[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 76 (Friday, June 16, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5300-S5304]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT AMENDMENT

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, at an appropriate time, I intend to offer 
the Hate Crimes Prevention Act as an amendment to the Department of 
Defense Authorization Act. It is essential for the Senate to deal with 
this important issue.
  Hate crimes are modern day lynchings, and this is the time and the 
United States Senate is the place to take a stand against them. We must 
firmly and unequivocally say ``no'' to those who injure or murder 
because of hate. Every day that Congress fails to act, people across 
the Nation continue to be victimized by acts of bigotry based on race, 
religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability.
  Hate crimes are a national disgrace and an attack on everything this 
country stands for. These crimes send a poisonous message that 
minorities are second class citizens with fewer rights. And, sadly, the 
number of hate crimes continues to rise.
  70,000 hate crime offenses have been reported in the United States 
since 1991. In 1991 there were 4,500 hate crimes; 7,500 in 1993; 7,900 
in 1995, and over 8,000 in 1997. There were 7,700 hate crimes reported 
in 1998, and although the numbers dropped slightly, the number and 
severity of offenses increased in the categories of religion, sexual 
orientation, and disability.
  This is a serious and persistent problem--an epidemic that must be 
stopped.
  All of us are aware of the most highly-publicized hate crimes, 
especially the brutal murders of James Byrd in Jasper, Texas, and 
Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyoming. But these two killings are just 
the tip of the iceberg. Many other gruesome acts of hatred have 
occurred this year:
  On January 28 in Boston, a group of high school teenagers sexually 
assaulted and attacked a 16-year-old high school student on the subway 
because she was holding hands with another young girl, a common custom 
from her native African country. Thinking the victim was a lesbian, the 
group began groping the girl, ripping her clothes and pointing at their 
own genitals, while shouting ``Do you like this? Do you like this? Is 
this what you like?'' When the girl resisted, officials said, a teenage 
boy who was with the group pulled a knife on the girl, held it to her 
throat and threatened to slash her if she didn't obey her attackers. 
The girl was left unconscious from the beating. Three high school 
students were arrested in the attack and charged with civil rights 
violations, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault and battery, and 
indecent assault and battery.
  On February 6 Tuscon, Arizona, a 20-year-old gay University of 
Arizona student was sitting at a cafe when a man came up behind him and 
punched and stabbed him with a large knife. Witnesses heard the 
perpetrator using vicious anti-gay epithets. The victim was treated at 
a local hospial and survived. The attack spurred an anti-hate rally on 
the campus a few days later, drawing over 1,000 people.
  March 1 in Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania, a black man was charged with a 
hate crime after going on a shooting rampage killing three white men 
and leaving two others critically wounded. Prior to the attack, he told 
a black woman that he wouldn't hurt her because he was ``out to get all 
white people.'' The perpetrator was shouting racial epithets at white 
maintenance workers, and shot only white men on his rampage. 
Authorities found anti-white and anti-Jewish writings in his home.
  On April 29 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Richard Scott Baumhammers, 
34, a white man was charged with murder and hate crimes in a shooting 
rampage targeting minorities that left five people dead and one 
critically wounded. The first victim was a Jewish neighbor who was shot 
half a dozen times before her house was set on fire. The perpetrator 
then went from shopping mall to shopping mall, shooting and killing two 
Asian Americans at a Chinese restaurant, an African American at a 
karate school, and a man from India at an Indian grocery. He also fired 
shots at two synagogues, and the word ``Jew'' and two swastikas were 
painted in red on one of the buildings. According to press reports, 
attorney of the accused is raising an insanity defense.
  On June 4 in Rapid City, South Dakota, press reports indicate that 
police are baffled by a series of eight inexplicable drowning deaths 
among mostly Native Americans along Rapid Creek that have occurred over 
the course of 14 months. Law enforcement officials initially thought 
that the severely intoxicated men had drowned by accident. But local 
Native Americans believe an ``Indian-hater'' is waiting for the victims 
to become drunk and then dragging, rolling or pushing them into the 
water. These incidents come on the heels of a March 2000 report from 
the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that shows that racial tensions in 
South Dakota are high, and that Native Americans in the state feel that 
the justice they received is unfair.
  The most brutal and shocking hate crimes continue to make national 
headlines. Yet this list highlights just a few of the many hate crimes 
that afflict communities throughout the nation. This problem cannot and 
should not be ignored.
  We know that hate groups have increased in number in recent years. A 
study by the Southern Poverty Law Center reported last year that 474 
hate groups exist nationwide. Clearly, the Internet has given them a 
larger megaphone. In earlier years, hate groups would spread their 
messages of hate by using bulletin boards, newsletters, cable 
television, and occasional rallies. Now, the Internet gives them a 
vastly increased audience that can be reached

