mr. chairman , this amendment will reduce the backlog and delay of the federal courts ' dockets by limiting harmless error sentencing claims . 
these are claims in which the federal court is asked to review alleged errors in death penalty cases in state court that were either procedurally defaulted , in which the defendant failed to present the claim in state court ; or , two , that already have been reviewed by the state courts and have been determined to be harmless and that only relate to the prisoner 's sentencing , not the portion of the trial that determines guilt or innocence . 
under this amendment , fact-intensive and time-consuming `` harmless error sentencing claims '' will be reviewed again in federal court only if the state court erred in determining that the claim was subject to harmless review . 
an example of how this impacts victims of child abusers was raised at the house committee on the judiciary subcommittee on crime hearing by ms. carol fornoff , whose 13-year-old daughter was raped and murdered in tempe , arizona , in 1984 . 
the evidence of the guilt of the man convicted in killing her daughter was overwhelming . 
yet , today , 21 years after christy ann fornoff was murdered , the gentleman is still litigating his habeas appeals . 
mr. chairman , this amendment will reduce the backlog and delay of the federal courts ' dockets by limiting harmless-error sentencing claims . 
these are claims in which the federal court is asked to review alleged errors in death penalty cases in state court that were either ( 1 ) procedurally defaulted -- in which the defendant failed to present the claim in state court , or ( 2 ) that already have been reviewed by state courts and have been determined to be harmless , and ( 3 ) that only relate to the prisoner 's sentencing -- not to the portion of the trial that determines guilt or innocence . 
under this amendment , fact-intensive and time-consuming `` harmless-error sentencing claims '' will be reviewed again in federal court only if the state court erred in determining that the claim was subject to harmlessness review . 
an example of how this impacts victims of child abusers was raised at a house judiciary crime subcommittee hearing by mrs. carol fornoff , whose 13-year-old daughter was raped and murdered in tempe , arizona in 1984 . 
the evidence of the guilt of the man convicted of killing her daughter is overwhelming , yet today -- 21 years after christy ann fornoff was murdered -- the defendant still is litigating his habeas appeals in the federal courts . 
mrs. fornoff 's testimony raised important questions . 
there needs to be some limit , some end to the process in these cases . 
after 9 years under the anti-terrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996 or `` aedpa '' ( ay-depa ) , it is clear that the act did not eliminate or even reduce the problem of delay in the federal habeas process . 
as evidenced by testimony in the senate judiciary committee , in my home state of arizona , 63 capital cases have been filed and remain pending since the effective date of the aedpa ( ay-depa ) . 
of those cases , only one has advanced to the ninth circuit , where it has remained pending for the past 5 years . 
thirteen pre-aedpa ( ay-depa ) cases remain pending in federal court ; five of those cases have been in federal court longer than 15 years ; the others range in time from 9 years to 14 years . 
this is unacceptable . 
the current system is grossly unfair to crime victims and their families . 
while defendants always should be allowed to litigate meaningful evidence of their innocence , we also should not allow endless appeals to become routine . 
we need to protect innocent defendants , and we also need to allow victims and their families closure on these crimes . 
let me be clear that fundamental sentencing errors , and all guilt-phase errors , still would be subject to a second round of review in federal court under this amendment . 
also , this amendment does not in any way limit the state courts ' review of state criminal convictions , nor does it affect the u.s. supreme court 's review of either a defendant 's direct appeals or state-habeas petitions . 
the amendment only limits the federal habeas review that begins in the lower federal courts after all state appeals and u.s. supreme court certiorari review are completed . 
congress unquestionably has the authority to limit such review . 
deference to state courts is appropriate in this context , since these courts are closer to the trial and will have a better sense of what facts are likely to influence local juries . 
this section merely precludes a repeat of this process at the federal level for minor errors that are not related to guilt of the underlying offense , and that already have had an opportunity for review in state courts . 
i urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment . 
