[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 64 (Friday, May 17, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4525-S4526]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 625

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Majority 
leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, may turn to the 
consideration of S. 625, the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, and 
that it be considered under the following limitations:
  There be 4 hours of debate on the bill equally divided between the 
chairman and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee; that each 
leader or their designee be permitted to offer two relevant first-
degree amendments; that there be a time limitation of 1 hour for debate 
on each first-degree amendment; that no second-degree amendments be in 
order prior to a failed motion to table; that if a second-degree 
amendment is offered, it be relevant to the first-degree and be limited 
to 30 minutes for debate; that upon the disposition of the amendments 
and the use or yielding back of time, the bill be read a third time and 
the Senate vote on passage of the bill, without any intervening action 
or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. On behalf of our leader, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I see the majority leader on his feet, so I will wait 
until he finishes, although I would like to perhaps ask him whether he 
understands any reason that--as I understand, this is a motion to 
proceed; is that correct? Was this a motion to proceed to the bill 
included in the majority leader's request?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this is not only a motion to proceed but 
it would be the circumstances under which we would consider the bill 
itself.
  Mr. KENNEDY. This is the legislation which we have addressed in this 
body that was passed by a vote of 56 to 42, I believe as an amendment 
on the Defense authorization bill last year; am I correct?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct. We have addressed this 
legislation in the past. As I will make known for the record, this is 
identical legislation to what was passed before. It is legislation we 
will take up either under a unanimous consent agreement or through a 
motion to proceed at some point in the not too distant future.
  My hope was we could work out arrangements whereby we could expedite 
the consideration of the legislation. As the Senator has accurately 
noted, we have addressed this successfully in the past and it is 
critical that we have an opportunity once again to ensure that this 
time the legislation does not die in conference. That is what happened. 
The amendment was dropped in the conference committee, even though the 
Senate had passed on a bipartisan basis this bill as an amendment to 
the Defense authorization legislation.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I stand corrected. The vote was 57 to 42 in the Senate. 
As the Senator knows, we passed this on a UC in 1999 by 57 to 42. It 
has been reported out of the Judiciary Committee 12 to 7. In a vote on 
this issue in the House of Representatives, there were 232 Republicans 
and Democrats alike who effectively supported it.
  I ask the Senator a final question. This past week we had one of the 
most extraordinary events that we experience annually, when the police 
officers gather on the westside of the Capitol. The names were read of 
233 officers who died in the line of the duty, a good part of those who 
died in the terrorist acts. No one asked those law enforcement 
officials what their race was, what their ethnicity was, what their 
religion or sexual orientation was. They died.
  We all take a great sense of pride in their service to this country. 
We have all taken a great sense of pride in the work of selfless 
individuals who tried to help the victims during this period: organized 
blood drives, organized assistance to the families, without asking 
about their race or religion or ethnicity or sexual orientation.
  Is the Senator perplexed, as we celebrate both the lives that were 
lost and celebrate the extraordinary heroism and gallantry of the men 
and women, does the Senator find it somewhat ironic we cannot in this 
body make sure we are going to protect those individuals from the 
vicious acts of bigotry and hatred and prejudice taking place in the 
United States, acts that have actually escalated in recent years?
  Does the Senator feel a sense of frustration about why this body 
cannot come to grips with a reasonable debate and discussion, as we 
have in the past, and have action, either for or against this?
  Does he not share the concern of many families, and the 500 religious 
leaders from all of the great faiths that urged this body to pass this 
legislation expeditiously, and share the frustration they are feeling 
as religious and moral leaders?
  Does the Senator feel we have an important responsibility to get to 
this legislation and consider it and take action and do it in an 
expedited manner?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts has asked 
some very good questions.
  I share his frustration and his utter dismay that a bill of this 
importance would have difficulty passing the Senate right now. How can 
anyone be opposed to a bill that is already supported by 500 
organizations? How can anyone be opposed to a bill that has already 
passed on an overwhelming basis--in one case, unanimously?
  How can anyone be opposed to a bill that addresses the fact that 
almost every day at least three hate crimes on the average are 
committed? How can anyone be opposed to a bill with the title Local Law 
Enforcement Enhancement Act? For the life of me, I don't understand.
  At the end of the day, whatever day it is, this legislation will 
pass. It will pass the easy way or the hard way, but it will pass. We 
will not adjourn without having passed this legislation. It is that 
critical. The time has come and gone for delay, for explanation, for 
excuse, for anything else. There is no reason why this legislation 
should not pass by an overwhelming bipartisan margin.
  I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Massachusetts and his 
extraordinary leadership in this issue. I join in acknowledging the 
importance of this legislation and asking our colleagues to join in 
ensuring its passage.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Those assurances, Mr. President, are enormously 
important and a tribute to all Americans, one of the great challenges 
to free ourselves from all forms of discrimination.
  I acknowledge the strong support and leadership of Senator Gordon 
Smith, a prime mover on this among our Republican colleagues. Also, 
Senator Specter has been a very strong supporter.

