[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 107 (Wednesday, September 13, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H7532-H7541]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 4205, FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees on
H.R. 4205.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Clerk will report the
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Conyers moves that the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4205 be
instructed to agree to the provisions contained in title XV
of the Senate amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson)
each will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
{time} 1445
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader of the
House, to begin the debate on the motion to instruct on this most
important vote on civil rights in this session of Congress.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Conyers
motion, a motion that is in keeping with the best of our national
traditions.
First, let me say that I am very glad that we are finally at long
last having this debate, a debate that allows us to express our
feelings, our passion on one of our most important and greatest
priorities.
Yesterday, I stood outside of this marvelous building on the lawn
just a few feet from our rotunda, and I listened to Judy Shepherd talk
about the murder of her son Matthew. Judy Shepherd talked about the
pain of losing a child to senseless violence and about the ugly,
horrible crimes that are committed against people simply because of who
they are.
Matthew's mother called on our Congress to act. She called on all of
us here to take a stand against hate, to renew a few simple principles
into our laws, principles that say so much about who we are and what we
believe.
This bill is critical in so many ways. It gives law enforcement
officers at all levels of government the tools they need to deal with
horrible acts of hate-based violence.
It sends a message to the world that crimes committed against people
because of who they are, that these crimes are particularly evil,
particularly offensive. It says that these crimes are committed, not
just against individuals, not just against a single person, but against
our very society, against America.
These crimes strike fear into the hearts of others because they are
meant to intimidate, to harass, to menace. When an angry man, a
troubled man shot up a Jewish community center in Los Angeles, wounding
teachers and students in a place that was supposed to be a sanctuary of
protection, the man said that he had shot at these children because he
wanted to send a message. He wanted to send a wake-up call to America
to kill Jews.
Today, with this bill, we reject that message in the most powerful,
most forceful way that we can. Today, we as a society can say that we
will do everything we can to protect people from these heinous acts,
that we will not rest until America is free of this violence.
This bill honors the victims of hate crimes, and it recalls their
memory. It honors the memory of James Byrd who was dragged to death
behind the pickup truck because the killers did not like the color of
his skin. It honors Matthew Shepherd who was beaten with the butt of a
gun and tied to a fence post and left to die in freezing weather
because he was gay. It honors Ricky Byrdsong, a former basketball coach
at my alma mater, Northwestern, who was gunned down on the street
because he was black. It honors not only those victims, not just the
high profile crimes, it honors all the people whose lives have been
scarred by these acts, the victims who do not always make the
headlines.
The hate crimes that we do not hear about deserve our strong response
today. So today, let us take a stand against violence. We are voting to
dedicate our national resource, to bring the strongest laws that we
have to bear against the most sinister thing that we know. The Conyers
motion is the only motion that will strengthen our existing laws, that
will strike a real blow against hate.
Let me say this is a bipartisan effort. There is nothing partisan in
this effort today. Republicans and Democrats are joining together. This
issue transcends politics. It challenges us to look into
[[Page H7533]]
ourselves, to search our humanity and pass a law that I guarantee my
colleagues will go down in the history books.
Virtually every major accomplishment that we pass ever in the history
of this body has been bipartisan. This law, like the Civil Rights Act
of 1965, will be a bipartisan blow against hate and violence.
This is a great country. We are so wealthy. But our greatest moments
are not when we produce material wealth. Our greatest moments are when
we as a people manage in the face of horrible tragedy to rise up to
come together to take a simple stand for basic decency.
Give us this motion. Give us this law. Bring America up, rising up
against hatred and against violence.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip of the House.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) for his leadership and others for their leadership on this. I
commend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our leader, for his
statement.
This motion and this proposition received a strong bipartisan vote in
the United States Senate. It is time that it received the same kind of
bipartisan support in this House.
Now, we understand that no act of Congress can ever outlaw bigoted
thoughts. But we also understand that, when hateful thoughts turn into
hateful deeds, the Congress must act and act decisively. That is why
this legislation is so necessary.
Today, even though the rate of most violent crimes is decreasing, the
number of hate crimes is still alarmingly high. The FBI reported that,
over the course of 1 year alone, in 1997, more than 8,000 hate crimes
were reported in this country. We have just heard examples of them from
our leader.
We have seen houses of worship burn, small children attacked, men and
women murdered, murdered for their religion, murdered because of their
ethnicity, murdered because of their gender, murdered for a whole host
of reasons. For every act we hear about, every assault that is
reported, there are many that pass unnoticed.
In fact, in my congressional district, just this last week, I learned
of a man who was beaten so severely in an attack that he lost seven of
his teeth and was hospitalized as a result of the beating. The reason
was the fact that he was gay.
But despite their frequency and the fact that these crimes are
intended to terrorize millions of Americans, too many in the law
enforcement field lack the legal authority it takes to investigate and
to prosecute them. That is why this legislation is important. That is
what this legislation does. It corrects that inadequacy.
We cannot outlaw hatred, Mr. Speaker. We have a moral responsibility
to stand up for those who could be its victims.
So I urge each and every one of my colleagues today to support the
Conyers motion, and let us give this the bipartisan support that it
deserves, the bipartisan support that it received in the other body.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in respectful opposition to the motion to
instruct conferees. I think it is important to remember at this
juncture that this provision is attached to the Defense authorization
bill, and this is the Kennedy hate crimes legislation. It was not part
of the House package. It was not considered in the House. I say that
because I know that we do that in this body, where something is
considered in the Senate, it is considered in the conference; but it
certainly is something that has not been considered and debated in this
body. I think that makes a difference as we consider this motion to
instruct.
Let me first look at what this Kennedy amendment in the Defense
authorization bill provides. It is the hate crimes amendment. It is
what the motion to instruct binds this body to support in the
conference. It, first of all, expands the protected groups to include
gender, sexual orientation, or disability.
Now, what is important to remember is that we already have a Federal
crime. There is a Federal crime to interfere with anyone's exercise of
a federally protected activity. This could be voting, this could be
traveling, interstate commerce, exercising any number of federally
protected rights.
It is a Federal crime if those rights are interfered with because of
race, because of color, because of religion or ethnicity. So that is
the current state of the law. The Kennedy amendment would expand those
protected rights to include other categories, as I mentioned, gender,
sexual orientation, and disability.
The second point that needs to be made about the Kennedy amendment is
that it makes it a Federal hate crime, and it creates the Federal hate
crime and expands it without the requirement of a federally protected
activity. This is a significant difference from the current law. What
we need to remember is that this is a significant, substantial
expansion of Federal jurisdiction over crime in our country.
