prisoner at trial in the case for which the 
appointment is made unless the prisoner and counsel expressly request 
continued representation.
    ``(c) Sections 2262, 2263, 2264, and 2266 shall apply in relation 
to cases involving a sentence of death from any State having a unitary 
review procedure that qualifies under this section. References to State 
`post-conviction review' and `direct review' in such sections shall be 
understood as referring to unitary review under the State procedure. 
The reference in section 2262(a) to `an order under section 2261(c)' 
shall be understood as referring to the post-trial order under 
subsection (b) concerning representation in the unitary review 
proceedings, but if a transcript of the trial proceedings is 
unavailable at the time of the filing of such an order in the 
appropriate State court, then the start of the 180-day limitation 
period under section 2263 shall be deferred until a transcript is made 
available to the prisoner or counsel of the prisoner.
``Sec. 2266. Limitation periods for determining applications and 
              motions
    ``(a) The adjudication of any application under section 2254 that 
is subject to this chapter, and the adjudication of any motion under 
section 2255 by a person under sentence of death, shall be given 
priority by the district court and by the court of appeals over all 
noncapital matters.
    ``(b)(1)(A) A district court shall render a final determination and 
enter a final judgment on any application for a writ of habeas corpus 
brought under this chapter in a capital case not later than 180 days 
after the date on which the application is filed.
    ``(B) A district court shall afford the parties at least 120 days 
in which to complete all actions, including the preparation of all 
pleadings and briefs, and if necessary, a hearing, prior to the 
submission of the case for decision.
    ``(C)(i) A district court may delay for not more than one 
additional 30-day period beyond the period specified in subparagraph 
(A), the rendering of a determination of an application for a writ of 
habeas corpus if the court issues a written order making a finding, and 
stating the reasons for the finding, that the ends of justice that 
would be served by allowing the delay outweigh the best interests of 
the public and the applicant in a speedy disposition of the 
application.
    ``(ii) The factors, among others, that a court shall consider in 
determining whether a delay in the disposition of an application is 
warranted are as follows:
            ``(I) Whether the failure to allow the delay would be 
        likely to result in a miscarriage of justice.
            ``(II) Whether the case is so unusual or so complex, due to 
        the number of defendants, the nature of the prosecution, or the 
        existence of novel questions of fact or law, that it is 
        unreasonable to expect adequate briefing within the time 
        limitations established by subparagraph (A).
            ``(III) Whether the failure to allow a delay in a case, 
        that, taken as a whole, is not so unusual or so complex as 
        described in subclause (II), but would otherwise deny the 
        applicant reasonable time to obtain counsel, would unreasonably 
        deny the applicant or the government continuity of counsel, or 
        would deny counsel for the applicant or the government the 
        reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking 
        into account the exercise of due diligence.
    ``(iii) No delay in disposition shall be permissible because of 
general congestion of the court's calendar.
    ``(iv) The court shall transmit a copy of any order issued under 
clause (i) to the Director of the Administrative Office of the United 
States Courts for inclusion in the report under paragraph (5).
    ``(2) The time limitations under paragraph (1) shall apply to--
            ``(A) an initial application for a writ of habeas corpus;
            ``(B) any second or successive application for a writ of 
        habeas corpus; and
            ``(C) any redetermination of an application for a writ of 
        habeas corpus following a remand by the court of appeals or the 
        Supreme Court for further proceedings, in which case the 
        limitation period shall run from the date the remand is 
        ordered.
    ``(3)(A) The time limitations under this section shall not be 
construed to entitle an applicant to a stay of execution, to which the 
applicant would otherwise not be entitled, for the purpose of 
litigating any application or appeal.
    ``(B) No amendment to an application for a writ of habeas corpus 
under this chapter shall be permitted after the filing of the answer to 
the application, except on the grounds specified in section 2244(b).
    ``(4)(A) The failure of a court to meet or comply with a time 
limitation under this section shall not be a ground for granting relief 
from a judgment of conviction or sentence.
    ``(B) The State may enforce a time limitation under this section by 
petitioning for a writ of mandamus to the court of appeals. The court 
of appeals shall act on the petition for a writ or mandamus not later 
than 30 days after the filing of the petition.
    ``(5)(A) The Administrative Office of United States Courts shall 
submit to Congress an annual report on the compliance by the district 
courts with the time limitations under this section.
    ``(B) The report described in subparagraph (A) shall include copies 
of the orders submitted by the district courts under paragraph 
(1)(B)(iv).
    ``(c)(1)(A) A court of appeals shall hear and render a final 
determination of any appeal of an order granting or denying, in whole 
or in part, an application brought under this chapter in a capital case 
not later than 120 days after the date on which the reply brief is 
filed, or if no reply brief is filed, not later than 120 days after the 
date on which the answering brief is filed.
    ``(B)(i) A court of appeals shall decide whether to grant a 
petition for rehearing or other request for rehearing en banc not later 
than 30 days after the date on which the petition for rehearing is 
filed unless a responsive pleading is required, in which case the court 
shall decide whether to grant the petition not later than 30 days after 
the date on which the responsive pleading is filed.
    ``(ii) If a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc is granted, 
the court of appeals shall hear and render a final determination of the 
appeal not later than 120 days after the date on which the order 
granting rehearing or rehearing en banc is entered.
    ``(2) The time limitations under paragraph (1) shall apply to--
            ``(A) an initial application for a writ of habeas corpus;
            ``(B) any second or successive application for a writ of 
        habeas corpus; and
            ``(C) any redetermination of an application for a writ of 
        habeas corpus or related appeal following a remand by the court 
        of appeals en banc or the Supreme Court for further 
        proceedings, in which case the limitation period shall run from 
        the date the remand is ordered.
    ``(3) The time limitations under this section shall not be 
construed to entitle an applicant to a stay of execution, to which the 
applicant would otherwise not be entitled, for the purpose of 
litigating any application or appeal.
    ``(4)(A) The failure of a court to meet or comply with a time 
limitation under this section shall not be a ground for granting relief 
from a judgment of conviction or sentence.
    ``(B) The State may enforce a time limitation under this section by 
applying for a writ of mandamus to the Supreme Court.
    ``(5) The Administrative Office of United States Courts shall 
submit to Congress an annual report on the compliance by the courts of 
appeals with the time limitations under this section.''.
    (b) Technical Amendment.--The part analysis for part IV of title 
28, United States Code, is amended by adding after the item relating to 
chapter 153 the following new item:

``154. Special habeas corpus procedures in capital cases....   2261.''.

SEC. 9. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

    Section 408(q) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 848(q)) 
is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``shall'' and 
        inserting ``may'';
            (2) in paragraph (4)(B), by striking ``shall'' and 
        inserting ``may''; and
            (3) by amending paragraph (9) to read as follows:
    ``(9) Upon a finding that investigative, expert, or other services 
are reasonably necessary for the representation of the defendant, 
whether in connection with issues relating to guilt or the sentence, 
the court may authorize the defendant's attorneys to obtain such 
services on behalf of the defendant and, if so authorized, shall order 
the payment of fees and expenses therefor under paragraph (10). No ex 
parte proceeding, communication, or request may be considered pursuant 
to this section unless a proper showing is made concerning the need for 
confidentiality. Any such proceeding, communication, or request shall 
be transcribed and made a part of the record available for appellate 
review.''.

SEC. 10. SEVERABILITY.

    If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the 
application of such provision or amendment to any person or 
circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, 
the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions 
of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
                                 <all>
S 623 IS----2
```