[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 76 (Tuesday, June 11, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5325-S5337]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2001

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, as I understand it, the time between 
now and 11:45 a.m. is equally divided, and at 11:45 a.m., we will vote 
on the cloture motion on the hate crimes legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Under the previous order, the Senate will now resume consideration of 
S. 625, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant 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.

  Pending:

       Hatch amendment No. 3824, to amend the penalty section to 
     include the possibility of the death penalty.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I wish to briefly review where we are 
on this issue involving releasing the other arm of the Federal 
Government to fight hate crimes.
  This is an issue that has been before the Congress since 1997. We 
reported the legislation out of the committee in 1999. It is the year 
2002, and we still, in this body and in the House of Representatives, 
have been unwilling, unable to pass legislation that is going to permit 
the Federal Government to fight terrorism at home. That is what hate 
crimes are all about.
  I am always surprised that we are unable to break the logjams. This 
legislation has been before the Senate. We voted on this legislation 
about a year ago as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill. The 
vote was 57 to 42.
  So we had strong bipartisan support for that legislation. Then we get 
to the conference and the Republican leadership in the House of 
Representatives said no.
  What we really need is to have the legislation passed free and clear, 
meaning no amendments attached to the legislation, in spite of the fact 
that 232 Members of the House of Representatives, Republicans and 
Democrats, understood as well that we ought to be fighting hate and 
terror at home. That is what this is all about, whether we are going to 
deal with the insidious hate crimes that continue to exist in this 
country and which, in too many instances, are not prosecuted.
  We have the strong support of those in the law enforcement area. 
Twenty-two State attorneys general support it; 175 law enforcement, 
civil rights, civic, and religious organizations; and 500 diverse 
religious leaders from across the Nation.
  We have to ask ourselves: Why are we really being blocked from 
permitting the Senate to address an issue which we have already 
addressed and which is in great need at home? And that is the hate 
crime issue.
  It is an outrage that Congress continues to be AWOL in the fight 
against hate crimes. Hate crimes are terrorist acts. They are modern-
day lynchings designed to intimidate and terrorize whole communities.
  Our Attorney General in this past year has said:

       Just as the United States will pursue, prosecute and punish 
     terrorists who attack America out of hatred for what we 
     believe, we will pursue, prosecute and punish those who 
     attack law abiding Americans out of hatred for who they are. 
     Hatred is the enemy of justice, regardless of its source.

  In the same speech:

       Criminal acts of hate run counter to what is best in 
     America, our belief in equality and freedom. The Department 
     of Justice will aggressively investigate, prosecute and 
     punish criminal acts of violence and vigilantism motivated by 
     hate and intolerance.
       Our message this morning is unambiguous and clear. The 
     volatile poisonous mixture of hatred and violence will not go 
     unchallenged in the American system of justice.

  That is what this legislation is all about, to try to make sure we 
are going to prosecute these acts of violence that are based upon 
bigotry and hatred and that affect not only the individuals who are 
involved but also affect the whole community.
  Many of us thought, after September 11 and after the extraordinary 
loss of lives, after the extraordinary acts of heroism, there was a new 
spirit in America. I believe that to be so. I think it is true. It is 
reflected in so many different areas. We are reaching out to understand 
our communities. We are reaching out to understand our neighbors and 
friends. We have a strong understanding that America, in many respects, 
is closer, bonded together in order to try to resist the acts of terror 
that are at home but also understand the values which are important to 
each other.
  Within that spirit, it is amazing to me that we as a country are so 
prepared to assault those cells of hatred as they exist in other parts 
of the world and refuse to address them at home. That is what this 
legislation is really all about. That is why we need this legislation. 
It is very simple.
  I see my friend and colleague. I reserve the remainder of my time, 
and I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, each day I have detailed in the 
Senate Record another hate crime. Again, these are always violent, they 
are always sickening, but they always happen to an American citizen. 
These citizens are not different from you and me. They are Americans. 
They may be black, they may be gay, they may be disabled, female or of 
Middle Eastern descent, and yet they are all Americans. We are all, in 
that important aspect, the same.
  I will detail a heinous crime that occurred in the State of Oregon in 
1995. I have spoken about this horrible crime before in this Chamber. A 
27-year-old Stockton, CA, man murdered a Medford, OR, couple: Roxanne 
Ellis, 53, and Michelle Abdill, 42. The women, who ran a property 
management business together, disappeared on December 4, 1995, after 
showing a man an apartment for rent. He shot them both in the head. The 
bodies were left bound and gagged in the truck bed. The Stockton man 
later confessed, saying he had targeted the women because they were 
lesbians, and he figured they would not have families that would miss 
them.
  I believe the government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to 
defend them

[[Page S5326]]

against the harm that comes out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement 
Enhancement Act of 2001 is now a symbol that can become substantive. I 
believe that by passing this legislation we can change hearts and we 
can change minds.
  I have noted, starting Friday, continuing most of the day Monday and 
today as well, that the opponents of this bill, I think, truly have an 
argument against the larger category of hate crimes. Their argument 
should not be the inclusion of these new categories of Americans whose 
minority subjects them to greater vulnerability. This is easy to 
demonstrate in crime statistics. An argument can be made that hate 
crimes are inappropriate, that all crime is hateful. This is an 
argument that has been made many times and in several cases that have 
reached the U.S. Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court has upheld the 
category of hate crimes.
  So the question for us then becomes: Why not extend them to new 
categories of Americans who are demonstrably more vulnerable to crime? 
I argue once again that we should vote in the affirmative to include 
these new categories. I call on my colleagues to support it.
  I have heard many arguments being propounded as to why we should not 
proceed. I believe we should proceed. I believe we should invoke 
cloture and get on with a final vote on this bill.
  I will say, in defense of my colleagues, particularly our Republican 
leader, Trent Lott, in the rare case when he would invoke cloture early 
on a bill, he was roundly criticized by our friends on the other side. 
I wish cloture had not been invoked as quickly in this case so we might 
have a better chance of winning this vote. I say to my colleagues, this 
may be their only vote. I am given to understand that this bill will be 
pulled down if cloture is not invoked, and I think that is a very 
unfortunate development, because the time to do this is now, and the 
time to have effectively argued this is beginning Friday, Monday, 
today, and this week.
  So I will be very disappointed, as one who has been present each of 
these days making this case, if this bill is pulled down because 
cloture is not invoked.
  There may well be some good ideas that could be brought forward, but 
I think personally it is easy to distinguish between the meritorious 
arguments that can be made, such as some that Senator Hatch has been 
making, versus those that are designed to create political TV ads and 
to pull down this bill. It takes courage in the Senate to push the 
case, to make the case, and to stay with the case until this body has 
had time to work its will, but I fear that may not be allowed to occur 
now, which I regret. I wish more Senators had come the last 3 days to 
argue on the merits of this bill.
  Every day I have entered a hate crime in the Congressional Record to 
demonstrate the need for this legislation. If by having a hate crimes 
law that covered James Byrd, the Federal Government was able to be 
helpful to the officials of Texas, why not have a hate crimes law that 
could have helped the police officers of Wyoming to pursue and 
prosecute the case against Matthew Shepard? This is about permitting 
the Federal Government to show up to work. This is about the Federal 
Government standing with the American people and saying, as to these 
values, as to opposing crimes so horrible and callous, we will stand 
united with law enforcement at every level, locally and federally.

