[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 74 (Friday, June 7, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5246-S5248]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2001
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will now proceed to the consideration of S. 625, which the clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 625) to provide Federal assistance to States and
local jurisdictions to prosecute hate crimes, and for other
purposes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, with the legislation now before us, I am
very happy to see the chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the
Chamber today to lead the discussion on this legislation. This is an
extremely important piece of legislation. We have waited a long time to
get to its consideration.
I have been somewhat disappointed when I read already in this week's
newspapers that the minority has indicated they have scores of
nonrelevant, nongermane amendments they are going to file on this piece
of legislation. This is code word for they are going to do everything
they can to stop the legislation from passing.
That is unfortunate because this legislation, which is commonly
referred to as the hate crimes bill, has that name because that is what
it is about. It is about people with hatred doing criminal acts.
Senate consideration of this legislation is much needed and is long
overdue. It demonstrates, once again, the change that has taken place
in this body since Senator Leahy began the chairmanship of the
Judiciary Committee.
But for his advocacy, we would not be in this spot; we would not be
where we are now.
The chairman of the committee is here, and he has heard me say this
on many occasions. We have done such a good job in the Judiciary
Committee. I say ``we'' because the committee doing well reflects on
all of us. When I think of what we have gone through in this committee,
we had the terrorist acts of September 11, which caused us to focus
immediately on antiterrorism legislation, which we passed. People
complained because we didn't move that legislation fast enough. Now
people are writing that it was one of the best things that happened in
this Congress in a long time because the Judiciary Committee slowed us
down. We didn't run pell-mell into this legislation but walked
deliberately into it. As a result, we have good legislation, not the
least of which has a sunset provision in it. If we went too far in any
way, it sunsetted.
The work that has been done by the Judiciary Committee has been
excellent. Not only do we have the situation with the terrorist acts of
September 11 and all the work of the committee as it related thereto,
but we had an anthrax attack in Senator Daschle's office. Senator Leahy
received anthrax-laden materials. From whom, we do not know. It was
enough that it closed down one of the office buildings where 50
Senators have their offices. That slowed us down.
In spite of that and many other obstacles we have had to overcome, we
have moved forward on judges. I don't know the exact number now, but I
believe it is 57 confirmed judges. I believe there is half a dozen or
so on the calendar, a tremendous amount of work. We are doing the very
best we can in that regard.
This hate crimes legislation is another example of the work the
Judiciary Committee has done and the Senate has done generally since
Senator Jeffords joined our caucus.
The present Federal criminal statutes do not respond to hate crimes
motivated by a person's gender, sexual orientation, or disability. In
fact, one of these characteristics, sexual orientation, is the third
leading motivation behind hate crimes. Everyone has heard of some of
the most egregious cases of hate crimes: Matthew Shepard, a very frail
young man, was a gay student at the University of Wyoming. He was
severely beaten, left for dead hanging on a fence post. There is no
question this happened because he was gay.
James Byrd, Jr., an African American man, was brutally murdered,
hooked up behind a pickup truck and dragged to his death.
These tragedies are not isolated. I indicated on this Senate floor
earlier this week some of the incidents that have happened in Nevada
because of hatred.
In Carson City, our State capital, somebody set a black family's home
on fire and wrote the words ``white power'' and other racial slurs at
the scene of the crime.
Vandals spray-painted a swastika and other graffiti on religious
statues at a Roman Catholic Church in Henderson, NV, where I went to
high school.
A black family in Las Vegas found a cross burning on their lawn.
Two white men attacked two Muslims with a baseball bat. They beat the
Muslims with a baseball bat outside a mosque where they had gone to
worship.
Condemning these acts is one thing, but we must legislate against
these acts, and that is what this legislation is all about. These types
of crimes not only infringe on victims' rights, they erode people's
sense of security and self-worth.
Our country was founded on the principle of liberty and justice for
all, and that means all. When perpetrators of hate crime target anyone,
they really are targeting all of us and the principles that make our
diverse Nation what it is.
We must move forward and continue our program of diversity in this
country. This legislation will help us do that.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I compliment the assistant majority leader.
Seeing Senator Reid on the floor--along with Senator Reed of Rhode
Island and Senator Akaka it seems only minutes ago I saw all of them as
we were finishing up at 1 o'clock this morning. I appreciate the
courtesy of the Senator from Hawaii in letting me speak at this point.
The distinguished senior Senator from Nevada did an enormous job in
getting the emergency supplemental appropriations bill passed last
night. I have told the distinguished senior Senator from Nevada many
times that he has patience this Irish-Italian American probably never
could have. But it was his patience, his persistence, and also the
great credibility he has on both sides of the aisle, and the great
respect of Senators in both parties, that made it possible for him to
get that bill passed. Had he not carefully worked with Senator Byrd,
Senator Stevens, and all the others to get that through, we would still
be on the floor and we would not be anywhere near passage. I compliment
my friend from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a couple
housekeeping matters? I will finish quickly. I say to my friend, I have
never ever corrected my friend on the floor, but I will this morning.
We did not finish that last night. We finished it this morning.
Mr. LEAHY. Right. How time flies when you are having fun.