It is not always wrong to expand Federal jurisdiction. As has been
pointed out, we have done that from time to time in this body. But
whenever we expand Federal jurisdiction, we should ask some basic
questions. First of all, is this expansion constitutional? That is the
responsibility we have. Secondly, if it is constitutional, is it
necessary? Is there such a gap in the current law that this expansion
is required? So we want to talk about those particular questions.
But before I do, I want to address what the minority leader spoke
about, how this conduct of targeting minority groups or special groups
because of a certain characteristic is intolerable in our society; and
I agree with that completely.
In fact, when I was a United States Attorney, I had the
responsibility that I did not ask for of prosecuting a hate group. That
group was known as The Covenant, the Sword and the Arm of the Lord. It
was in northern Arkansas. It was in my district.
That group, led by James Ellison, had targeted homosexuals. It had
targeted minorities from Jewish Americans to African Americans. They
had blown up a Jewish synagogue in Missouri. They had killed a pawnshop
owner in Texarkana, Arkansas, because they perceived that he was
Jewish. It was clearly a hate group. It was a hate group that had
violated the law.
I prosecuted that group. At the same time I prosecuted them, they had
targeted my family for assassination. So I know something about hate
groups. I certainly have not been the victim of racial discrimination;
I would never say that. But I know about hate groups.
From that experience, I see how wrong they are for society. I see the
poison they are for the new generation coming up. We should do
everything in our society that is appropriate, that we can stand
against this. We should speak out against it. We should express outrage
by it and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.
I would personally love to be a prosecutor that would go from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction prosecuting hate groups and those that
engage in hate crimes. I think we have to do that.
So with that background, I want to say that targeting any group
because of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or disability
should not be tolerated in any civilized society. But it should most
certainly not be tolerated in the freest country in the world, the
United States of America.
But then we come back to the first question, and that is, is this
expansion of Federal jurisdiction constitutional?
{time} 1500
We are all aware of the warnings that have been given by the United
States Supreme Court. We recall the Lopez decision, which arose out of
our expansion of Federal criminal jurisdiction to guns being found in
school zones and we said that ought to be a Federal crime. The United
States Supreme Court said, but even these modern-era precedents which
have expanded Congressional power under the Commerce clause, confirm
that that power is subject to outer limits.
The court has warned that the scope of the interstate commerce power
must be considered in the light of our dual system of government and
may not be extended so as to embrace effects upon interstate commerce,
and they continue to warn the Congress of the United States to be
careful that we do
[[Page H7534]]
not effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national and
what is local and create a completely centralized government. That is a
warning by the United States Supreme Court.
They also said in another case, we are also familiar with, in United
States v. Morrison, something I believe in, which is an expansion of
the Violence Against Women Act, to create a civil cause of action for
criminal conduct that was engaged in because of someone's gender, which
allowed them to bring a civil lawsuit.
The court struck that law down, as well, and said, ``The Constitution
requires a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly
local,'' obviously citing the Lopez case, ``and recognizing this fact,
we preserve one of the few principles that has been consistent since
the clause was adopted, the regulation and punishment of intrastate
violence that is not directed at the instrumentalities, channels, or
goods involved in interstate commerce has always been the province of
the States.''
So clearly, we have some warnings from the Supreme Court. Is it
constitutional? They have raised some questions about it.
The Washington Post, not exactly a conservative journal,
editorialized and said, ``rape, murder and assault, no matter what
prejudice motivates the perpetrator, are presumptively local matters in
which the Federal Government should intervene only when it has a
pressing interest. The fact that hatred lurks behind a violent incident
is not, in our view, an adequate Federal interest.'' A constitutional
warning by the Washington Post.
So certainly there should be some questions about is this the right
direction to go constitutionally. Secondly, even if we say that it is,
is it necessary?
I would point out, and I am pleased with this, that our Federal
sentencing guidelines, based upon the direction given by the United
States Congress, they have enhanced the penalties for hate crimes, but
they have done it after the conviction when it is appropriate to
consider the targeting of a minority group as a factor in increasing
penalties.
This is what the Federal sentencing guidelines says: ``If the finder
of fact at trial, the court at sentencing, determines beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally selected any victim
or any property as the object of the offense of conviction because of
the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin,
ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person, the
penalty should be increased by three levels.'' And, as we all know,
that is a significant increase in the amount of time that they would be
incarcerated.
So the current state of the law is that the targeting of these
special groups is a significant Federal factor in enhancing punishment.
That is right. That is appropriate. But that is a different scheme than
making a special Federal statute that would give special protection to
certain groups.
The second thing I would point out, is it necessary, is what are the
States doing in the current prosecutorial scheme?
The minority leader mentioned the cries of the mother of Matthew
Shepard, calling that this is not to be tolerated in our society and
how we should honor the victims of violence. And we should honor them.
But in Matthew Shepard's case, a homosexual college student, as my
colleagues know, that was murdered in Laramie, Wyoming, it was a State
court prosecution in which one the defendants pled guilty and got two
consecutive life sentences. They might create a Federal hate crimes
statute that they will not get any more than that. And the other could
be facing the death penalty when it is tried in October.
Another one, the murder of James Byrd, a horrendous crime in Texas
targeting an African American, it was a State prosecution in which the
jury gave death by injection rather than life in prison. And so, it was
the ultimate punishment that was meted out in this case under a State
prosecution.
In Alabama there was a slaying of Billy Jack Gaither, who was beaten
to death and then burned by kerosene-soaked tires. The men who murdered
a homosexual over unwanted advances, that perpetrator will avoid the
death penalty only because the family requested that the death penalty
be waived. That was a State prosecution.
I could go on and on in which State prosecutions have been successful
not in 40 years, not in 50 years, but in the maximum penalty in these
particular cases.
True, and I am delighted, that in many of those instances Federal
resources have been devoted to make sure that they were able to obtain
the conviction of the perpetrator.
Finally, I would point out the testimony of a judge who testified in
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on this particular bill. In this
case it was Judge Richard Arcara who testified in opposition to the
hate crimes legislation; and he stated, ``The issue is not whether we
are for or against the prosecution of hate crimes. All decent, right-
thinking people abhor hate crimes. The real issue before you is whether
the acts of violence covered by the proposed statute, which are already
criminal offenses under State law and which may already be Federal
crimes as well, are not being adequately prosecuted and punished at the
present time.''
In other words, why is a new Federal statute needed?
And so again the question, is it constitutional; and secondly, if it
is, is it necessary under the present circumstances?
