[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 74 (Friday, June 7, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5251-S5252]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2001--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Baucus). The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I inquire as to the pending 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is S. 625.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Are we in morning business now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer informs the Senator we 
are not in morning business. We are on the bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank the Chair and ask I be allowed such time 
as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise to speak today on the issue of the Local Law 
Enforcement Act of 2001. It is the hate crimes bill that we are now 
taking up. It is a bill I am pleased to coauthor with Senator Kennedy 
from Massachusetts. It is a bill that is appropriately taken up now.
  I know some of my colleagues, partisans on my side of the aisle, may 
say that we should not take up something like this at a time of war, a 
war on terrorism. But I searched my memory. Whenever America has been 
at war before, we have not abandoned domestic issues. Immediately 
following Pearl Harbor, we dealt with all kinds of things, from tax 
rates to civil rights, and the war proceeded. It is not inappropriate 
that in a time of war on terrorism we focus on domestic terrorism.
  The President gave a great speech last night. He talked about how we 
can better create, for our Nation's protection, a more seamless way to 
provide for the common defense. I look forward to supporting him in 
that. But I say that hate crimes legislation is part and parcel of that 
same effort. It is a part of our war on terrorism. It is a part of the 
discharge of our responsibility to take care of our citizens.

  I have always believed government's first duty is to provide security 
against violence to its citizens. We are doing that abroad, and we are 
doing it perhaps as never before at home. But I think it is very 
appropriate that for a day or 2 the Senate turn its attention to this 
law, which was created, in its initial form, more than 30 years ago.
  Hate crimes legislation is not a new concept. Hate crimes 
legislation, as I understand its history, was created to give the 
Federal Government the ability to enforce civil rights, in Southern 
States in particular, where lynching laws were not enforced and where 
much violence was committed against our African American brothers and 
sisters.
  It gave the Federal Government the right, the ability, to show up to 
work, to provide for the common defense. And that law, which covers 
race, religion, and national origin, is in effect. It has been fully 
vetted in the United States Supreme Court. It is constitutional. And it 
truly, as the Court has held, simply adds an element, as we do to all 
crimes, as to how you consider them, what penalties you apply, and what 
prosecution and vigor you employ.
  It is entirely appropriate that we now add to this list of race, 
religion, and national origin, other identified minority groups in this 
country who, because of their status, are demonstrably more vulnerable 
to violence, to crime.
  I have made, for more than a year, the practice of entering in the 
Congressional Record a tragic chronology, a catalog of hate crimes 
committed throughout our country.
  On these charts I have in the Chamber--perhaps you cannot read them 
because of the small print--but each of them represents a day in which 
I have identified a hate crime that has been committed in our country. 
They are committed against African Americans. They are committed 
against the disabled. They are committed against women. And they are 
committed against gays and lesbians.
  All of these crimes have one thing in common: they are committed 
against a minority community, and they have, at their heart, a 
malignant heart that hates. And that is the impelling force for 
committing violence against a minority person. And the crime is visited 
on a minority, on that American, because that is the common thread in 
all of this. They are committed against American citizens.
  The common thread in this crime against Americans is that it is 
visited upon an individual, but it terrorizes an entire minority 
community. And we have said, since hate crimes were established back in 
the 1960s, there are just some things that are so heinous, so at odds 
with America's best values, that we are just going to say, as a matter 
of law, this is a new category of crime, and we are going to pursue it, 
and we are going to allow all branches of government, all levels of 
government--local, State, and now Federal--to participate in the 
pursuit and the prosecution of those who would commit these kinds of 
terrorist activities against a whole community. And that is what we are 
doing.
  Today, I am going to add another one to this sad chronology. It 
occurred in Honolulu, HI, in May of last year--a year ago. Two teens 
were charged with attempted murder after allegedly dousing the tents of 
gay campers with flammable liquid while those campers were inside, 
setting one on fire in Polihale State Park.
  Victims in the attack said the perpetrators threw rocks and shouted 
slurs relating to the sexual orientation of the victims prior to 
setting the tent on fire. Two men were sentenced, then, to 5 years each 
in prison.
  We all know of the heinous murder committed on James Byrd, who was 
dragged to death on a lonely, dusty Texas road. That shocked America. 
But in the case of Mr. Byrd, the Federal Government showed up to work 
because the Federal hate crimes law applies to issues of race. And the 
law enforcement folks in Texas will tell you that the Federal 
Government was very helpful in the pursuit, the prosecution, and the 
conviction of the murderers of James Byrd.
  I think in that same year all of us felt horrified by the murder of 
Matthew Shepard in Wyoming. But in that case, because sexual 
orientation was not an allowed category under Federal law, the Federal 
Government was prohibited from showing up for work.
  I wish all Americans could have been with me in my office when I was 
visited by Wyoming State Troopers--Republicans--advocating to me please 
support this because they were overwhelmed with the national focus that 
this case brought. They really could