  This is not an effort on the part of the Federal Government to 
subvert State law or local police processes. This is an ability to 
enhance them, to backstop them, to make sure we get the job done. It is 
a law that is 30 years old. It is a law that ought to be expanded 
because of our experience. It is a law that we ought to vote on in its 
final form when this week's work comes to an end.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I am happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator makes a very good point that Congress went 
on record 32 years ago that we were going to have a Justice Department 
that was going to prosecute hate crimes. We have addressed that 
particular issue. We have made the decision.
  During the more than 30 years since the current hate crimes law was 
passed, the Federal Government on average, has prosecuted only four 
hate crimes per year. By working cooperatively, state and federal law 
enforcement officials have the best chance of bringing the perpetrators 
of hate crimes swiftly to justice.
  Now, as the Senator points out, another frequent argument we hear 
against the hate crimes bill. Opponents argue that the law is 
unnecessary because these crimes already are prosecuted at the State 
level. In the past thirty years, Congress has enacted dozens of federal 
drug and gun laws that criminalize conduct that already is illegal 
under state law. We didn't pass these laws because States were failing 
to their job, but rather because we believed that the Federal 
government had an important role to play in helping States combat 
violent crime. Our motivation in passing the hate crimes bill is no 
different.
  The most important benefit of both state and federal criminal 
jurisdiction is the ability of state and federal law enforcement 
officials to work together as partners in the investigation and 
prosecution of serious hate crimes. When federal jurisdiction has 
existed in the limited areas authorized by current law, the federal 
government's resources, forensic expertise, and experience in the 
identification and proof of hate-based motivations have often provided 
valuable investigative assistance to local authorities without usurping 
the traditional role of states in prosecuting crimes.
  We made a judgment, and even though there were State laws, we were 
going to pass this because there was an important interest in doing it.
  Can the Senator find anything more important than trying to attack 
the basic core, the bias and hatred that motivates people to commit 
these crimes and make sure that we have a Justice Department that will 
be able to fight this with both arms, rather than one arm tied behind 
its back?
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I agree with the Senator. We are in a war on 
terrorism in this world. It is entirely appropriate to focus on the war 
on terrorism at home. President Bush has proposed a more seamless 
process by which we backstop as a Federal Government local and State 
police and all law enforcement in our ability to protect the American 
people.
  I believe government should help Americans as it finds them. Where 
there is a clearly demonstrated need, particularly as to gays and 
lesbians, we should show up to help. I believe the Senator would agree 
with me that in the case of James Byrd, where this African-American 
brother was dragged to death in a hate crime, the Federal Government, 
because the statute permits the category of race, was helpful. It did 
not subvert the local pursuit and prosecution of the murderers of James 
Byrd. We backstopped it. We brought the good offices and the resources 
and the expertise to be helpful to Texas in that case.

  Come with me to Wyoming, sir, and you will talk to officers that 
introduced themselves to me as Republican police officers. They did not 
need to identity their party but their point to this Republican Senator 
was that this is not a partisan issue. They could have used the help. 
This became a case that so consumed Laramie, WY, that their limited 
resources were simply exhausted by one case. They would love to have 
had the Federal Government show up to work but the Federal Government 
was statutorily prohibited from coming to help.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask the Senator one additional question, and we will 
hold our time with the agreement of the Senator to have the last 10 
minutes. Does the Senator believe the Federal Government has less of an 
interest in combating hate violence against gays and lesbians than hate 
violence based on race?
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. It has the same interest in defending the 
American people regardless of their minority, their race, religion, 
their culture, their sexual orientation, their disability, their 
agenda.
  It seems to me the government's business is not to pick between who 
among its citizens it will defend, but

[[Page S5327]]

