mr. chairman , many of us , when we think about terrorism , feel exactly the way the proponent of the amendment does , that we want to exert maximum force against the offender . 
those who would kill deserve to pay the ultimate price . 
on the other hand , i am aware that there are people in our country and in our congress who for religious reasons do not believe in the death penalty . 
the pope did not believe in the death penalty and , obviously , he was not for terrorism any more than our religious colleagues who have that objection are for terrorism . 
so i think it is important to state that . 
i also want to say i am a member of the committee on the judiciary . 
i have been for 10 years . 
if there was a hearing in the subcommittee that i am not a member of all well and good , but i think this amendment poses some new things that the full committee would benefit from going through . 
the reduced number of jurors that is being proposed , the procedural changes that are quite new , i think , deserve the attention of the full committees . 
it is possible that this measure could run into constitutional problems . 
and i think we would be better served to sort through that in a thorough way than to expose these elements of the patriot act to court challenge . 
finally , i would just say as i said before , even though we seek , understandably , retribution against those who would do these horrible crimes , i am just skeptical that imposing the death penalty is going to deter the suicide bombers . 
really , what we need to do is to spend the time and the money to take steps to protect ourselves in a more thorough way than we have done since 9/11 . 
as a member of the committee on homeland security , i am acutely aware , and we are on both sides of the aisle , i can tell you of the shortfallings that we have in our protection against terrorism . 