[[Page S4526]]

This is a matter of conscience and a defining value for us as a 
society.
  Since the tragedies of September 11, a new spirit has grown across 
America--one where individuals and communities come together to help 
those in need. We have praised the brave actions of the firefighters 
and police officers who gave their lives to save others, and we have 
done so without inquiring about their sexual orientation, gender, race, 
or religion. We appropriately call heroes the men and women who, 
without regard for their own lives, saved the lives of strangers--and 
we have never asked if they were gay or lesbian; African American, 
Asian American, White, or Latino. It is important to take this spirit 
to the next level, to come together as a nation to stop the 
perpetration of senseless act of violence against individuals because 
of the religion they practice, the color of their skin or their sexual 
orientation.
  Hate crimes are a national disgrace--an attack on everything this 
country stands for. Attorney General Ashcroft recently compared the 
fight against hate crimes to the fight against terrorism, describing 
hate crimes as ``criminal acts that run counter to what is best in 
America--our belief in equality and freedom.''
  Although America experienced a significant drop in violent crime 
during the 1990s, the number of hate crimes has continued to grow. In 
fact, according to FBI statistics, in 2000 there were nearly 8,000 
reported hate crimes committed in the United States. That's over 20 
hate crimes per day, every day.
  Hate crimes send a poisonous message that some Americans are second 
class citizens who deserve to be victimized solely because of their 
race, their ethnic background, their religion, their sexual 
orientation, their gender or their disability. These senseless crimes 
have a destructive and devastating impact not only on individual 
victims, but entire communities. If America is to live up to its 
founding ideals of liberty and justice for all, combating hate crimes 
must be a national priority.
  Yet for too long, the federal government has been forced to stand on 
the sidelines in the fight against these senseless acts of hate and 
violence. The hate crimes bill will change that by giving the Justice 
Department greater ability to investigate and prosecute these crimes, 
and to help the states do so as well. Now is the time for Congress to 
speak with one voice, insisting that all Americans will be guaranteed 
the equal protection of the laws. We must pay more than lip service to 
this core principle of our democracy. We must give those words 
practical meaning in our modern society. No Americans should feel that 
they are second-class citizens because Congress refuses to protect them 
against hate crimes.
  S. 625 is the same bipartisan bill passed two years ago with 57 
votes. Over the last 2 years, support for passage of this bill has only 
grown, as more and more Senators become aware that hate crimes impact 
every community, every neighborhood and every family across the nation.
  We can and should pass this legislation swiftly. Not another day 
should pass before we take action to fight and prevent these senseless 
acts of violence.
  I thank the leadership for giving the American people the assurances 
we will take action on this legislation.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator again for his presence on the floor 
and his strong statement.
  I add a couple of additional thoughts. In 1996, two women were found 
murdered, their hands bound, their throats cut, just off the 
Appalachian trail in Shenandoah National Park. Their deaths were 
profound tragedies for those families and their loved ones. They also 
sparked a wave of fear among women and the gay community, that what 
happened to those two hikers could just as easily happen to them.
  That response, that fear, is exactly what makes hate crimes different 
from all other crimes. They target individuals, but they intimidate and 
dehumanize entire groups of people. Last month, Attorney General 
Ashcroft announced that the defendant in this case will be tried using 
the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act. This is the first time a 
Federal murder prosecution will use this provision of the law.
  At his press conference announcing the indictments, Attorney General 
Ashcroft said:

       Criminal acts of hate run counter to what is best in 
     America--our belief in equality and freedom.

  Attorney General Ashcroft is absolutely right. Americans know that 
hate crimes injure the victim, the community, and the entire Nation. No 
one should be attacked simply because of his or her race, religion, 
gender, physical disabilities, or sexual orientation. However, it is 
ironic to hear the Attorney General say that the Department of Justice 
will aggressively investigate, prosecute, and punish criminal acts of 
violence motivated by hate and intolerance. It is ironic because the 
only reason the Attorney General is able to pursue this case in this 
manner is because the two women were on Federal property when the crime 
was committed. Had this tragedy occurred outside the National Park, it 
would have been up to the State and local authorities, and the 
sentencing enhancement that the Justice Department is seeking would not 
have even been a possibility.
  As Senator Kennedy has said, until we pass the hate crimes 
legislation pending before Congress, the promise to aggressively 
prosecute hate crimes is an empty promise. For several years now we 
have attempted to pass the hate crimes legislation that he and others 
have introduced. I included it as part of our leadership bills 
introduced at the beginning of this Congress because I believe it is 
much more than a Democratic priority. It ought to be a national 
priority.
  The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act would assist State and 
local authorities when a hate crime such as the Shenandoah murders 
occurs within their jurisdiction. The bill would expand current Federal 
protections against hate crimes based on race, religion, and national 
origin. It would amend the criminal code to cover hate crimes based on 
gender, sexual orientation, and disability. It would authorize grants 
for State and local programs designed to combat and prevent hate 
crimes, and help the Federal Government to assist State and local law 
enforcement officials investigating and prosecuting hate crimes.
  I might say, Mr. President, this is directed just as much at those 
who are the perpetrators of hate for reasons of religion. There is a 
rising and disconcerting trend in anti-Semitism in this country that 
also ought to be addressed. Hate crimes are committed in the name of 
anti-Semitism just as they are committed with other motivations. Those 
who profess to be concerned about anti-Semitism in this country ought 
to be concerned about the passage of this legislation. That also is why 
I am troubled by those who now choose, for whatever reason, to oppose 
this unanimous consent request and oppose moving this legislation 
forward.
  In the fall of 2000 this same legislation passed the Senate as an 
amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill, as we noted 
just a minute ago. There is no more need to delay. If we could pass it 
before, we can pass it again. We know the need is clear, the support is 
there. It is time to finish the job we started 2 years ago. We need to 
pass the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act and pass it quickly.

                          ____________________