The reason I bring these questions up is that my colleagues might
conclude ultimately after we debate this that the answer is yes, yes
and we need to do this, but is the appropriate time to consider it in a
conference report which is not being considered by the House?
In fact, we are instructing the conferees to go to this particular
Kennedy proposal when in fact there is also the Hatch proposal. Senator
Hatch offered a proposal that was adopted as well and it addresses hate
crimes, but it does it in this way: it creates more funding for the
States and their prosecution of hate crimes, so it gives more resources
and grants to the States.
The second thing it does, in a very thoughtful way, is that it
creates a study to examine the efficacy of the current law. Do we
really need it? Is it necessary? And this is another approach.
So I would say, let us do not bind our conferees that they have to go
a particular direction. There are other options that should be
considered.
So, my fellow colleagues, I believe that there are some important
questions that say let us do not adopt this binding motion to instruct
our conferees.
Finally, I think there is an issue of fairness that troubles some
people. Should certain groups in America when it comes to crimes of
violence be entitled to greater resources in investigation and
different laws in the prosecution than other groups? This is
fundamental. It is difficult because we all know that there is a
problem in our society when we target minority groups or groups that
are targeted because of disability or any other reason. They should be
punished to the full extent of the law, and we need to send a signal to
our society that it is not tolerable. But there are ways to send that
signal rather than considering a massive expansion of Federal
jurisdiction.
My colleagues, these are serious issues and I do not believe the
right place to approach it would be in the conference. We need to come
back and sort through each of these, as the Supreme Court has directed.
So I would ask my colleagues to oppose the motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, my friend from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) mentioned the
Laramie, Wyoming tragedy with Matthew Shepard.
Yesterday, here on the Hill, the police chief of Laramie, Wyoming,
joined us in support of our hate crimes prevention act. He met with us
yesterday.
I might point out that the National Sheriffs Association supports
this motion to instruct and the International Association of Chiefs of
Police supports this motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman form Missouri
(Mr. Skelton), the ranking member from the Committee on Armed Services.
[[Page H7535]]
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conyers motion.
Our Nation has seen far too many cases of violent criminal acts
related to prejudice, bigotry, and intolerance. Recently, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation has reported a significant number of cases
involving violence directed against a member of a religious, ethnic,
disabled, race-based, or gender-specific association. Statistics show
that nearly 8,000 such acts of violence have occurred annually since
1994.
Society cannot and should not tolerate the cowardly, mean-spirited,
and hateful acts that we call hate crimes. Indeed, such hate-based acts
have a deeper impact on society other than crimes. They are injurious
to the community and are often committed by offenders affiliated with
large, extended groups operating across State lines.
From my own observation, having been with numerous people who have,
unfortunately, sustained physical disability, I have witnessed the ugly
face of discrimination. I personally know the pain resulting from
malicious acts and bigotry as it relates to disabilities. I wish to
stress this point.
As a former State prosecuting attorney, I do not view this proposal
lightly. Although the ability to prosecute crimes against individuals
exists today, the Senate bill would provide prosecutors with more tools
with which to fight crimes in which bias, prejudice, and discrimination
are motivating factors.
I urge my colleagues to support the Conyers motion to instruct.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted now to yield 2\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking subcommittee
member that has handled this subject matter.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in favor of the advisory motion to the
conferees on the Defense authorization bill, but I do so with some
reservations.
I am in full support of legislation to punish hate crimes. Those
crimes terrorize our community and they are different from other
crimes, and they should be prosecuted vigorously and punished more
severely.
However, as we enact hate crime legislation, we have to be careful to
do so without impugning First Amendment freedoms and at the risk of
skewing ordinary criminal penalties.
Hate crime provisions adopted by the Senate in its Defense
authorization bill appear to allow evidence of mere membership in an
organization and mere beliefs to be introduced in prosecutions for
activities described in those provisions. We should have an amendment
to prohibit the use of such evidence because allowing introduction of
mere membership in an organization may be highly prejudicial and
inflammatory to the jury.
Recent reviews of death penalty cases have revealed that many
defendants who are factually innocent are convicted anyway. Telling a
jury that a defendant belongs to an unpopular organization only
increases the chance that the jury will decide the case based on
emotion rather than the evidence. Evidence of motivation behind the
crime ought to include something in addition to mere membership in an
organization or beliefs.
In addition to the constitutional, Mr. Speaker, the provisions of the
bill apparently allow a person guilty of what would ordinarily be
simple assault and battery to receive a 10-year sentence if they can
prove the appropriate motivation.
Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct conferees is aimed at a Defense
authorization bill that will be considered not by the Committee on the
Judiciary, which ordinarily considers constitutional and criminal law
implications in a bill, if we had considered the provisions in the
Committee on the Judiciary, we could have considered the appropriate
amendments to deal with the admission of evidence and could have
ensured that the provisions were more proportional for the crime
committed.
To address these issues, I have sent a letter to the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Crime asking that he immediately schedule a hearing on
hate crime legislation so that we can consider these issues in an
intelligent and thorough manner.
This is a very important piece of legislation. We need hate crime
legislation, but it has to be done right.
I will be voting for the amendment, with those reservations.
{time} 1515
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), a distinguished member of the Committee
on the Judiciary.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion.
This provision would strengthen a Federal hate crimes statute that has
been on the books for over 30 years. The 1968 law already covers hate
crimes committed on the basis of race, religion, color, or national
origin. This provision would add coverage for victims targeted for
violence by virtue of their sexual orientation, gender, or disability.
We hear from opponents that every crime is a hate crime; that every
act of violence is an act of hate, but since the founding of our
country our judiciary system has weighed the element of intent in
evaluating the severity of crime.
The thing that distinguishes hate crimes from other crimes is that
hate crimes are intended to terrorize both the crime victim and the
entire community that each victim represents. Wyoming is a long way
from Wisconsin. Yet in the days and months that followed the murder of
Matthew Shepard, I looked into many fear-filled faces and tear-filled
eyes in my own community. These crimes do strike terror throughout the
Nation.
Yesterday, I met Commander David O'Malley. He was the investigator in
Laramie, Wyoming, and he came to Washington to support our passage of
this motion. He said two things: one is that in starting out the
investigation he really did not believe that hate crimes existed but,
boy, did he learn during the course of his investigation that these are
specific crimes, and he urged us to pass this motion.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. McCollum), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime of
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, hate crimes are just plain wrong. They are crimes
against an individual committed by somebody principally or solely
because of race, religion, sexual orientation. They are committed not
against the individual so much as against a class of people, and they
tear at the very fabric of our society because they do that.