that under the banner of equal protection and due process we defend all 
citizens. As our founding documents make clear, we are created equally.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator makes a point on race, religion, on gender, 
sexual orientation, on disability. This legislation goes to the core of 
the bias and hatred and addresses that. It gives the Justice Department 
the tools to be able to prosecute those. I thank the Senator.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 11 minutes remaining and the other 
side has 2 minutes remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, last Friday, immediately after calling up 
S. 625, the hate crimes bill, the Democratic leadership filed for 
cloture, I believe within 15 minutes after they called it up.
  No one is filibustering this bill. In fact, there have only been 20 
amendments filed to be considered.
  I expected this bill to be debated. We hoped the minority or anyone 
in the majority, who so chooses, who wants to try to modify this bill 
and make it better, would have the opportunity to do so. We all know, 
if cloture is invoked, for the most part, all we can do is make motions 
to strike. Almost everything will be held to be nongermane and 
therefore not debatable, unless we get a supermajority to overcome the 
point of order.
  All we are asking is for our side to be given an opportunity to 
present amendments that may improve this bill.
  It is astonishing to me that cloture would be filed on a bill of this 
magnitude, a bill that has been hotly contested for very legitimate 
reasons, basically for the purpose of foreclosing any amendments on one 
side, including my substitute amendment, which I think almost anyone 
would have to admit is a reasonable amendment. I don't know whether it 
would be accepted as a substitute or not, but it ought to at least be 
debated and voted up or down.
  I filed an amendment yesterday that preserves the death penalty as an 
option in hate crime cases. It seems to me that is an option we would 
not want to deny law enforcement. One would think you would want to 
give them that additional prosecutorial tool in hate crime cases that 
result in death of the victim.
  We can cite countless cases where, because of the threat of the death 
penalty, because it is a statutory option, people have pled guilty, 
accepted life imprisonment, and the matter was solved prior to trial, 
which preserves judicial resources.
  We also know, that when the death penalty is an option, in many cases 
law enforcement officials can break down one of the conspirators to 
plead guilty and to become a witness, and an effective witness at that, 
against the other perpetrators of the heinous murders.
  But, if this bill passes, it specifically excludes the death penalty. 
It specifically takes away those powers of the Federal Government as a 
tool to resolve some of these matters.
  As everybody knows, I am not a big fan of the death penalty. I think 
it should be used very, very narrowly and only under the most stringent 
of circumstances. I think it is too widely used today. But it at least 
ought to be an option that a prosecutor can use to obtain confessions, 
cooperation from witnesses and, of course, use as a penalty for those 
who commit really heinous crimes that are proven beyond a reasonable 
doubt.
  On Friday, immediately after calling up S. 625, the Democratic bill, 
the Democratic leadership immediately filed for cloture, as though 
anybody wants to filibuster this. I doubt seriously that all 20 
amendments would be called up, but with a limited amount of amendments 
we could finish this bill by Thursday, 2 days from now.
  It is an important bill. Everybody admits it. Why would you foreclose 
to me, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the right to 
debate an effective substitute that may improve this bill and at least 
have a vote so those who agree with me can have their vote.
  I point out to my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts that it 
was he and I who passed the Hate Crimes Statistics Act in the early 
1990s. I was the Republican Senator who came forward and helped to get 
that done.
  This bill has proved effective in showing there are hate crimes in 
our society. We know that if the two of us got together, along with the 
distinguished Senator from Oregon, we could probably resolve the 
conflicts so we would not have to wait another 5 or 6 years to have 
hate crimes legislation pass. But, no, there is no desire to try to 
resolve these matters. There is a desire to invoke cloture, cut off 
basically all effective debate and all amendments including the 
amendment of the ranking member, cut off the amendment with regard to 
imposing or at least requiring the death penalty, and any number of 
other relevant amendments. For what? Because they want this bill at all 
costs, when they know that the House leadership will not accept it 
without further amendment.
  So it makes you wonder if this is not done primarily for political 
reasons instead of working together to try to come up with legislation 
that literally would work to resolve these problems.
  I agree with the distinguished Senator from Oregon. There is no 
excuse for anybody to abuse, mutilate, kill, or otherwise commit 
violent conduct against anybody in our society, let alone gays and 
lesbians. I do not think that is justified, that anybody could get away 
with that. And we ought to do whatever we can to stop it.
  The fact remains that State and local law enforcement are dealing 
with the problem. We have challenged the other sides to give us 
examples, if they know any, where local law enforcement, local 
prosecution has not done the job. I am sure they may be able to come up 
with a few isolated examples, but I have not heard any yet.
  We have had only 1 day of debate on this very important subject 
yesterday, and it was only a matter of a couple of hours. This is a 
bill that seeks completely to overhaul and vastly expand the role of 
the Federal Government in law enforcement. The attempt to prematurely 
cut off debate on a bill of this magnitude makes a mockery of the role 
of the Senate as a deliberative body.
  If the distinguished Senator from Oregon is correct, if cloture is 
not invoked today--and I do not believe it should be--that this bill 
will be brought down, that would be a travesty because we could pass 
this bill by Thursday. There is not a soul in this body who is 
filibustering this bill, as far as I know. It just makes a mockery of 
the Senate as a deliberative body. I think the rush to ward off 
amendments can only lead to the conclusion it was done for sole purpose 
of thwarting any meaningful debate and avoiding some tough amendments 
because there is a wide disparity of viewpoint here with regard to the 
death penalty. But even if you are against the death penalty, you ought 
to realize the efficacy of having it there as a threat to criminals 
against hate crimes--yes, against gays and lesbians, to select that 
category--they might have to suffer the ultimate penalty because of 
what they have done.

  In most cases the death penalty will not be imposed, but it will be 
used to obtain confessions, pleas, and cooperation from witnesses.
  Again, I want to talk about the television show Law and Order. 
Although it is a fictional show, it really does portray how law 
enforcement uses the death penalty to obtain cooperation and 
confessions, to get people to testify against others, including their 
coconspirators. If you really want to do something about hate crimes, 
let's do it the right way and do it by amendment, amending this bill so 
the House will have to consider it. They are not going to accept this 
bill in its current form and Senator Kennedy knows that. I know that. 
The distinguished Senator from Oregon knows that.
  I think Senator Kennedy would agree with me that this bill deserves 
more than a single day of debate--or I should say 2 hours or so 
yesterday--before Senators are precluded from filing amendments.
  I agree wholeheartedly that Senator Kennedy's bill, S. 625, is an 
important piece of legislation and should be given consideration in the 
Senate.
  In the past I, too, have introduced legislation addressing hate 
crimes and I intend to offer a viable substitute amendment.
  As someone who has remained interested in this issue, as Senator 
Kennedy

