[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.

                          ____________________