[[Page S5301]]

with little effort. Hate sites have proliferated at distressing rates, 
and recruitment by hate groups has increased substantially. No minority 
is safe. African-Americans, Hispanics, Jews, gays, lesbians, Arab-
Americans, Native Americans--all are targeted by these hate groups, 
which hide behind the first amendment as they spread their hateful 
messages. Unless we find better antidotes to the poison of high-tech 
hate, the problem of hate crimes in our free society will become 
increasingly severe.
  The federal government has a special role in protecting civil rights 
and preventing discrimination. We need to take two major steps. We need 
to strengthen current federal laws against hate crimes based on race, 
religion or national origin. We also need to add gender, sexual 
orientation, and disability to the types of hate crimes where federal 
prosecution is available.
  Our goal is to make the Justice Department a full partner with state 
and local governments in investigating and prosecuting these vicious 
crimes. We must find a way to act on this important issue and now is 
the time to do it. The silence of Congress on this basic issue has been 
deafening, and it is unacceptable. We must stop acting like we don't 
care--that somehow this fundamental issue is just a state problem. It 
isn't. It's a national problem, and it's an outrage that Congress 
continues to be A.W.O.L. in the national battle against hate crimes.
  Recent incidents of hate crimes have shocked the conscience of the 
country. It is clear that tolerance in America faces a serious 
challenge. We cannot hide behind the nation's record economic 
prosperity or its tremendous technological advances, when issues that 
go to the heart of the nation's founding ideals and basic values are at 
stake. When bigotry exists in America, we have to root it out.
  Current federal laws are clearly inadequate. It's an embarrassment 
that we haven't already acted to close the glaring gaps. For too long, 
the federal government has been forced to fight hate crimes with one 
hand tied behind its back. Federal participation in civil rights 
prosecutions in nothing new. In fact, it is Federalism 101. Federal 
involvement in the prosecution of racial bigotry dates back to the 
Reconstruction Era following the Civil War. These fundamental civil 
rights laws were updated in the 1960's, but now they are no longer 
adequate to meet the current challenge. Civil rights is still the 
unfinished business of America, and action we propose is in the best 
tradition of responsible federal legislation.
  Our amendment addresses two serious deficiencies in the principal 
federal hate crimes statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 245, which currently 
applies to hate crimes committed on the basis of race, color, religion, 
or national origin.
  First, in these cases, the statutes requires the government to prove 
that the defendant committed an offense not only because of the victims 
race, color, religion, or national origin, but also because of the 
victim's participation in one of six narrowly defined ``federally 
protected activities'' listed in the statute. These activities are:
  (1) Enrolling in or attending a public school or public college;
  (2) Participating in a service or activity provided by a state or 
local government;
  (3) Applying for employment or actually working;
  (4) Service on a jury in a state or local court;
  (5) Traveling in interstate commerce; or using a facility in 
interstate commerce; or
  (6) enjoying the goods or services of certain places of public 
accommodation.
  In other words, even in these types of hate crimes, the prosecution 
must prove that in addition to the bigotry, the attack was also made 
because the victim was engaged in one of these six specific activities. 
Too often, federal prosecutions are not possible, because this 
additional burden of proof is too great.
  Second, the federal statute provides no coverage at all for hate 
crimes based on the victim's sexual orientation, gender, or disability. 
In the Matthew Shepard case in Wyoming, for example, no federal 
prosecution was possible because of this unacceptable gap in federal 
law.
  Together, these limitations prevent the federal government from 