[[Page S5252]]

have used the help of the Federal Government.
  That is the whole point of this. I personally changed my mind on this 
subject because of the murder of Matthew Shepard. Frankly, I was 
chagrined that more of my partisans were not at his vigil. I observed 
it in a hotel room on CNN in Oregon. I was disappointed that more of my 
folks weren't there.
  Hatred doesn't care if you are a Republican or a Democrat. As 
Americans, we all ought to be willing to stand up and say: Gosh--at 
every level of government, local, State, and Federal--let us show up 
for work and prosecute these most heinous kinds of crimes and murders.
  I know there are some good, faithful, religious people who believe 
they should oppose this law because of this one category--the category 
of sexual orientation. They believe that because of their faith and 
their religion they cannot support this. But I say you should support 
this not in spite of your faith, you ought to support it because of 
your faith.
  The example that I find in the Scripture which is so compelling is 
that of Christ. When confronted with a woman who was about to be stoned 
because of adultery--he didn't endorse her lifestyle--he saved her 
life.
  Should we do any less? I say to people of faith that I don't care how 
you pray. But if that story inspires you like it does me, because of 
your faith support this.
  That reflects the best values of the human heart, and the highest 
values of the American people. We ought to say as a matter of law--law 
isn't a teacher, and, no, we can't enforce morality--but we can hold up 
the law and say this is what we believe.
  The Ten Commandants are a great example of a law to the children of 
Israel. They didn't always obey. But it reflected their highest values 
and caused them to live up, in many cases, to the highest of ideals. We 
should not do any less.
  I am proud to stand here as a supporter of this expansion of an old 
law that reflects our best values.
  I call upon Republicans, Independents, and Democrats to understand 
the spirit behind what it is we are doing.
  Since I have been a U.S. Senator, I have been privileged to serve on 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Every time I leave the shores 
of this blessed land and confront conflicts in Europe, conflicts in 
Eurasia, and conflicts in Asia, I am astounded at the tribal angst and 
hatred that besets most parts of this world.
  I thank God that we live in a land where we have two oceans, two 
centuries with two relatively peaceful neighbors, and a long time to 
avoid the development of these kinds of racial, cultural, and other 
kinds of differences that cause us to want to commit crime, violence, 
and murder against people because of their differences. That reflects 
the worst of humankind.
  As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have decried hate 
crimes--however you want to describe them--on many continents on this 
planet. As a Republican, I believe I cannot be silent about hate crimes 
committed at home. I think we all ought to step up to the high ideals 
that this law represents.
  When I chaired the Subcommittee on Europe, we held a hearing about 
anti-Semitism. We were privileged to have Eli Wiesel come and speak to 
us. In that hearing, he said something about what motivates the kinds 
of angst and hatred that have beset the Jewish people for a millennia 
of time. I want to share with you his words.
  He said to this committee:

       To hate is to deny the other person's humanity. It is to 
     see in ``the other'' a reason to inspire not pride, but 
     disdain; not solidarity, but exclusion. It is to choose 
     simplistic phraseology instead of ideas. It is to allow its 
     carrier to feel stronger than ``the other,'' and thus 
     superior to ``the other.'' The hater . . . is vain, arrogant. 
     He believes that he alone possesses the key to truth and 
     justice. He alone has God's ear.

  This law that we will be privileged to vote on in a few days makes it 
clear that we include--that we not exclude--what are called hate 
crimes. Why wouldn't we extend them to other Americans because they are 
demonstrably more vulnerable?
  Gays and lesbians--why wouldn't you extend the protection to them? Do 
you hate them? I don't.
  I believe it is possible on a principled ground to oppose some things 
that the gay community wants. I am not for gay marriage. But when it 
comes to public safety, the dignity of a job, the right to have a roof 
over your head, how can we withhold our help because we don't share a 
lifestyle?
  I withhold those judgments. I say we should help because we are 
Americans, and because we aspire to the highest ideals of our 
Constitution and the highest ideals of the religious traditions--as 
varied as they are--that we hold in this country.
  We are privileged to live in a land where we separate church and 
state.
  I have said to people who are opposed to my support of this law, if 
you want to talk about sin, then go with me to church. If you want to 
talk about public policy, let us go together to the Senate, and figure 
out how to protect all people, because that is what our Constitution 
provides for.
  I say to folks on my side, this shouldn't be a Republican-Democrat 
issue. This is an issue about the heart. In is an issue entirely 
appropriate to take up in a time and in a war on terrorism. Whether 
terrorism comes from a bin Laden, or whether terrorism comes from a 
couple of murderers in Wyoming, it is terror, nonetheless, foreign and 
domestic.
  Our Constitution calls upon us in its Preamble to provide for the 
common defense, and to ensure domestic tranquility. Hate crime laws, 
since their origin, have helped us to do that. It hasn't stopped it. 
You can't legislate people to change their hearts. But you can help 
them to by putting up the law, and saying these are our highest values. 
We will enforce them with the force of law. By holding them up and 
setting the example, we can help change hearts and minds.
  While this law to many is just symbolism, I tell you it can become 
substantive, if we all show up for work and live up to our best ideals 
and not fall to the lowest of traits of humankind.
  I call upon all our colleagues to support this legislation. Let's do 
it with an enormous majority, and let's do it regardless of party 
affiliation. Let's do it because with all of these victims, we share 
the common thread that we are Americans.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________