[[Page S5328]]

is and I am, I believe at a minimum I should have the opportunity to 
offer amendments relative to the discussion of hate crimes and to this 
bill. This opportunity, of course, can only be ensured if today's 
cloture vote fails and the leadership then agrees to work this out. 
Let's get a time agreement. Let's have limited amendments, and I think 
we can get our side to agree to that.
  I believe my amendments will in fact improve this bill as it reads 
currently. Moreover, I believe the majority of my colleagues not only 
want to consider my amendments but would also approve my amendments. 
Protecting the safety and rights of all Americans is the paramount 
concern to all Senators. To not have a vote on the death penalty? For 
the first time, remove that as a consideration in these tough cases? If 
you really want to do something about hate crimes you ought at least to 
have the death penalty on the books.
  There are, however, many differing thoughts about how to best provide 
the protection. No one is threatening to filibuster this bill. Relying 
on unsubstantiated rumors of machinations to file numerous irrelevant 
amendments is insufficient justification to cut off debate. The fact 
is, only 20 amendments were filed yesterday.
  My colleagues and I are trying to engage in a sincere debate on this 
issue that affects all Americans. It is curious to me why the Senate 
Democrats are trying to block a substantive debate on hate crimes. By 
preventing relevant amendments from being offered and considered, the 
Democrats are shutting the door on any Republican ideas or 
alternatives, however constructive they may be. At least we should be 
entitled to a vote on a limited number of amendments. We could agree to 
that. Every Senator has the right to consider, thoughtfully, 
legislation that will have a significant impact on the way serious 
crimes are prosecuted in this country. By filing for cloture 
prematurely, the leadership is denying all Senators the right to debate 
and have a vote on issues that are important to them and the 
constituents of their States. Simply stated, it is wrong to foreclose 
debate on this very important bill.
  I ask the Democratic leadership to rethink their strategy and 
unreasonable position. I strongly urge Senators to oppose cloture on 
this bill. I agree with my colleague from Massachusetts, every hate 
crime is a tragic reflection on our society and we need to address the 
problem. But no one has made the case to me that the local authorities 
are not effectively prosecuting these cases. We have asked them to. I 
believe the proper role of the Federal Government is to assist, not 
supplant, local law enforcement authorities. That is the approach I 
have taken in my alternative, which will not even be able to be 
considered if cloture is invoked today.
  Let me just take a moment to review some of these cases that we have 
been talking about. Take the Roxanne Ellis and Michelle Abdill case 
here. This is the one that the distinguished Senator from Oregon, if I 
remember correctly, was referring to. Roxanne Ellis and Michelle 
Abdill. The defendant was Robert Acremant, the jurisdiction was Oregon. 
Acremant, shot Ellis and Abdill, a homosexual couple, to death as they 
lay gagged in the back of his truck--truly a heinous, vicious, 
reprehensible act.
  What happened to this defendant? Was he let go because the Federal 
law enforcement authorities and prosecutors did not have this hate 
crimes bill? Not at all. The local law enforcement brought him to trial 
and he received--guess what--the death penalty. That doesn't sound to 
me like he is getting away with a hate crime.
  Let's go down through a few more. James Byrd--we have heard a lot of 
about James Byrd and we ought to hear a lot about it. It was a 
terrible, heinous act that was committed in Texas by three defendants, 
Lawrence Russell Brewer, John William King, Shawn Allen Berry.
  They beat Mr. Byrd, an African-American, unconscious. They chained 
him to the back of a pickup truck and dragged him for miles down rural 
roads. That is what all three of these heinous criminals did. What 
happened to them? Let me tell you. Because the death penalty was 
available, Shawn Allen Berry pled guilty and became a witness against 
the other two, who both received the death penalty. That doesn't sound 
to me like the Federal Government was needed in that case.
  The fact of the matter is, the State and local officials said: Enough 
is enough. We are not going to tolerate this kind of activity, this 
type of action. The death penalty, because it was available for these 
crimes--a defendant pled guilty and was sentenced to life in prison 
without parole. The other two defendants received the death penalty. 
All we ask is that we be permitted to offer my substitute amendment 
which preserves the death penalty. I can't imagine that amendment would 
fail on this bill and it would improve this bill by leaps and bounds.
  Matthew Shepard, we have heard a lot of talk about Matthew Shepard 
and yes, State prosecutors and law enforcement, who believe, as we do, 
that hate crimes should be prosecuted. In the Shepard case, the two 
defendants were Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson. They kidnapped 
Shepard, a homosexual college student, beat him so severely that his 
skull was fractured a half dozen times, tied him to a fence post and 
left him to die. The defendant Henderson drove the truck into which 
Shepard, a homosexual college student was lured, helped tie him to a 
fence--and at least stood by while Shepard was beaten senseless.
  What happened? Henderson pled guilty in order to avoid the death 
penalty. He was sentenced to two consecutive life terms with no 
possibility of parole. Aaron McKinney was sentenced to two consecutive 
life terms. He avoided the death penalty by agreeing not to appeal the 
life sentences. Had the death penalty not been there, who knows what 
would have happened? I think they had the defendants dead to rights, 
but it certainly did help in both of these cases to have the death 
penalty available.

  Another case involved the homosexual couple, Gary Matson and Winfield 
Mowder. The defendants, Benjamin Williams and James Williams, shot Mr. 
Matson and Mr. Mowder to death. The death penalty was available and the 
prosecution is ongoing in both cases.
  In another Texas case, the defendant Mark Stroman was tried for 
shooting Vasudev Patel, an Indian man, after 9/11, because Stroman 
thought Patel looked middle eastern. The local officials prosecuted the 
case and he received the death penalty.
  In the case of Sasezley Richardson, an African-American, Jason Powell 
and Alex Witmer fired 12 shots at him in an attempt to ``earn'' a 
spider web tattoo from the Aryan brotherhood. The defendant Witmer 
drove the truck from which Powell fired 12 shoot at Richardson. Because 
the death penalty was available, Powell pled guilty and testified for 
the State in order to avoid the death penalty. He was sentenced to life 
in prison without parole. In the case of Alex Witmer, the death penalty 
was available, and he pled guilty and was sentenced to 85 years in 
prison. What if that death penalty had not been available? Who knows 
whether they could have convinced one defendant to testify against the 
other.
  The next chart begins with the case of Amanda Milan, who was stabbed 
to death for being a transgender woman. The defendants in this case 
were Duayne McCuller and Eugene Celestine in New York.
  In this case Eugene Celestine gave McCuller the knife with which to 
kill Milan. The prosecution is currently ongoing, and both are facing 
the possibility of life in prison.
  In another case, the victim, Billy Jack Gaither was bludgeoned to 
death because he was homosexual. The two defendants, Mullins and 
Butler, attacked Gaither with an ax handle, slit his throat, threw him 
on the top of a pile of tires, and set him on fire.
  Because the death penalty was available, Mullins pled guilty prior to 
trial and was sentenced to life in prison without parole. Butler was 
sentenced to life in prison without parole only because the victim's 
parents requested that the prosecution not seek the death penalty. But 
because it was available, they were able to bring these cases to 
conclusion and these two heinous criminals were sentenced to life 
because neither wanted to go through a trial where they knew they could 
get the death penalty. By obtaining pleas prior to trial, the 
prosecutors saved scarce taxpayer dollars.