I cannot think of a more heinous crime that deserves any greater
punishment than a crime committed for that reason. That is why for a
long time I have been a supporter of hate crimes legislation that is
now before us in this fashion today and why I strongly urge my
colleagues to support this effort to instruct conferees in the only way
that we can achieve this goal of putting into law a Federal provision
that is overdue and needed in this case.
I can say not only about the Matthew Shepards of the world but I can
say about cases in my own State, a young woman named Jody Bailey just
last year, 20 years old, an African American shot to death simply
because of her race, because she was dating a white person, bullets
pumped into her car and she was killed for that reason alone. A young
girl 6 years old, Ashley Mance, killed because a skinhead thought it
was her race and it was not against her but against her race that he
shot her.
We had another case in my home State involving several teenage men
who killed a man brutally simply because he made a pass at them. That
is wrong. That is not right, and the Federal law needs to be
guaranteeing that somebody is prosecuted and given extra punishment on
top of the underlying crime and the underlying punishment if one
commits a crime principally for that reason; just as we have laws that
say if someone commits a crime with a gun they get extra punishment on
top of their underlying sentence for the underlying crime because it
was committed with a gun.
[[Page H7536]]
I support both. I think they are reasonable messages and necessary
messages to be sent out there. Unfortunately, even though most States
have hate crimes laws there are a few that do not, and in those States
that do not have hate crime laws that enhance these punishments for
crimes solely or principally because of race or religion or sexual
orientation or gender or disability, I believe in those States that do
not have them or in those States where they are there and some law
enforcement officer for whatever reason chooses not to prosecute,
Federal prosecutors should have that authority; and that is what this
provision gives them.
That is what the Kennedy provision, the Conyers provision gives them,
one I support strongly.
It also is true that this legislation provides money, a grant
program, to help assist those law enforcement communities that do have
their own hate crimes laws to enforce them. There should be a clear and
unequivocal message sent to anybody out there remotely contemplating a
crime because they hate somebody because of their race, their religion,
their sexual orientation. If they commit such a crime, they are going
to get punished for a very, very long time; and there is a special
place for them in the Federal prisons if the States do not do it.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the legislation before us and the
motion to instruct conferees, and I encourage all of my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), himself a prosecutor and member of
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from Arkansas
(Mr. Hutchinson), asked, Is this legislation necessary? And he points
to the murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming who died for no other
reason other than he was gay, and to James Byrd in Texas who died for
no reason than because he was black, and I would add Joseph Ileto of
California who died for no other than reason other than he was Asian.
Is there a need? I submit there is a clear need.
When such actions take place in other countries, when individuals are
persecuted because of their identity, whether it be racial or
religious, our law, the United States law, recognizes this is no
ordinary crime and grants them a remedy. We entitle them to petition
for asylum. Why would we do less to protect our own citizens from the
very same crimes?
Is there a need? Yes, there is a need. Some have said we should not
pass this law because hate crimes are a local matter. Well, I agree,
and I know that the authors of this legislation, this motion, also
agree. The vast majority of those crimes are investigated and
prosecuted at the State and local level. In this measure, if it is
enacted, it will continue that same status quo. All this legislation
will do is to ensure, when local authorities request assistance, or are
unable or unwilling to act, Federal law enforcement agencies will have
the ability to come to their aid. That is why the sheriffs of this
country and the chiefs of police in this country support this
legislation.
Support the motion.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Mrs. Morella), a leader in the Violence Against Women Act.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) for yielding. I thank him for offering what is an important
motion to instruct the conferees in the DOD bill.
This, of course, was a separate bill to begin with. We do not have
time to try to pass a separate bill. It is critically important that
this Congress indicate their belief that hate crimes will not be
tolerated and we will use all of the resources available to make sure
that that is the case.
Hate crimes are different from other crimes. For example, just think
of the situation of Matthew Shepard, Tony Orr, Timothy Beauchamp, James
Byrd, the Jewish Day Care Center in Los Angeles. They affect not only
the victim but an entire community.
The House Committee on the Judiciary held hearings back in August.
The need has been there. We are all Americans. We cannot tolerate
bigotry or hate in any way at all, and it is very important that we do
pass this motion to instruct the conferees and show that we are
Americans and we do care about each other.
So I ask this body to support it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
this motion. We have waited much too long to strengthen hate crime
laws. This motion will expand the definition to include crimes
motivated by gender, sexual orientation, and disability among the list
of crimes considered as hate crimes. If criminals are motivated by
bias, then prosecutors should have the ability to seek a higher
penalty.
I feel strongly about this because earlier this year over 50 women
were beaten, surrounded, robbed, stripped in Central Park in my
district. There is one thing all these victims had in common. They were
from different countries, different ages, different races and religions
but all of them were women. The mob went after these victims simply
because they were women.
Hate crimes create a climate of fear that keep a particular class of
people from participating fully in society. As Americans, we cannot let
this stand. This motion also includes my bill, the Hate Crimes
Statistics Improvement Act, that requires the FBI to gather statistics
about gender-based hate crimes as well.
This is an incredibly important motion. We must all support it. It is
important.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Indianapolis, Indiana (Ms. Carson).
(Ms. CARSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) on his motion to instruct the conferees on H.R. 4205, urging
us to adopt the Senate provisions on hate crimes, and I would certainly
like to applaud those who have spoken in this effort prior to the time
that I have been here.
Unfortunately, because leadership has had a strange hold on hate
crimes legislation preventing its advancement in the House, I am
questioning what it is that we are waiting for. I spoke at a vigil down
the street at the Senate Park a couple of months ago on behalf of the
family of Arthur Warren, AKA Jr., J.R., who was beaten by two 17-year-
olds who had confessed to that first degree murder but a trial has not
yet begun. Arthur was 26 years old. He was gay. He was beaten and ran
over twice, several times, with an automobile and then taken across
town and dumped out in the street.
This motion to instruct conferees is a vital effort, and if there is
anything that this Congress should do prior to the adjournment, it
would be to adopt the motion to instruct conferees of the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct
conferees. The American people have waited far too long for the passage
of comprehensive hate crimes legislation, and we have an important
opportunity today to show our support for this initiative. Each day we
hear stories of hate groups actively recruiting members in our
communities, often masking their hatred with religion. These groups
incite the enmity and violence which tear at the very fabric of our
society. The good news is that some States, like New York, have finally
responded decisively to the destructive forces of hate-based violence.
The bad news is that Congress has consistently squandered the
opportunities we have had to address this phenomenon, dragging our feet
while senseless hatred destroys communities throughout the country.