Amendment No. 3807
(Purpose: To provide reliable officers, technology, education,
community prosecutors, and training in our neighborhoods)
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of
Senator Biden.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Biden, proposes
an amendment numbered 3807.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion having been
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the
motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close the debate on Calendar No.
103, S. 625, a bill to provide Federal assistance to states
and local jurisdictions to prosecute hate crimes:
Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Jack Reed, Russell Feingold,
Richard Durbin, Edward Kennedy, Evan Bayh, Charles
[[Page S5247]]
Schumer, Debbie Stabenow, Maria Cantwell, Daniel Akaka,
Ron Wyden, Carl Levin, Daniel Inouye, Joseph Lieberman,
E. Benjamin Nelson, Byron Dorgan, Patrick Leahy.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, in the Washington Times there is a report
today that says:
A senior Republican leadership aide said there are 40 to 50
Republican ideas under consideration as possible amendments----
To this legislation----
ranging from an alternative hate-crimes bill to tax policy,
national security and social issues. Republicans also are
considering making permanent tax credits for teachers and
relief from the ``marriage penalty'' in the tax code.
``You might even see an amendment that's a complete
substitute to the defense authorization bill.''
I am not going to belabor the point other than to say those are, I
repeat, code words to kill this bill, and we are going to do everything
we can on this side of the aisle to make sure that hate crimes in
America are prosecuted and the people against whom there is hatred are
not persecuted.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I agree with the senior Senator from
Nevada. Everybody is going to say they are against hate crimes. Nobody
is going to say they are for hate crimes. But if we are against them,
then let's pass laws that give our law enforcement officers the teeth
to go after hate crimes. Let's not go through the fiction of trying to
amend this bill to death so nothing comes forward. We cannot let
everyone say they are against hate crimes while some do their best to
kill the hate crimes legislation.
Violent crimes motivated by prejudice and hate are tragedies that
demand our attention. These crimes mar our history, from the lynchings
that haunted our race relations for more than a century to the recent
well-publicized slayings of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr.
Since September 11, we have seen a disturbing increase in crimes
committed against Arabs, Muslims, and those of South Asian descent. In
other words, hate has been a persistent threat to the public safety,
especially the safety of minority group members.
I am not naive enough to think we can outlaw hate, but we can make
outlaws of those who commit hate crimes. We can do a lot more to
protect Americans from these crimes, and to ensure equal rights for all
our citizens.
The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act will do just that. It will
provide a measure of protection for those who fear the violent
consequences of prejudice. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this
legislation. I am also proud that it is one of the first bills I moved
through the Judiciary Committee after I became chairman. I had the
opportunity as a new chairman to set priorities by deciding what would
be on the agenda. I made sure this was one of the first bills the
Committee considered.
I am grateful to Senators Kennedy, Specter, and Smith for their
bipartisan leadership on this issue. Unfortunately, the bipartisanship
surrounding this bill is not universal, as the distinguished Senator
from Nevada has already pointed out. Republicans objected before the
Memorial Day recess to a unanimous consent request that would have
allowed this bill to come to the full Senate for debate. I wish they
had allowed it to do that. It could have been passed by now.
I am glad we can now begin debate. I am honored to open the debate.
Senator Kennedy is with his family today following a long-time family
commitment, but he will join us on Monday to debate this important
bill.
The hate crimes legislation we consider today strengthens current law
by making it easier for Federal authorities to investigate and
prosecute crimes based on race, color, religion, and national
origin. Victims will no longer have to be engaged in a narrow range of
activities, such as serving as a juror, to be protected under Federal
law. In other words, if a criminal commits a hate crime against a
juror, he or she can be prosecuted under Federal law. But if a criminal
commits the same hate crime against the same victim, while the victim
is conducting private business, that criminal is immune from
prosecution under Federal hate crimes law.
This bill also focuses the attention and resources of the Federal
Government on the problem of hate crimes committed against people
because of their sexual orientation, or their gender, or their
disability. That is an important step.
Now, opponents of this legislation like to say that ``all crimes are
hate crimes.'' But everyone in this Chamber agrees that some crimes are
more serious--and more deserving of Federal attention--than others. We
have repeatedly increased the Federal role in fighting crime over the
last decades, from the hijacking of airplanes to carjacking to drug
crimes. So the question we face today is whether crimes motivated by
prejudice deserve greater Federal attention than the limited amount
they receive today. I believe they do, and I know 50 other U.S.
Senators from both parties who have sponsored this bill agree with me.
The crimes we are talking about today are particularly pernicious
crimes that affect more than just the victims and their families--they
inspire fear in those who have no connection to the victim beyond a
shared characteristic, such as race or disability or sexual
orientation.
Mr. President, when James Byrd, Jr., was dragged behind a pickup
truck--dragged--one can only imagine the terror and horror he felt in
the face of his violent death. He was killed by bigots in Texas in
1998. Why? For the sole reason that he was black. Think how many
African Americans throughout our Nation felt diminished as citizens to
know that another African American was horribly, brutally killed simply
because of the color of his skin.