[[Page S5329]]

  In a Virginia case, Danny Lee Overstreet, was killed by the 
defendant, Ronald E. Gay when Gay went on a shooting rampage in a gay 
bar, killing Overstreet and wounding six others. Because the death 
penalty was available, he was sentenced to four life terms.
  I have a lot of empathy for those on the other side of this issue at 
this time who want to pass legislation to address some of these hate 
crimes. They would like to give the Federal Government more authority. 
I am not against that. But I would like to have a bill that will pass 
both Houses. I would like to have a bill that will go to work tomorrow, 
or the next day, or 2 months from now, when it passes both Houses and 
is signed by the President, which will really do something about these 
crimes. I want a bill where there is a threat of the death penalty so 
we can get pleas and save the taxpayers' money.

  Frankly, these cases are important cases. In almost every case that 
the proponents of this piece of legislation bring up--in almost every 
case--the State and local law enforcement--in fact, in every case, to 
my knowledge--they have done the job. My substitute amendment would 
give them the tools, the money, and so forth to do the job even better.
  I would like the opportunity as ranking member of the Judiciary 
Committee to be able to offer some amendments that should have votes. 
If I lose, I lose. If I win, I win. But the fact of the matter is that 
we ought to at least have this opportunity to debate it.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 4 minutes.
  With regard to the procedure, there have been two occasions when the 
majority leader has requested that we have a debate on this legislation 
and have relevant amendments. That process and that procedure were 
objected to by the other side.
  First of all, during the more than 30 years that the existing hate 
crimes statute has been on the books, the federal government has never 
tried a hate crime case in which it sought the death penalty. There is 
nothing in our bill that prohibits a State with the death penalty from 
seeking that punishment if the State decides to prosecute the hate 
crime. The fact remains that nothing in our bill would allow the 
federal government to take jurisdiction away from a State that wants to 
prosecute a hate crime and seek the death penalty.
  It is interesting. During this debate, we know exactly what our 
situation is. If you talk about race, national origin, and religion, 
they are protected, if they fall within the six categories. But sexual 
orientation is not. Disability is not protected. Neither is gender. 
Even in the amendment offered by the Senator from Utah, he excludes 
gender. The Republican leadership of the House of Representatives will 
not take protection of sexual orientation. Those are the facts. 
Sometime, some day, we have to deal with the realities.

  This has been out there for 5 years. We have the support of 22 
attorneys general. We have the support of the former Attorney General 
of the United States, Dick Thornburgh, who understands the importance 
of this legislation. There is a need out there. You are not going to 
get that kind of inclusion, those kinds of protections, in terms of 
gender, under the amendment of the Senator from Utah, and you will not 
get it under the Republican leadership.
  Those are the facts. We have the list of the amendments. We have an 
anti-abortion amendment by the Senator from Pennsylvania here. Relevant 
amendments. The list goes on. The leader asked for the ability to do 
that. At some time we have to take action.
  We know what this is really all about. We have had this for 5 years. 
We passed it 57 to 42 last year and were denied the opportunity to get 
this out of the conference because of the Republican leadership in the 
House.
  The real question is, Are we going to take the action now? How long 
do people have to wait to get this protection? They have waited 5 
years. We have a lot of pious statements here about the need for 
protection for American citizens on the basis of sexual orientation and 
disability and gender. Yet we refuse to address it or pass it.
  That is the question and the issue. It is domestic terrorism. These 
are crimes based upon hate and prejudice that ruin not only the 
individual but the community and the Nation. That is what we are 
talking about. Trying to dismiss this as routine kinds of 
investigations isn't what this is about. The Senator from Utah 
understands that. That is the question--whether we are going to be 
prepared to take those steps to provide the limited but extremely 
important opportunity to make sure we are going to do something.
  How about sending a message to those people out there in terms of the 
potential of hate-motivated crimes? We sent them a message when we 
passed the church burning legislation. We sent a powerful message, and 
that virtually stopped. How about doing the same thing with regard to 
hate crimes because of sexual orientation or gender or disability? What 
is the other side scared of?
  They say we are going to federalize another thing. Well, they found 
37 other provisions they are glad to federalize, but not this kind of 
protection.
  As the Senator from Oregon said, this protection is rooted in animus, 
the basic hatred that motivates these kinds of crimes. The question is, 
Are we going to do something about it?
  This is the time. Twice Republicans rejected the opportunity for 
debate on relevant amendments. We know what is happening. This is the 
vote. This is the time. We want to make it very clear, and I am hopeful 
that we get cloture. If we do not, I want to give the assurance to the 
Senator from Utah that we are going to be back again and again.
  So have no fear about not addressing this issue because this is just 
the beginning, and we are going to continue the battle through this 
session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have heard all this rhetoric before. We 
have been working on this for 5 years. The distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts knows that we put together some of the most important 
legislation in history--he and I. He knows darn well that this bill 
isn't going anywhere if it passes in its current form. He knows darn 
well that it sounds good to make all these political points, but I 
would like to pass something. I would like to do something. I would 
like to have something that works. I am willing to do it in a Federal 
way.
  The Senator seems to be saying, take his viewpoint about this or take 
nothing, which is what we have done for the last 5 or 6 years. He knows 
darn well that I will work on the bill with him. We have discussed this 
in private.
  I don't like what is going on in our society any better than he does, 
but I challenge him to show me where State and local law enforcement 
are not doing the job. Explain to me why he would not have the death 
penalty to help law enforcement and the prosecutors to obtain pleas, 
cooperation from witnesses, and to have witnesses testify against their 
coconspirators, which conserves judicial resources.
  He says that if the States want to prosecute hate crimes, they can 
seek the death penalty. The fact is, we are taking these matters away 
from the States and saying the Federal Government ought to prosecute 
these crimes where there will be no death penalty. I feel embarrassed 
to have to talk about the death penalty because I am not real enthused 
about it. I don't want it applied, except in the most stringent of 
circumstances. There has to be absolute guilt, and the crime has to be 
so heinous as to justify it.
  Look, I would be willing to put sexual orientation in my bill. I 
don't want every rape to be considered a federal hate crime. I don't 
want every criminal sexual act to be considered a federal hate crime, 
leading to the possibility of being brought before the Federal courts. 
On the other hand, I am certainly willing to talk about compromises.
  The charts we just went through show that the criminals are being 
prosecuted. The crimes against gays and lesbians are being prosecuted. 
State and local law enforcement are bringing the appropriate 
prosecutions. The distinguished Senator said ``let's send a