It is past time to hear the cries and appeals of the victims of hate
crimes
[[Page H7537]]
and their families. We need to pass a Federal hate crimes law and give
law enforcement officers the tools they need to fight these crimes. We
need to pass comprehensive gun safety legislation, to keep dangerous
firearms out of the hands of people who will perpetrate hate-based
violence. We need to invest in the education of our children to teach
them by example to embrace the diversity of our society. We need to
find a way within constitutional bounds to diminish the damaging
effects of hate speech in our communities; and we need to do it now,
before one more person among us has to mourn the loss of a loved one to
a senseless hate crime. Inaction in the face of this tragic, dangerous
trend is indefensible.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to jump into this particular point in the
debate. It is just amazing how much we agree upon. We are expressing
outrage about hate crimes, and I tried to express that same outrage
when I was a Federal prosecutor. I certainly have tried to express it
in the United States Congress. I know that those in the State
legislature and here in our national body we all are looking for ways
to express our outrage of this. I think we are doing it fairly
effectively. This debate is a means of doing that.
{time} 1530
Mr. Speaker, there is really broad agreement, when we say it is
intolerable in our society for someone just because they are African
American or just because they are Jewish that they be targeted or just
because of their sexual orientation. It is abhorrent in our society
that they be targeted because of those characteristics, so we need to
stand against this at every possible opportunity.
I think the debate, though, and really the sense of disagreement is
whether we want to have a Federal concurrent jurisdiction for virtually
all violent crime similar to the way we do it with our drug war.
Right now, if anyone has any drug offense, it can be brought into
State court or Federal court, it is totally concurrent jurisdiction.
And basically you are going to have a review of all violent crime to
see if it was motivated by one of these biases that is referred to that
covers a special category. If it was a perceived special category, and
that is always going to be reviewed and as the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Scott) appropriately made the expression of concern, that are we
going to be examining everyone's thought. I think the gentleman says
that we need to really look at this very carefully. He has some
reservations about it.
The reservations that the gentleman raised are reservations that some
on this side have as well. And as the minority leader said, it is not a
partisan issue. It is really a question here of approach, and the
direction that we are going to go in our Federal law enforcement.
And I just wanted to say that I agree with much of what is being said
today, and the terribleness in our society of crimes against particular
groups. I think it is just simply a matter of a different approach that
I would take, and we need to look at this very, very carefully.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Conyers motion to instruct conferees on the Defense Department
authorization bill to recede to the Senate position and retain the
inclusion on the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, which is the
Senate's version of H.R. 1028, the hate crimes legislation.
Now, I notice some people believe that hate is not an issue when
prosecuting a crime. They say our laws already punish the criminal act
and that our laws are strong enough. I answer with the most recent
figures from 1998 when 7,755 hate crimes were reported in the United
States.
According to the FBI, hate crimes are under reported, so the actual
figure is much higher. And I say to my colleagues, penalties for
committing a murder are increased if the murder happens during the
commission of a crime. Murdering a police officer is considered first
degree murder, even if there was not premeditation. Committing armed
robbery carries a higher punishment than petty larceny.
There are degrees to crime and committing a crime against somebody
because of their race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, and
ethnicity or other groups should warrant a different penalty. These
crimes are designed to send a message. We do not like your kind, and
here is what we are going to do about it.
So why cannot we punish crimes motivated by hate differently than
other crimes?
I believe we must stand up as a Congress and as a country to pass
hate crimes legislation to make our laws tougher for the people who
will carry out these heinous acts.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), certainly his expertise as a State prosecutor
is meaningful.
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time
to me and certainly appreciate the tenor of the debate, especially
hearing the experiences of my friend, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Hutchinson) and his experiences as a Federal prosecutor.
Before coming to this body, I began my legal career as a court-
appointed public defender, and one of the last cases I had the occasion
to defend was a murder case. My client was an African American who was
facing the death penalty. Shortly, thereafter I switched sides in a
courtroom and began prosecuting criminal cases and handled some 16
death penalty cases throughout the State of Missouri.
I have heard these very powerful testimonials from all Members,
including my colleague, the gentleman from Missouri, who spoke at the
beginning in favor of Mr. Conyers' motion. I, too, have held the hands
of family members who have been murdered, the mothers and wives as we
waited for juries to return with their verdicts, and wondering whether
or not the State's cases prevail and often they did.
But I agree also with the gentlewoman from Wisconsin. My experience
has shown that all murder cases are hate crimes, and what I think we
are attempting to do today is really legislate by headline. The fact
that the tragedy that occurred to the Matthew Shephard family, the
killers of Matthew Shephard deserve, in my estimation, the death
penalty not because of who he is or what sexual preference he had, but
because the facts fit the case.
The murder of James Byrd down in Texas that has been referred to, his
killers, in my estimation, deserve justice throughout the death
penalty, not because of who he was or the color of his skin, but
because the facts fit the case.
In the earlier debate, and I was listening to my colleague from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) in the debate with the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Graham), if there are prosecutors or police across this
Nation that are not aggressively enforcing existing law, then we should
focus there, and yet I believe that as the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Hutchinson) mentioned, we are attempting in essence to criminalize
abhorrent but lawful thought, and I think that is a step too far,
especially having been one who served in State courts in Missouri.
I think, Mr. Speaker, when I reference the criminal justice system
and conjure up the image of all of those cases that I had the
opportunity to participate in, I think of the Goddess of Justice. There
is a statue just across the street depicting the Goddess of Justice and
she stands there with scales in one hand and blindfold across her eyes,
and I think the thought and the symbolism is that decisions that are
made in our courtroom should be made not based on prejudice or not
elevating one group over another, but should be applied consistently,
and because of that, then I ask for a no vote on Mr. Conyers' motion.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to
congratulate the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hulshof) and, finally,
finding someone to come, give him a little relief. He was
[[Page H7538]]
looking awfully lonely. The relief falls a little short.
First, the gentleman from Missouri said, we are criminalizing
abhorrent thought, no not anything in here comes remotely close to
criminalizing thought, nothing is criminal under this bill, unless you
hit somebody, shot somebody, stabbed somebody, there is nothing in this
bill that criminalizes thought, the right to burn crosses and engage in
hate speech, first amendment protected, remains totally undiminished.
Secondly, the gentleman said, I mentioned places where there are
prosecutors and police who are not fully enforcing the law, fortunately
a small minority against particular groups, and he says focus on them.
Kill this bill and you cannot focus on them. That is what the bill
does.
This bill does not generalize a Federal criminal presence. It gives
the Attorney General the right in a restricted set of circumstances to
enter into prosecutions, and we envision the circumstance would be
where a vulnerable group was being victimized and was not getting the
protection. So without this legislation, we cannot do what the
gentleman from Missouri says we should do, focus on those situations.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Conyers) for yielding me the time and thank him for offering this
motion to instruct conferees.