working with state and local law enforcement agencies in the 
investigation and prosecution of many of the most vicious hate crimes.
  Our legislation adds new provisions to Title 18 to remedy each of 
these limitations.
  In cases involving racial, religious, or ethnic violence, the 
amendment prohibits the intentional infliction of bodily injury, 
without regard to the victim's participation in one of the six 
``federally protected activities.''
  In cases involving hate crimes based on the victim's sexual 
orientation, gender, or disability, the amendment prohibits the 
intentional infliction of bodily injury whenever the act has a 
connection to interstate commerce.
  In addition, when state and local officials request federal 
assistance, our amendment authorizes the federal government to lend its 
personnel and its technical resources to local officials, and to award 
grants of up to $100,000 to assist in the local investigation and 
prosecution of hate crimes. These provisions will permit the federal 
government to work in partnership with state and local officials in all 
aspects of the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.
  This amendment has the support of the Department of Justice, 
constitutional scholars, law enforcement officials, and many 
organizations with a long and distinguished history of involvement in 
combating hate crimes, including the Leadership Conference on Civil 
Rights, the Anti-Defamation League, the Human Rights Campaign, the 
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the National Organization for 
Women's Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Coalition 
Against Domestic Violence, and the Consortium for Citizens with 
Disabilities Rights Task Force.
  This hate crimes amendment is not a full answer, but it will send a 
strong signal from the President and Congress that violence against 
individuals because of their membership in certain groups will not be 
tolerated, and that the federal government will now be a full partner 
in meeting this threat in the years ahead. It is time to stop 
abdicating our federal responsibility and start doing more to win this 
all-important battle against hate crimes. If we fail, America is not 
America.
  Mr. President, to review for the Senate quickly, this chart indicates 
the number of incidents, by bias motivation: Red being the race 
ethnicity and national origin, green being religion, blue being sexual 
orientation, and yellow being disability.
  As you can see from these numbers, they have been virtually flat over 
the period of these last couple of years. We have seen the increased 
numbers that have taken place on the basis of sexual orientation and 
increased numbers with regard to disability. The fact is, in examining 
these cases, particularly in 1997 and 1998, we find that the incidence 
of violence has intensified dramatically and the viciousness in 
manifestations of hatred has increased significantly, reflecting itself 
in these acts of violence against individuals.
  One of our great leaders in this cause was our former colleague, Paul 
Simon of Illinois, who was a strong advocate on this legislation many 
years ago. We settled at that time for just collecting information. 
Prior to a few years ago, we did not have accurate information. Now we 
have the accurate information and it cries out for action. There is no 
justification for delay, given that we have the information and we do 
know the cases that are taking place. We do not have to just rely on 
the various ad hoc cases that all of us read about, tragically almost 
every single day. We have accumulated these instances. We know from the 
direct testimony and comments from local law enforcement officials of 
the value and help and assistance that can be provided and that is 
needed in the prosecution of these cases.
  I will take the time of the Senate on Monday to go through a greater 
description of exactly what we are doing and what we are not doing; the 
limitations that we have placed upon the prosecution. We will have a 
chance to review for the Senate what the other amendment, the Hatch 
amendment that will be before the Senate will do, what it will do and 
also what it will not do. We will have that opportunity on Tuesday next 
in the middle of the