[[Page S5330]]

message through this legislation'' if nothing more. I would like to do 
that. I would like to get a bill that we can pass. I would like to get 
a bill that the House will accept--instead of accusing the House of not 
having the same interests at heart than the Senator from Massachusetts.
  No one is arguing that hate crimes are not a problem. We have never 
denied that hate crimes are occurring. Nobody can deny that. I want to 
get rid of them as much as anybody. No one feels more strongly on this 
issue than I do, whether they support S. 625 or not. No one--least of 
all me--is suggesting that hate crimes are not a problem, or that we as 
an institution should stand by and do nothing about hate crimes. That 
is why I intend to offer an amendment to S. 625 that provides an 
alternative approach to helping in the fight against hate crimes. I am 
willing to sit down with the Senator and see if we can work out 
something that will pass both bodies. The tremendous record of State 
and local prosecutions of hate crimes suggest to me, however, that 
States are doing a great job policing these types of cases.
  In my view, a measured, appropriate, and constitutional Federal 
response should be directed at helping States that ask for our 
assistance. Nobody is arguing that existing Federal law is adequate. No 
one contends that we should rest on the existing Federal hate crimes 
statute. We can all agree that the Federal Government should do more 
than what 18 U.S.C. 245 currently provides.
  That is why I will offer an amendment to S. 625 that provides for an 
alternative approach to help in the fight against hate crimes. The 
record is clear. I have always been open to fixing 18 U.S.C. section 
245 through amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time controlled by the Senator from Utah 
has expired.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the amendment 
offered by my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, to amend the penalty 
section of this bill to include the possibility of a death sentence.
  This amendment is a step in the wrong direction.
  Let me be clear. Those who commit crimes, including acts of violence 
that are motivated by hate, should be punished and punished severely. 
Federal law enforcement has an important role to ensure that hate 
crimes are investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the 
law. And if death results from a hate crime, Senator Kennedy's bill 
provides for the full weight of the law to be brought to bear on that 
individual. It does so by providing for a maximum sentence of life in 
prison without the possibility of parole.
  At a time when Americans are increasingly recognizing that the 
current death penalty system is broken, this is not the time to expand 
the Federal death penalty.
  We know that justice should be blind. But, unfortunately, in the 
Federal death penalty system, it appears that justice is not always 
blind. A report released by the Justice Department in September 2000 
showed troubling racial and geographic disparities in the 
administration of the Federal death penalty. The color of a defendant's 
skin or the Federal district in which the prosecution takes place can 
affect whether a defendant lives or dies in the Federal system. Former 
Attorney General Janet Reno ordered a further analysis of why these 
disparities exist. And Attorney General Ashcroft has agreed to continue 
this study.
  We have not yet seen the results of this study, nor have we had the 
opportunity to review and understand what the results might mean for 
the fairness and integrity of our Federal justice system. While this 
important study is underway, Congress should not create even more 
death-eligible crimes.
  I also strongly disagree with Senator Hatch's claim that the 
availability of the death penalty ensures efficient and reliable 
prosecution and conviction of those who commit hate crimes.
  We know that levying death has an immensely coercive effect on the 
accused. The accused who wants to live and does not have the resources 
to mount a ``dream team'' defense may feel little choice but to accept 
whatever deal for less than death that the prosecution offers. This can 
happen in situations where the accused is less culpable than other 
defendants, or worse yet, innocent of the charges altogether.
  I am very troubled by the practice of some prosecutors who may use 
the prospect of the death penalty to coerce a defendant, including a 
defendant who may be innocent, to accept guilt and a plea bargain.
  A case involving defense representation from my state illustrates how 
this coercive tactic undermines the integrity of the justice system. It 
involves Christopher Ochoa, who confessed to a rape and murder out of 
fear of facing the death penalty in Texas. Mr. Ochoa was released a 
little over a year ago after serving 12 years of a life term in Texas. 
Mr. Ochoa won his freedom as a result of the persistence, hard work, 
and skill of students and professors at the Innocence Project at the 
University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School.
  According to the Wisconsin State Journal, police arrived to question 
Mr. Ochoa in November 1988. Mr. Ochoa, who was 22 years old at the 
time, was ``harangued with grisly details of the crime, many of them 
false. A burly sergeant told him he would be `fresh meat' in prison, 
pounded tables and demonstrated where the death needle would pierce his 
arm. Ochoa confessed.'' In a forum at the University of Wisconsin after 
he was released, he said, ``I don't think people can say what they 
would have done until they're in that situation.'' He said, 
``Basically, I was terrified.''
  The Federal system is not immune from the use of this coercive tactic 
or the other flaws that result in the risk of executing the innocent in 
the state systems. According to the Federal Death Penalty Resource 
Counsel Project, since the death penalty was re-enacted in 1988, 
approximately 3 percent of persons the Justice Department has attempted 
to execute may have been factually or legally innocent.
  In one case, David Ronald Chandler claimed his innocence throughout 
the trial and the appellate process. Chandler believes that the real 
triggerman made a deal with the government to testify against Chandler, 
and in return the government would not seek the Federal death penalty 
against the triggerman. But the triggerman later recanted his 
testimony. Luckily for Chandler, President Clinton commuted his death 
sentence to life. But how many other defendants who have claims of 
innocence will not be so lucky, or feel forced to accept a life 
sentence? I don't know the answer to that question. None of us do. And 
that is why a thorough, top-to-bottom review of the death penalty 
system at the State and Federal levels is needed.
  Until such a comprehensive review has been undertaken, and the 
necessary work has been done to ensure fairness and justice, Congress 
should refrain from expanding the Federal death penalty. Congress can 
ensure that perpetrators of crime are effectively punished without 
resorting to capital punishment.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing Senator Hatch's 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use leader time to make my remarks 
this morning.
  I appreciate the debate we have had on this issue now for the last 
couple of days. I am struck by a couple of issues. First, I am struck 
by the number of hate crimes that occur every day. We are told there 
are over 20 hate crimes committed in the United States every day--every 
day. The Southern Poverty Law Center estimates the real number may be 
50,000 a year. That comes out to five an hour.
  In the time we have had the debate just this morning, according to 
those statistics, 15 to 20 hate crimes have been committed in this 
country--in just the time the Senate has been in session this morning.
  If there is such a good job being done across this country as we deal 
with that volume, I would not be able to say that with any authority 
this morning, but the volume is there. That leads me to the second 
point.
  The second point is that behind each one of those statistics is a 
human being, a face, a story, a tragedy. That is, in essence, what this 
debate is all about--to end the tragedy in this country.
  As I consider the options we have available to us legislatively, I 
consider