By doing so, under his leadership, he gives this body today a great
opportunity, an opportunity to say that hate crimes have no place in
our country. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) argued that
there is no need for a Federal hate crimes legislation, because assault
and murder are already crimes.
However, the brutality of these hate crimes speaks to the reality
that whether a person is targeted for violence, because of his or her
sexual orientation, race or other group membership, the assailant
intends to send a message to all members of that community. The message
is, you are not welcome.
The effort to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation is a
different type of crime, and it demands a different kind of response.
All Americans, all Americans have a right to feel safe in their
communities.
This bill counters this message of intimidation. This motion to
instruct sends a strong statement that our society does not condone and
will not tolerate hate-based crimes. Passage of this motion to instruct
would not end hate-based violence, we know that, but it would allow the
Federal Government to respond and take action.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to
instruct. It is necessary, Mr. Speaker, because these tragic murders
and the sufferings that were, for example, experienced by the Byrd
family and the family of Matthew Shephard have experienced are not
isolated incidences.
According to the FBI, 87 incidences of hate crimes based on race,
religion, national origin or sexual orientation took place in 1996
alone. There is a need for this. I urge my colleagues to support the
motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, in recent years we have mourned the deaths of Matthew
Sheppard, a gay college student in Wyoming, and James Byrd, an African-
American man in Texas. These brutal killings are reminders of the
violence and harassment that millions of Americans are subjected to
simply because of their sexual orientation, race, religion, or other
group membership.
I had the privilege of introducing members of each of their families
at the Democratic National Convention last month. There they spoke
movingly of their slain loved ones and the impact that crimes motivated
by hate have on families and communities.
These tragic murders and the suffering that these two families have
experienced are, unfortunately, not isolated incidents. According to
statistics kept by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence programs, 29
Americans were murdered in 1999 because they were gay or lesbian and
there were more than 1,960 reports of anti-gay or lesbian incidents in
the United States, including 704 assaults. And according to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, in 1966 there were over 8700 reported
incidents of hate crimes based on race, religion, national origin, or
sexual orientation. Crimes based on hate are an assault on all of us,
and we must take stronger measures to prevent and punish these
offenses.
Opponents of this measure have argued that this is an issue that
should be left to the states. However, Congress has passed over 3000
criminal statutes addressing harmful behaviors that affect the Nation's
interests, including organized crime, terrorism, and civil rights,
violations. Thirty-Five of these laws have been passed since the
Republicans took control of Congress in 1995.
Others have argued that there is no need for federal Hate Crimes
legislation because assault and murder are already crimes. However, the
brutality of these crimes speaks to the reality that when a person is
targeted for violence because of their sexual orientation, race, or
other group membership, the assailant intends to send a message to all
members of that community. That message is you are not welcome.
The effort to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation is a
different type of crime, and it demands a different kind of response.
All Americans have a right to feel safe in their community.
The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2000 counters this
message of intimidation with a strong statement that our society does
not condone and will not tolerate hate-based violence. In addition,
passage of this legislation will increase public education and
awareness, increase the number of victims who come forward to report
hate crimes, and increase reporting by local law enforcement to the FBI
under the Hate Crimes Statistics Act.
In addition to a bipartisan group of 192 House sponsors, this bill is
supported by 175 civil rights, religious, civic and law enforcement
organizations, including the National Sheriff's Association, the
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Hispanic National Law
Enforcement Association, the National Center for Women and Policing,
and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives.
Hate crimes take many forms and affect many different kinds of
victims. As a Member of Congress who has the privilege of representing
a district with a large number of gay and lesbian people, I find it
interesting when I hear people talk about tolerance for gay and lesbian
people because in our community the issue of tolerance was resolved
long ago. We not only tolerate our gay and lesbian friends and
neighbors, we take great pride in them and in the contribution that
they make to our community in San Francisco, indeed to our great
country.
Murders and assaults that target African-Americans, Jewish-Americans,
Hispanics, Gays and Lesbians, or any other group are the manifestation
of enduring bigotry that is still all too prevalent in our society.
Passage of this bill would not end all violence against these
communities. But it would allow the Federal Government to respond and
take action by investigating and punishing the perpetrators of crimes
motivated by hate. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to
instruct.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the deputy whip on the minority side.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Conyers) for yielding the
time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees.
Hate is hate. Hate is hate. It is based on race, on color, on religion,
national origin or sexual orientation. No one, but no one is born
hating. Little babies do not know hate.
They do not know sexism. They do not know racism, but our society
will change the little babies before they become adults. We teach
people how to hate, to hate someone because of their color, because of
their race, because of their religion, because of their sex or sexual
orientation.
As I said before, nobody, Mr. Speaker, is born hating, but too many
people in our society grew up hating, and they get involved in hate
crime against someone because of their religion, because of their
color, because of their sex or sexual orientation. There is no room in
our society to hate or be violent towards someone because of their
race, their color, their national origin, their religion or sexual
orientation.
With this legislation, Mr. Speaker, we will send a strong and
powerful message that we are one family, one people, one Nation. I urge
all of my colleagues to support the motion to instruct conferees.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the
allegation that this criminalizes thought.
[[Page H7539]]
Here is the operative phrase which controls any new crime, whoever
willfully causes bodily injury to any person or through the use of
fire, a firearm or an explosive or incendiary device attempts to cause
bodily injury to any person.
Absent that phrase, there is no crime committed, so this only applies
by its explicit language to actual injury or attempts to injure with a
fire or firearm or an explosive or incendiary device.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, my response to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) would be that if the bias of an accused
defendant is made relevant then would not the gentleman agree that any
statements, any writings, any thoughts, any spray painted slurs, any of
these constitutionally protected, although abhorrent statements, would
then be part of the criminalization of the act?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, there has to be a prior
physical criminal assault on someone else. Then when you get to the
sentencing and you get to the decision about punishment, you can take
into account motive. Yes, I would agree with the gentleman, you can
take into account motive and motives that are sometimes constitutional
when they are part of a crime can be punished.
{time} 1545
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, if the ranking member is prepared to close, I will go
ahead and finish as our final speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come back to this debate; and, again, in
listening to some of the arguments that have been made, I noticed that
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) referred to the police chief
in Laramie, Wyoming, who supports this legislation. In fact, the police
chief of Laramie, Wyoming, was concerned about the burden on the State
as to how much it costs in the prosecution. He needed financial help.