[[Page S5302]]

afternoon. It is imperative to take a vote on whether we are going to 
be serious here, with the Federal Government participating with States 
and local communities, trying to do something about the odious aspects 
of hate crimes.
  Finally, as we know, these incidents of crime are not just acts 
against individuals. These acts really impact and affect a whole 
community because they are based on such bigotry and hatred and reflect 
that kind of hatred and viciousness, that the whole community is 
tainted by these kinds of activities. It cries out for appropriate 
involvement by the Federal Government to be a partner with local and 
State law enforcement officials. That is what this legislation does. 
Nothing more, nothing less. It is a partnership using the full force of 
the National Government to address these crimes.

  My friend from Oregon is on the floor. He has been involved in this 
issue for a very long period of time. He has been indispensable as we 
have tried to move this legislation in the Senate. He has a long record 
in this area in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. I value 
his counsel and strong support. It is a pleasure to see Senator Wyden 
on the floor to speak on this issue this morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator from Oregon is 
recognized.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before the Senator from Massachusetts 
leaves the floor, I want to make clear that, in all the years of 
Senator Kennedy's championing the cause of civil rights, we have looked 
to him for his leadership. I believe this is a particularly important 
cause he champions today at a particularly important time. I hope my 
colleagues will reflect carefully on what Senator Kennedy has said 
today. He will be leading us in the debate on this issue next week. I 
am honored to be working with him.
  As Senator Kennedy said so eloquently, this is about one proposition 
and one proposition alone, and that is we are seeking to deter violent 
crime borne out of prejudice and hatred. So often we hear discussions 
about preferences for individuals, advantages that might in some way be 
bestowed with respect to civil rights statutes. That is not what this 
legislation does at all.
  This legislation is about deterring violence, deterring crime, 
deterring these extraordinary acts of violence that, in my view, stain 
our national greatness. We are not going to be able to remove that 
stain completely. We are not going to be able to stop individuals from 
having hateful and prejudicial thoughts. Clearly, we can put the 
Federal Government in a position to be a stronger, more effective 
partner with local law enforcement officials in fighting this scourge 
that has affected so many of our communities.
  This is not a time for further study. This is not a time to say the 
Federal Government's response should only be to collect statistics. 
This is a time for the Federal Government to work in partnership with 
State and local law enforcement officials so that we have the 
strongest, most effective, most coherent mobilization against these 
acts of violence and prejudice that we possibly can muster.

  Our bipartisan amendment, led by Senator Kennedy, does three things: 
It removes the restrictions on the types of situations in which the 
Justice Department can prosecute defendants for violent crimes based on 
race, color, religion, or national origin.
  Second, it will assure that crimes targeted against victims because 
of disability, gender, or sexual orientation that cause death or bodily 
injury can be prosecuted if there is a sufficient connection to 
interstate commerce.
  Third, it requires the Attorney General to certify in writing that he 
or she has reasonable cause to believe that the crime was motivated by 
bias and that, in fact, the Federal Government had been in close 
consultation with State and local law enforcement officials and that 
they did not have any objection to Federal help or that they had asked 
for Federal assistance.
  This is not a question of the Federal Government coming in and 
saying: We are going to call all the shots, and preempt the local 
jurisdictions. In fact, we want to support those local jurisdictions. 
We have 28 States in this country that have no authority to prosecute 
bias-motivated crimes based on disability or sexual orientation. We 
have a substantial number of States in this country that lack the legal 
authority to address these issues that are so important to the 
fundamental values of this country.
  We are not saying that every single crime in America is a hate crime. 
We certainly know that all crimes are tragic, and we grieve for the 
families, but not all crimes are based on hate. A hate crime is one 
where the perpetrator intentionally chooses the victim because of who 
the victim is. It is our view that a hate crime affects not only the 
victim, but if it goes unaddressed, it cheapens all of us. It makes our 
country a little bit less special because it demeans an entire 
community, it demeans all of us in our Nation.
  This is not providing special protection to certain groups. It makes 
sure we stand up for the rights of those individuals who are singled 
out solely for reasons borne out of hatred and prejudice and we not 
allow those in our country who do wish to harm these individuals to 
perpetrate these brutal acts with no response from our communities.
  Some argue that hate crime laws threaten free speech. In the law we 
are hoping the Senate will adopt, it does not punish beliefs or 
thoughts. We are not punishing those in this legislation; we are 
punishing violent acts. I know of no Member of the Senate who is pro-
violence. I do not think there is a single Member of the Senate who 
wants to be on the cause or in support of violent acts. Here we draw 
the line in the sand and we say we are not going to get in the way of 
people's thoughts and beliefs, lawful expression of one's deeply held 
religious views, but we are saying that causing or attempting to cause 
bodily injury is not speech protected by the first amendment.
  I am very hopeful that in the next few days the Senate will support 
this legislation. We are not federalizing criminal activity that is 
better left to the States. I mentioned the fact that so many States in 
our country lack these laws, and we have gone beyond the time to just 
study this and collect further statistics. If one looks at what 
happened in the brutal instance of Matthew Shepard and the horrific 
murder of James Byrd, Jr., it is awfully hard to say as you look at 
those brutal acts: We ought to study things a little bit more and 
collect some statistics before the Federal Government, in effect, acts 
to be a better partner with State and local authorities in addressing 
these issues.
  It is time to correct the deficiencies in current law. A crime 
motivated by race, religion, or ethnic origin can be prosecuted by 
Federal authorities because it occurred on a public sidewalk but not if 
it took place in a private parking lot across the street. This is just 
one example of the gaps and the deficiencies in the current hate crimes 
statute.
  When we vote on this issue, there will be support from Senators on 
both sides of the aisle. I commend my friend and colleague from Oregon, 
Senator Gordon Smith, who has stood with me again and again on this 
issue.