[[Page S5331]]

those options as they must have existed during the civil rights debates 
of the fifties and sixties, and I am sure when we considered the civil 
rights issues in the fifties and sixties there were all kinds of 
reasons it was not the time to deal with civil rights laws; it was not 
the time to come to closure on how to address the rampant racism that 
existed in the country at that time.
  Finally, it took leadership, it took resolve, it took bipartisan 
consensus and, ultimately, it took a willingness to commit to a bill. 
We passed the civil rights acts of the fifties and sixties, and today 
we are the better for it.

  Who today would say we are going to repeal those laws? They have been 
on the books, they have worked, and we take credit for the fact they 
have.
  This is our moment when it comes to hate crimes. This is our time to 
tell the Matthew Shepards of the world that we are not going to 
tolerate that anymore; that we are better than that; we are bigger than 
that.
  Just as we addressed racism in the past, we have to address the 
prejudice against sexual orientation today. This is our chance. This is 
our moment. This is our Civil Rights Act for the year 2002. We are not 
going to have many more. Let's seize this opportunity. Let's seize this 
moment. Let's send a clear message. Let's end those terrible 
statistics. We can do it when we vote on cloture in a matter of moments 
this morning.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield myself time under my leader time 
that has been reserved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The leader has that right.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I do not intend to get into the details now 
and a discussion on the substance of the bill except to say this: The 
greatest hate crime of all that we should be dealing with right now is 
the hate crime of terrorism against America and free and innocent 
peoples all over the world who have been attacked by terrorists--3,000 
approximately killed on 1 day, September 11. There is where our focus 
should be.
  I am disappointed at the timing of this legislation, to say the 
least. We should be focused on the war on terror. We should be taking 
up the Defense authorization bill. We should have already taken it up. 
Normally we deal with the Defense authorization bill in May; certainly 
the early part of June. Now it appears to me there will be no way to 
get to the Defense authorization bill before probably next Tuesday at 
the earliest, and maybe later. Until we do that, we cannot begin on the 
regular appropriations bills, the first of which should be the Defense 
appropriations bill. We need to make sure our men and women in uniform 
and our law enforcement officials all over this country and all over 
the world who are fighting against this hate crime, terrorism, have 
what they need in terms of pay, quality of life, weapons, and 
sophisticated equipment they need to do the job.
  While, obviously, this issue can be scheduled at some point--and I 
assume it will be scheduled--it certainly is one in which there is not 
an emergency facing us right now. I wanted to raise that point.
  We do not even have a budget resolution. We are 2 months behind 
getting a budget resolution this year. It is just being ignored: No 
budget resolution. No 2003 numbers to which we have agreed. No 
policies. No enforcement mechanisms. How are we going to do the 
appropriations bills? What possible restraint can be provided for the 
ranking members and the chairmen of the subcommittees on 
appropriations?
  The law requires we do the budget resolution by April 15. We do not 
have it. We do not know when we are going to have it. Apparently, we 
are never going to have it.
  The Defense authorization bill was reported out of the committee May 
15. While there were votes against it, it was a bipartisan vote. What 
is the problem? There is obviously a weapons system that is causing 
some consternation. Sooner or later we are going to have to address 
that issue--sooner rather than later, I hope.
  With regard to this particular issue, I know how tough it is being 
majority leader and dealing with protracted debate and amendments. We 
saw last week what happens when we have a prematurely filed cloture 
motion. Tactically, one may think: I have to do it because I have to 
bring this to a conclusion.
  We saw last Thursday night what happens when cloture is invoked and 
we cut off debate and amendments. Unless it is very tightly germane, it 
is not in order. So at midnight last Thursday night, we were trying to 
figure out how do we conclude the supplemental appropriations bill, 
again, for defense and homeland security. Amendments were being knocked 
out right and left, probably amendments that were worthy and should 
have been taken but were not germane.
  We are about to do that here. We made the mistake last week, and now 
we are about to make the mistake again this week. We are going to cut 
off amendments. As a matter of fact, a substitute amendment by the 
ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction, Senator Hatch, would 
be nongermane postcloture. It is not a question of trying to stop 
unrelated amendments. This is an amendment that even deals with the 
substance of the issue. Why are we doing that?
  I used to file cloture motions perhaps prematurely, and I was royally 
pilloried by the other side of the aisle: Why did you file a cloture 
motion so prematurely? You shouldn't do that.
  Most of the time I realized it was probably a mistake, and on 
occasion, I backed off and we vitiated the cloture vote.
  Even at the beginning of the last Congress when it was 50-50, under 
S. Res. 8, the organizing resolution, we agreed specifically in the 
rule that cloture motions could not be filed before 12 hours of debate 
had taken place. When the majority changed, that rule went by the 
board, but the principle was there. Why was it good when we were 50-50 
but not good when it is 50-49 and 1? This is not partisan. I have made 
this mistake. I think it is a mistake. We should not do this.
  This cloture motion was filed after 12 minutes, not 12 hours. This 
bill was called up and within 12 minutes a cloture motion was filed. 
This is not the way to do business. We are prepared to debate this 
issue, consider legitimate, substantive amendments, and any other 
amendment for certainly a reasonable period of time. This is cutting 
off members of committees of jurisdiction. This is cutting off all 
Senators. It is a mistake. We made the mistake last week. We should not 
make the mistake now.
  On my side of the aisle, it would be a message that we are not going 
to prematurely cut off debate. Give it a little time. It works on both 
sides of the aisle. I urge my colleagues to vote against this cloture 
motion. Let's have some amendments offered. Let's spend some time 
making sure we do not get ourselves trapped in the same situation we 
did last Thursday night, which was not pretty for this institution.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts controls the 
time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the Senator from Minnesota 2 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I disagree with my colleague, the minority leader. It 
is always an emergency when brutal crimes are committed against people 
because of their sexual orientation or gender or because of disability.
  I think it is an emergency for our country when someone such as 
Matthew Shepard is brutally murdered. I think it is an emergency for 
our country when what we say to people is not just that they are a 
victim or that we dehumanize people but, rather, we say to many 
citizens in our country, by gender or sexual orientation, because they 
are a gay or because they are a lesbian, they are next. Hate crimes 
violate not only our Constitution but they destroy our oneness as a 
people. They diminish us as a country. They take away from what is best 
in our Nation.
  I insist, as a Senator from Minnesota, that this is an emergency and 
that we should pass this legislation and that this legislation must not 
be blocked. If it were your loved one who had been murdered, if it were 
your