It was not a matter that the case was not adequately investigated or
prosecuted, because, again, a life sentence was meted out. It is the
burden on the States because of these prosecutions in hate crimes.
Again, this is a Department of Defense authorization bill. This is in
conference on a Kennedy amendment that has not been considered in this
body. The question is, when there is the Senator Hatch proposal that
would provide grants to the States that would address the concern of
the police chief of Laramie, Wyoming, perhaps that is the best way to
go.
What is missing in this debate is the answer to the two questions
that I raised: Is it constitutional, and is it necessary? I listened to
every speaker on this side, and I did not see a recitation of where the
constitutional basis is and how we respond to the Supreme Court when
they cautioned this body in saying that every crime cannot be a Federal
crime. Again, quoting the Supreme Court: ``Indeed, we can think of no
better example of the police power which the Founders denied the
national government and reposed in the states than the suppression of
violent crime and vindication of its victims.'' So I do not believe
that has been answered. Where is the constitutional basis?
The second question that I raised is, Is it necessary? Not one case
has been cited by my friends from the other side of the aisle in which
there was a hate crime in the States that was not investigated and not
prosecuted. No case has been cited.
Now, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) referred to a
couple of cases in which there is a need because there was a hate
crime. Well, the end of the story is that the States prosecuted, they
got the life sentence, they got a death sentence. Every witness, every
witness that was called in support of hate crimes legislation before
the Senate committee or the House committee, were victims or family
members of a victim of a hate crime. It has been vindicated with the
maximum penalty of the prosecution under State law.
So for this massive expansion of Federal jurisdiction, is it a
constitutional basis? Is it necessary? I appreciate the frankness of
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member on the
Subcommittee on Crime. I was aware of the letter that the gentleman
wrote to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Crime, in which he expressed concern from a
constitutional standpoint about the issues that were debated by the
gentleman from Missouri, about whether this is going to require
evidence of membership, because you have to prove the motivation being
a hate crime against a particular group. So the issue will be
membership in organizations.
There is a question that has been raised by civil libertarians about
that, and also some other questions raised, and ultimately they asked
for more hearings. In other words, let us proceed through. Now that we
have the support of the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, surely
we can consider this legislation, consider the amendment, consider what
is the best approach, rather than requiring our conferees on a defense
authorization bill, where they do not have the expertise of the
Committee on the Judiciary to debate this issue. That is simply what I
am asking my colleagues.
We are in great agreement that this is intolerable, targeting
particular groups in our society. We are in agreement on that. It is
simply a question of what is the right approach. I believe the right
approach is not directing our conferees to adopt a particular approach
on the defense authorization bill. I ask my colleagues to oppose this
motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of the Members that have
participated in this debate, and particularly the floor manager, the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson). I think we have been
exhaustive on this subject and have moved in a very important way.
The reason this debate has been as long as it has is because we have
had one motion to instruct, the Graham motion, which was turned away,
and now we have mine, which I hope will be accepted.
The reason is that it is unrefuted that many of the crimes with which
we are concerned are never prosecuted. Sometimes it is because the
State and local authorities do not have the resources, but other times
it is because they do not have the will. But the bottom line is that
these crimes often go unpunished. Today we are asking our colleagues to
go on record as to whether or not they will support a Federal law to
ensure that these crimes be prosecuted, but only when the State legal
system breaks down. Many State officials have asked for Federal
legislation so that they can get help from Federal authorities in
handling these crimes because of the complexity of the cases and
because many of the purveyors of hate operate across State lines.
Many of us in the House have already been on record supporting
Federal criminal laws that are based on discriminatory acts. My earlier
bill of several years ago, the Church Arson Act, is just the most
recent instance of what Members in this House have already voted for.
This measure soon to come up, the hate crimes bill from the Senate,
follows that same pattern.
Mr. Speaker, with the equal protection promise of the reconstruction
amendments in the 19th century, the Federal Government assumed the duty
to ensure that all Americans are protected from violence aimed at them
simply because of who they are or how they lead their lives. So this is
not a usurpation of State authority. It is a backstop, and when the
State system does not work, that is when this hate crimes law would
kick in.
Mr. Speaker, it is consistent with the rich civil rights tradition
that goes all the way back to the 1930s when the late Dr. W.E.B. duBois
and Ida B. Wells, an African American civil rights fighter before her
time, supported the NAACP anti-lynching laws, which have now been
extended through the Hate Crimes Act. We studied the 1938 Senate
filibuster on anti-lynch laws which went down. It was defeated in the
face of many of the same arguments that are
[[Page H7540]]
being made today by opponents of this legislation.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Point of Order
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman will state his
point of order.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that we would
close, so I closed. It was my understanding that the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) was going to close on behalf of his position.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I was yielding
pursuant to a request to yield. If it is the gentleman's insistence,
though, that I do not do it, I withdraw it.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, if it is for a unanimous consent request
for submitting a statement, there is certainly no objection.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
First, the gentleman made a very important point, and I do have a
unanimous consent request. I am sorry that the gentleman from Arkansas
wants to narrow the debate and not allow us to yield. But I would ask
unanimous consent for this Congress to do the right thing and to
support the motion to instruct by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) so that we can have a Federal backstop to stop the killing and
to stop the hate.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, this measure continues
the great struggle for equal justice of all Americans that started in
the 1930s with the anti-lynch laws. It has been refined, it has been
expanded, it has had a constitutional basis that has been very deeply
rooted, and I urge and thank all of the Members who will support this
motion to instruct.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conyers motion to
instruct conferees on the Defense Authorization bill. This motion would
direct conferees to agree to the federal hate crimes provision
contained in the Senate version of this bill. This provision preserves
the principle of federalism while recognizing the national imperative
to prevent violent crimes motivated by prejudice.
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) would provide new protections
for individuals who are victims of violent crimes solely because of who
they are. Specifically, it would strengthen the existing definition of
a federal hate crime to include crimes motivated by the victim's
gender, sexual orientation, or disability. I believe that this
legislation would increase public education and awareness of these
crimes, encourage more victims to come forward and seek justice, and
perhaps most importantly, demonstrate the federal government's clear
resolve to prosecute these crimes to the fullest extent of the law.
Some of my colleagues have argued that federal hate crimes
legislation is unnecessary. In making this argument, they cite the case
of Matthew Shepard, a college student brutally murdered in Laramie,
Wyoming. They state that justice has already been served; Matthew
Shepard's killer has already been sentenced to life in prison without
parole. What they don't tell you is that because Matthew Shepard's
murder is not considered a federal hate crime, Laramie law enforcement
officials had to furlough five officials to help cover the cost of
prosecuting this crime. Under HCPA, by contrast, Matthew Shepard's
grieving family would have had the benefit of additional resources
under federal law, easing the burden on local law enforcement
officials.
