[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 40 (Monday, March 15, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2624-S2625]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I again urge prompt consideration and 
passage of Hate Crimes Prevention Act.'' I cosponsored this measure in 
the last Congress and do so again this year. This bill would amend the 
federal hate crimes statute to make it easier for federal law 
enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute cases of racial and 
religious violence. It would also focus the attention and resources of 
the federal government on the problem of hate crimes committed against 
people because of their sexual preference, gender, or disability.
  As the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, I look forward to 
working on hearings next month on this important initiative. Violent 
crime motivated by prejudice demands attention from all of us. It is 
not a new problem, but recent incidents of hate crimes have shocked the 
American conscience. The beating death of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming 
was one of those crimes; the dragging death of James Byrd in Texas was 
another. The recent murder of Billy Jack Gaither in Alabama appears to 
be yet another. These are sensational crimes, the ones that focus 
public attention. But there is a toll we are paying each year in other 
hate crimes that find less notoriety, but with no less suffering for 
the victims and their families.
  It remains painfully clear that we as a nation still have serious 
work to do in protecting all Americans and ensuring equal rights for 
all our citizens. The answer to hate and bigotry must ultimately be 
found in increased respect and tolerance. But strengthening our federal 
hate crimes legislation is a step in the right direction. Bigotry and 
hatred are corrosive elements in any society, but especially in a 
country as diverse and open as ours. We need to make clear that a 
bigoted attack on one or some of us diminishes each of us, and it 
diminishes our nation. As a nation, we must say loudly and clearly that 
we will defend ourselves against such violence.
  All Americans have the right to live, travel and gather where they 
choose. In the past we have responded as a nation to deter and to 
punish violent denials of civil rights. We have enacted federal laws to 
protect the civil rights of all of our citizens for more than 100 
years. This continues that great and honorable tradition.
  Several of us come to this issue with backgrounds in local law 
enforcement. We support local law enforcement and work for initiatives 
that assist law enforcement. It is in that vein that I support the Hate 
Crimes Prevention Act, which has received strong bipartisan support 
from state and local law enforcement organizations across the country.
  When the Committee takes up the issue of hate crimes next month, one 
of the questions that must be addressed is whether the bill as drafted 
is sufficiently respectful of state and local law enforcement 
interests. I welcome such questions and believe that Congress should 
think carefully before federalizing prohibitions that already exist at 
the state level.
  To my mind, there is nothing questionable about the notion that hate 
crimes warrant federal attention. As evidenced by the national outrage 
at the Byrd, Shepard, and Gaither murders, hate crimes have a broader 
and more injurious impact on our national society than ordinary street 
crimes. The 1991 murder in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn, New 
York, of an Hasidic Jew, Yankel Rosenbaum, by a youth later tried 
federally for violation of the hate crime law, showed that hate crimes 
may lead to civil unrest and even riots. This heightens the federal 
interest in such cases, warranting enhanced federal penalties, 
particularly if the state declines the case or does not adequately 
investigate or prosecute it.
  Beyond this, hate crimes may be committed by multiple offenders who 
belong to hate groups that operate across state lines. Criminal 
activity with substantial multi-state or international aspects raises 
federal interests and warrants federal enforcement attention.
  Current law already provides some measure of protection against 
excessive federalization by requiring the Attorney General to certify 
all prosecutions under the hate crimes statute as being ``in the public 
interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.'' We should be 
confident that this provision is sufficient to ensure restraint at

[[Page S2625]]

the federal level under the broader hate crimes legislation that we 
introduce today. I look forward to examining that issue and considering 
ways to guard against unwarranted federal intrusions under this 
legislation. In the end, we should work on a bipartisan basis to ensure 
that the Hate Crimes Prevention Act operates as intended, strengthening 
federal jurisdiction over hate crimes as a back-up, but not a 
substitute, for state and local law enforcement.

                          ____________________