[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 124 (Friday, October 6, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10072-S10073]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        HATE CRIMES LEGISLATION

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to note my deep disappointment 
that hate crimes legislation has been dropped from the Department of 
Defense authorization bill in conference, despite the fact that both 
the Senate and the House have voted to include it. This is a major step 
backward for our commitment to civil rights.
  The Senate passed the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2000, 
sponsored by Senators Kennedy and Gordon Smith, on June 20 by a strong 
bipartisan vote of 57-42. This legislation would strengthen current law 
by making it easier for federal authorities to investigate and 
prosecute crimes based on race, color, religion, and national origin. 
It also focuses the attention and resources of the federal government 
on the problem of hate crimes committed against people because of their 
sexual orientation, gender, or disability.
  The Senate bill also shows full respect for principles of federalism. 
It strengthens Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes as a back-up, but 
not a substitute, for state and local law enforcement. It has received 
strong bipartisan support from state and local law enforcement 
organizations across the country, support that is particularly 
significant to me as a former prosecutor.
  On September 13, the House voted 232-192 to instruct their conferees 
to agree to the Senate language, showing that a strong bipartisan 
majority of the House also wanted to strengthen and expand our laws 
against hate crimes.
  But the conferees have now ignored the will of both the Senate and 
the House. They have dropped the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, 
which has the support of not just the Congress but the President and 
the American people.
  Their objection cannot be that this legislation is unimportant. Hate 
crimes affect more than just their victims and their victims' 
families--they inspire fear in those who have no connection to the 
victim beyond a shared characteristic such as race or sexual 
orientation. When James Byrd, Jr. was dragged behind a pickup truck and 
killed by bigots in Texas for no reason other than his race, many 
African-Americans throughout the United States surely felt diminished 
as citizens. When Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered in Wyoming 
because he was gay, many gay people throughout the United States felt 
less safe on our streets and in their homes. These crimes promote fear 
and insecurity that are distinct from the reactions to other crimes, 
and House and Senate have both agreed that they should have distinct 
punishments.
  The conferees' objection cannot be that this legislation is 
unnecessary. Bigotry and hatred are corrosive elements in any society, 
but especially in a country as diverse and open as ours. We need to 
make clear that a bigoted attack on one or some of us diminishes each 
of us, and it diminishes our Nation. As a Nation, we must say loudly 
and clearly that we will defend ourselves against such violence. All 
Americans have the right to live, travel and gather where they choose. 
In the past we have responded as a nation to deter and to punish 
violent denials of civil rights. We have enacted Federal laws to 
protect the civil rights of all of our citizens for more than 100 
years. The hate crimes amendment this Senate

[[Page S10073]]

approved and the House endorsed continues that great and honorable 
tradition.

  The conferees' objection cannot be that this legislation is 
unconstitutional. This bill accomplishes a critically important goal--
protecting all of our citizens--without compromising our constitutional 
responsibilities. It is a tool for combating acts of violence and 
threats of violence motivated by hatred and bigotry. The Constitution 
does not permit us in Congress to prohibit the expression of an idea 
simply because we disagree with it. As Justice Holmes wrote, the 
Constitution protects not just freedom for the thought and expression 
we agree with it. As Justice Holmes wrote, the Constitution protects 
not just freedom for the thought and expression we agree with, but 
freedom for the thought that we hate. I am devoted to that principle, 
and I am confident that this bill does not contradict it.
  The conferees' objection cannot be that this legislation has not been 
properly examined. In addition to gaining the approval of the Senate 
and the House this year, similar legislation passed the Senate last 
year. It has been the subject of great discussion in the general public 
and in the halls of Congress. It is long past time to act on this 
legislation.
  Finally, the conferees's objection cannot be that hate crimes are 
rare occurrences. In addition to the terrible murders of Mr. Byrd and 
Mr. Shepard, the last years have seen the murder of former Northwestern 
basketball coach Ricky Byrdsong and others in a bigoted Illinois 
shooting spree, the terrible sight of small children at a Jewish 
community center in Los Angeles fleeing a gunman who sprayed the 
building with 70 bullets from a submachine gun, and racially-motivated 
crimes in the Pittsburgh area by both African-American and white 
offenders. And these are just some examples of a wider phenomenon of 
hate-based crimes.
  I would like to thank Senators Kennedy and Gordon Smith for their 
exhaustive efforts on behalf of hate crimes legislation. I regret that 
their efforts and the will of the House and Senate have been 
frustrated.

                          ____________________