Mr. Speaker, by voting in favor of this motion to instruct conferees,
we have the opportunity to provide all Americans with additional
protection from violent crimes. The vast majority of hate crimes will
still be prosecuted in state court. The federal Hate Crimes Prevention
Act provides important protections to victims of violence, protections
that supplement, not supplant, those available to victims in state
courts. I urge my colleagues to support the Conyers motion.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to stand with so many
of my colleagues to urge support for comprehensive hate crimes
legislation. I would also like to thank Mr. Conyers for his outstanding
leadership in this area. His unwavering support and dedication to
advancing civil rights has been a beacon for us all.
I hope my granddaughters Isabel and Eve never know of violence
motivated by bigotry and hate. Today we have the opportunity to
strengthen our hate crimes prevention law by expanding the definition
of a ``hate crime'' to include sexual orientation, as well as gender
and disability. These crimes tear at the fabric of our society and
insidiously erode our principles of tolerance and diversity. Before
this Congress adjourns for the year, we must send a loud message that
the safety of all people is paramount and anyone who commits a crime
based on bigotry and hate will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of
the law.
I don't want to be the one to explain to Ricky Byrdsong's widow that
he did not deserve protection because he was killed walking outside of
his house rather than while he was engaged in a ``federally protected
activity.'' And I don't want to be the person who has to explain to the
family of Matthew Shepard why this Congress was unable to pass tougher
laws that punish people who commit crimes based on sexual orientation.
The Byrdsong and Shepard families are not alone. For every high
profile, heinous hate crime that makes it to the forefront of our
national consciousness, hundreds and thousands of nameless victims and
families have been targeted simply because of their gender, sexual
orientation and disability.
Since 1991, 60,000 hate crimes have been reported to the FBI and in
1998 alone, there were close to 8,000 hate crimes reported, almost one
every hour. Many argue that hate crimes cannot be separated from other
crimes. This is just untrue. Hate crimes are violence targeted at
individuals simply because of who they are. Perpetrators are motivated
by hate and their actions are intended to strike fear into an entire
group of people. We know that individuals are targeted because of their
sexuality, disability, and gender just as often as because of their
race, religion, and national origin, and our hate crimes prevention
legislation must be expanded to protect them too.
What is the lesson we are teaching our children and what legacy will
I leave my granddaughters if we don't pass laws that protect all of our
citizens? If we fail, we will be turning our backs on our citizens.
Should we succeed, we will be sending a clear message to all that we
will not tolerate bigotry and hate. We have a choice, Let us choose
wisely.
Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, we are committed to defending this country
against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We must ask the question,
who or what is our enemy? What is the greatest threat to our democracy?
Mr. Speaker, our domestic enemies are hatred and intolerance. And hate
manifests itself in many ways. Hate can provoke terrorists to commit
unconscionable acts against innocent victims. Hate can provoke rogue
leaders to persecute and intimidate members of an ethnic or religious
group. And hate can provoke fearful and desperate people to terrorize
whole communities by committing hate crimes.
We must take action. We must protect our country against terrorist
acts, we must protect ethnicities from genocide, and we must protect
vulnerable communities from hate crimes. When a person terrorizes
another, that person is guilty of a crime. When a person terrorizes a
community, that person is guilty of a hate crime. Whether the community
is a religious one, an ethnic one, or one of sexual orientation, it
deserves protection.
The nation was shocked at the murders of Matthew Shepard and James
Byrd, Jr., as well as the vile and senseless nature of the attitudes
which prompted these crimes. Many more hate crimes occur throughout the
country that do not receive the level of publicity of the Shepard and
Byrd murders. We must work together to eliminate the underlying
prejudices which kindle the hatred inherent in these crimes. We must
also give our prosecutors the laws and resources they need to properly
bring justice to the victims. Let me say again, hate crimes do not just
victimize a person, they also terrorize a community. That is why they
deserve recognition in the law for what they are--crimes that victimize
a community.
We must also be cognizant of protecting all vulnerable groups.
Gender, sexual orientation, and disability should be included along
with race, color, religion, and national origin as human
characteristics which are subject to hate crimes and attacks and should
receive the same federal protections.
I ask that you support Congressman Conyers' motion to instruct
conferees to include the Hate Crimes Act in the Defense Authorization
bill.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today to oppose
Representative Conyers' motion to instruct which purports to include
the Kennedy hate crime language in H.R. 4205.
So-called ``hate crimes'' legislation is discriminatory on its face.
In a nutshell, such legislation treats crimes against certain classes
of persons more severely than those same crimes if they were committed
against another class of persons. This is clearly not ``equal justice
under the law.''
[[Page H7541]]
All crimes are crimes of hate. Whenever a person harms another, there
is hate. Should we enact federal legislation to punish hate directed
towards one person more severely than hate directed against another,
merely because of the victim's classification? I do not believe so.
Under our present laws, the killers of James Byrd and Matthew Shepard
(crimes which would have fallen under the Kennedy hate crimes
provision) were severely punished for their illegal and gruesome
crimes. James Byrd's killer was sentenced to death, and Matthew
Shepard's killer was sentenced to two life sentences without the
possibility of parole. These and other heinous crimes are prosecuted,
and the perpetrators punished; under existing laws. People who commit
such crimes are not going unpunished. Current federal and state laws
are effective, and they are being used. There is no void here that new,
``hate'' legislation is needed to fill. Moreover, the effect of this
legislation, were it to be enacted, might have the opposite effect to
that intended by its proponents. By making the prosecutor's job more
complex, and forcing prosecutors to prove additional elements of a
``hate'' offense, and not defining adequately the terms in these laws,
such prosecutions would be rendered more difficult than prosecutions
under current laws.
However, this deficiency apparently won't slow down the political
agenda at work here.
Including this bill in the Defense Reauthorization bill would clearly
be putting the value of one life over and above another. Let us not
send that type of signal to our citizens. All life is valuable and
should be protected, equally.
Vote no on Representative John Conyers' motion to instruct.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232,
nays 192, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 471]
YEAS--232
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
English
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--192
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Fossella
Fowler
Ganske
Gekas
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Largent
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherwood
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--9
Campbell
Engel
Eshoo
Franks (NJ)
Gilchrest
Klink
Lazio
Reynolds
Vento
{time} 1631
Mr. BLILEY changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. CLYBURN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was not present for
rollcall vote No. 471 because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________