  When we vote on this, it seems to me, this will be nothing short of a 
referendum in the Senate on whether this body is going to continue to 
tolerate violent acts born of prejudice.
  As I mentioned, I do not know of any Senator who is in favor of 
violence. Violent acts, born of prejudice--acts that we all know are 
wrong--are taking place in too many communities in our country. They 
are a stain on our national greatness.
  The evidence is in, and it is clear. It is time, through Federal 
legislation, to send a strong and unequivocal message that we will not 
look the other way in the face of these crimes, that they will not be 
tolerated, that the full force of Federal law enforcement will be 
brought, and will be brought in conjunction with State and local 
authorities, to ensure that these violent acts are prosecuted and we 
have taken every step to deter them.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S5303]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The distinguished Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the 
amendment Senator Kennedy will offer on Monday, of which I am pleased 
to be a cosponsor.
  One of the things we try to do in this Chamber, as lawmakers, is to 
adopt laws that express and encode our values as a society, to, in some 
sense, put into law our aspirations for the kind of people we want to 
be.
  Clearly, one of the bedrock values, one of the fundamental values, of 
America is equality--equality of treatment before the law, equality of 
opportunity but, beyond that, a broader notion of tolerance in our 
society. It is part of what brought generations of immigrants to this 
country--the idea that they would be judged on their personal merit, 
not on anything related to their personal status or characteristics.
  Tolerance has been a hallmark of American society. I said before, 
when I talked about the law, that law sometimes tries to express the 
aspirations we have for ourselves. Sometimes, obviously, we do not 
achieve those aspirations and we are intolerant toward one another. 
Then the law has not only the opportunity but the obligation to step in 
and to try to create incentives or deterrence toward the worst forms of 
intolerance, even hatred. That is what this amendment is about.
  Clearly, over the decades our Nation has built a strong and proud 
history of protecting the civil rights of Americans who are subject to 
racial, religious, gender-based, or disability-based discrimination in 
the workplace, in housing, in life.
  In more recent times, there are a group of us here in the Chamber who 
have worked to try to extend some of those protections to cover bias, 
discrimination based on sexual orientation.
  It seems to me this amendment and the law on which it builds are also 
right and proper because they take Federal criminal jurisdiction and 
extend it to the prosecution and punishment of those who are accused of 
having caused bodily injury or death based on an animus, a personal 
animus, a hatred that comes from feelings about the victim's race, 
religion, nationality, gender, disability, or sexual orientation. In 
other words, this is another way for our society to express our 
disdain, to put it mildly, at acts of violence committed based on a 
person's race, religion, nationality, gender, disability, or sexual 
orientation.
  It is also a way, as is traditionally the province of criminal law, 
not just to speak to the common moral consensus of our society about 
what is right and what is wrong because that is what the law is all 
about, but hopefully by pushing those who are proven to have committed 
the wrongs, to deter others in the future from committing those same 
acts that society generally finds abhorrent.
  Current law expresses this but in a way that is limited. It permits 
Federal prosecutions of hate crimes resulting from death or bodily 
injury if two conditions are met: First, the crime must be motivated by 
the victim's race, religion, national origin, or color; second, the 
perpetrator must have intended to prevent the victim from exercising a 
federally protected right such as voting or traveling interstate. Of 
course, I support this law and the goals that it embraces: The Federal 
prosecution of people who inflict serious harm on others because of the 
color of the victim's skin, the sound of the victim's voice, a foreign 
accent, or the particular place in which the victim worships God. In 
short, these are crimes committed because the victim is different in 
some way from the perpetrator. Such crimes, I conclude, should be 
federally prosecuted.
  As we have had U.S. attorneys invoking these laws, carrying them out, 
we have discovered some shortcomings and some ways in which we can make 
them better, which is to say, ways in which we can more fully express 
some of the principles I talked about at the outset: equality, 
tolerance, doing everything we can to stop the most abhorrent acts of 
violence against people based on their characteristics. I think we 
ought to add to the list of prohibited bases of these crimes, crimes 
committed against someone because of gender, because of sexual 
orientation, and because of disability. That is what is provided in the 
amendment the senior Senator from Massachusetts will offer on Monday 
and of which I am proud to be a cosponsor.
  I suppose some people may hear these categories that I have mentioned 
and say: People commit crimes based on that basis? The fact is, they 
do. Sometimes they become quite visible and notorious. Crimes such as 
that committed against Matthew Shepard, who was killed because he was a 
gay man, are no less despicable and, of course, therefore no less 
deserving of Federal protection and prosecution than are those 
committed against others based on a characteristic, a status of the 
person, that are currently included in the Federal law. Adding these 
categories--gender, sexual orientation, disability--seems to me to be 
an appropriate extension of the basic concept of equal protection under 
the law. As the law now stands, it also imposes a requirement, a bar to 
prosecution relating to race, color, religion, and national origin that 
we ought to change, which is that the law is only triggered if the 
victim is prevented from exercising a specifically enumerated federally 
protected activity.
  There are obviously crimes that are committed based on hatred that 
are triggered in cases other than the simple prevention of the exercise 
of a federally protected activity, thus, the provision of this 
amendment that would eliminate this obstacle and, therefore, broaden 
the ability of Federal prosecutors to pursue crimes motivated by racial 
or religious hatred.
  The amendment that will be introduced on Monday also includes new 
language requiring the Justice Department, prior to indicting a 
defendant in a hate crime based on the categories I have enumerated, 
including those added under this amendment, a prosecutor of the Justice 
Department will have to, prior to the indictment, certify either that 
the State is not going to prosecute a hate crime, therefore avoiding 
both an overlap and the opportunity for prosecution by those in law 
enforcement closest to the crime, the alleged crime, and will also have 
to certify that the State requested or does not object to Justice 
Department prosecution or that the State has completed prosecution. It 
seems that you wouldn't have to say that, but just to be sure to avoid 
a kind of double exposure, double prosecution, that certification 
should satisfy the concerns some of my colleagues may have who may fear 
that Federal prosecutors will interfere with State efforts to bring 
perpetrators of hate crimes to justice. In other words, the State is 
given the first opportunity and the superior opportunity to prosecute 
these cases. Only if the State does not will Federal prosecutors be 
able to proceed.