When Matthew Shepard was murdered in Wyoming, he was left hanging on
a fence. Why? Because he was gay. Don't you think gays and lesbians in
the United States felt less safe on the streets and in their homes?
These crimes promote fear and insecurity that are distinct from the
reactions to other crimes. They produce a national reaction. We need to
take action to enhance their prosecution.
These terrible crimes have also affected my little State of Vermont.
In 1996, Julianne Williams and Lollie Winans were murdered in the
Shenandoah National Park in Virginia. Ms. Williams lived in Burlington,
VT. She and Ms. Winans were planning to move to Huntington, VT, after
their hiking trip to Virginia. (Huntington, VT, I must say, is a
beautiful little town, one of the most peaceful places you can
imagine.) They were murdered.
In April, the Justice Department indicted Darrell Davis Rice for
murder. The prosecutors invoked the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement
Act, charging that Mr. Rice killed the two women as part of his plan to
``assault, intimidate, injure, and kill women because of their
gender.'' Prosecutors said that Rice had stated that he ``hates gays.''
He said he had taken it upon himself to determine that Ms. Williams and
Ms. Winans ``deserved to die because they were lesbians.'' What a
horrible commentary. This man decided in his mind they deserved to die,
so he was going to kill them.
Now, Rice was susceptible to Federal hate crime laws because the
murders occurred on Federal land. If he had been indicted for killing
these women in Huntington, VT, he would not have been susceptible to
this enhancement. So his indictment fell within a narrow window. With
passage of this act, we can provide Federal protection to women, gays
and lesbians throughout our Nation.
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 nearly 150 years.
This law continues that great and honorable tradition.
This bill will strengthen Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes as a
backup, but not a substitute, for State and local law enforcement.
States will still bear the responsibility for prosecuting most hate
crimes. That is important to me as a former State prosecutor.
I have a great deal of respect for the law enforcement officers in my
State,
[[Page S5248]]
such as David Demag, the Police Chief in Essex, VT, who is now serving
on the Medal of Valor Review Board. I want the States to have primary
jurisdiction, because they can handle most hate crimes prosecutions.
But there are times when Federal assistance is helpful and even
necessary. For those cases, we must have this Federal law.
In a sign that this legislation respects the proper balance between
Federal and local authority, it has received strong bipartisan support
from State and local law enforcement organizations across the country.
This support convinces me that we should pass this powerful law
enforcement tool without further delay.
Moreover, this bill accomplishes a critically important goal--
protecting all of our citizens--without compromising our constitutional
responsibilities. It is a tool for combating acts and threats of
violence motivated by hatred and bigotry. It doesn't target pure
speech--even that speech that you and I and everybody finds offensive
or disagreeable. 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, 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. Indeed, Senator
Kennedy, who has been a leader on civil rights for four decades, has
worked carefully and hard to tailor this needed remedy to the narrowing
restrictions of the current very activist Supreme Court.
It is long past time to pass this bill. Of course, the Senate has
done its part before. In 1999, we passed it as part of the Commerce-
Justice-State appropriations bill, but the House insisted on its
removal. In 2000, the Senate voted 57 to 42 to include it as an
amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill. That year,
the House even voted 232 to 192 to instruct House conferees on the bill
to agree to the Senate language on hate crimes.
Nonetheless, the House Republican leadership insisted on its removal
and they won. So despite the best efforts of former President Clinton
and us all, we were twice unable to overcome the opposition of the
other body. I hope we will this time.
I hope the House Republicans will finally allow a vote on this
measure. I urge President Bush to ask them to do so. Think about what
the President said so eloquently last week at West Point. I think of
this because the distinguished Presiding Officer is a well-respected
graduate of West Point.
When the President spoke at West Point's commencement about our fight
against terrorism, he called it a conflict between good and evil and
said that we cannot allow other nations to ``tolerate the hatred that
leads to terror.'' He correctly stated that ``there can be no
neutrality between justice and cruelty.'' He promised that ``the United
States will promote moderation and tolerance and human rights.''
I agree with President Bush. And I believe that passage of this
legislation will show once again that America values tolerance and
protects all of its people. I urge the opponents of this legislation to
consider the message it sends to the rest of America when, year after
year, we are unable to move this broadly supported bill.
A majority of the people in the Senate support this bill, a majority
of the people in the House of Representatives support it, and a
majority of Americans support it. Yet a small group blocks it from
going forward. What does that say about our American values?
I say to the Republican leadership in the other body and in our own:
Listen to what President Bush has so eloquently said at West Point.
Let's pass this legislation. The victims of hate deserve our support--
the victims do. Those who would impose hateful conduct upon them
deserve to know that the United States of America doesn't stand for
that. So we need a vote, both in this body and in the House of
Representatives. If we have such a vote, Mr. President, we will once
again make it very clear: The U.S. Government does not tolerate hate
and intolerance, no matter who it is directed against. Making that
statement, we make our Nation even stronger.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Hawaii yield for a
unanimous consent request?
Mr. AKAKA. Yes, I certainly yield to my friend from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the
presentation by the Senator from Hawaii, I be recognized for 20 minutes
as in morning business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Hawaii.
____________________