  At a time when so much else is going on here in the Capitol with the 
high profile issues of this session--the Patients' Bill of Rights, 
whether we are going to give Medicare coverage or other coverage for 
prescription drug benefits for seniors, campaign finance reform--this 
amendment brings us back to America's first principles of equality and 
tolerance and challenges each of us to think about the appropriate and 
constructive role that the law can play, understanding that the law 
can't control the hearts of people in this country.
  Ultimately, we have to count on people's own sense of judgment and 
tolerance and, hopefully, the effect that other forces in their lives 
will have on them to make them fair and tolerant, such as their 
families, their schools, their religions, their faith. But here is the 
law to say in the cases when all of those other sources of good 
judgment and values in society fail to stifle the hatred that sometimes 
does live in people's hearts and souls, to say that this is 
unacceptable in America and to attach to that statement the sanction of 
law, hoping that we thereby express the higher aspirations we have for 
this great country of ours as it continues over the generations to try 
to realize the noble ideals expressed by our founders in the 
Declaration and the Constitution, but also to put clearly into the 
force of law the punishment that comes with law when one goes so far 
over the line to commit an act of violence based on hatred, hoping 
thereby that we will deter such heinous acts from occurring again in 
the future.

[[Page S5304]]

  I hope my colleagues over the weekend will have a chance to take a 
look at this amendment, will come to the floor and talk about it, and 
perhaps question those of us who have proposed it. Then I hope a strong 
bipartisan majority will support it when it comes to a vote next 
Tuesday.
  I thank the distinguished Chair. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________