[[Page S5332]]

loved one who were a target of these hate crimes, you would consider it 
an emergency and you would want us to pass this very important 
legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for 
the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2001, and my 
disappointment that the Senate failed to invoke cloture on this 
important legislation today. As a cosponsor of Senator Kennedy's bill, 
I believe it is crucial that we pass hate crimes legislation in an 
expeditious manner in order to provide the government with the tools it 
needs to prosecute the many senseless bias-motivated crimes that occur 
in our country each year. In the past several decades we have made 
significant progress in reducing discrimination, yet more needs to be 
done. This legislation is an important step toward ending the scourge 
of hate crimes that continues to plague our Nation.
  Data gathered under the Federal Hate Crime Statistics Act about the 
prevalence of these crimes is sobering. Beginning in 1991, the Act 
requires the Justice Department to collect information from law 
enforcement agencies across the country on crimes motivated by a 
victim's race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. Congress 
expanded the Act in 1994 to also require the collection of data for 
crimes based upon the victim's disability. For the year 2000, 11,690 
law enforcement agencies in 48 states and the District of Columbia 
reported 8,063 bias-motivated criminal incidents (8,055 single-bias and 
8 multiple-bias incidents) to the FBI. The incidents consisted of 9,430 
separate offenses, 9,924 victims, and 7,530 distinguishable offenders. 
According to the data collected, 53.8 percent of the 8,055 single-bias 
incidents were motivated by racial bias, 18.3 percent by religious 
bias, 16.1 percent by sexual-orientation bias, 11.3 percent by 
ethnicity/national origin bias, and 0.5 percent by disability and 
multiple biases.
  The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is carefully tailored to 
ensure a state's ability to prosecute hate crimes, but it provides the 
Federal government with additional tools to prosecute hate crimes 
should a state be unable to do so. The legislation extends the Federal 
law to prohibit hate crimes against victims because of their gender, 
sexual orientation or disability. In addition, the legislation allows 
Federal prosecution of hate crimes wherever they occur and under 
whatever circumstances, thus broadening the previous requirement that 
the hate crime occur while the victim is engaged in a ``federally 
protected activity.''
  The need for these limited changes in existing Federal hate crimes 
laws is clear. For example, according to the Justice Department, 16.1 
percent of the hate crimes committed in 2000 were motivated by the 
victim's sexual orientation. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act 
would expand the definition of hate crimes to include those committed 
because of the victim's sexual orientation--in addition to a victim's 
gender or disability.
  A hate crime may meet the federal definition of ``hate crime'' yet 
the federal government is still powerless to aid in its prosecution. 
For example, in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 
our Nation has struggled to prevent discrimination and acts of violence 
against Arab-Americans. Despite the resolve that most Americans have 
shown in that regard, tragically, crimes have occurred. On September 
15, 2001, Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh-American, was shot and killed at 
his gas station in Mesa, Arizona. This tragic incident was the most 
serious of several attacks against people of Middle Eastern and South 
Asian descent who were targeted in the aftermath of the terrorist 
attacks. Although religion and national identity are already protected 
under current law, the hate crimes legislation before us would give the 
Federal government enhanced authority to investigate and prosecute 
these types of crimes.
  Despite the progress towards ending discrimination over the past 
decades, it is undeniably clear that raw hatred and its tragic 
consequences continue to exist in our Nation. Strengthening the Federal 
government's ability to prosecute hate crimes is an important step 
towards the eradication of hate crimes in our country. Mr. President, I 
urge my Senate colleagues to bring the Local Law Enforcement 
Enhancement Act back to the floor of the Senate and to join me in 
supporting this important hate crimes legislation. We have an 
invaluable opportunity to make a statement that the United States 
government will not tolerate crimes motivated by bigotry and prejudice, 
and I look forward to the day when there is no longer a need in our 
Nation to legislate such changes.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
express my strong support of the Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001, the 
``Hate Crimes Act.'' The Hate Crimes Act is a bill whose time has come. 
I would like to commend Senator Kennedy for his long, hard work to pass 
this important legislation, and I am happy to have the opportunity to 
vote for it today.
  The Hate Crimes Act creates an intergovernmental assistance program 
which would provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial and other forms 
of assistance to state and local law enforcement officials for hate 
crimes based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual 
orientation and disability. The bill authorizes the Justice Department 
to award grants of up to $100,000 to state, local, and Indian law 
enforcement officials who have incurred extraordinary expenses 
associated with investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. This 
legislation requires grant applicants to coordinate with affected 
community groups, schools, and colleges and universities. In addition, 
this bill gives the Justice Department jurisdiction over crimes of 
violence involving bodily injury, if motivated by a person's actual or 
perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual 
orientation, or disability, if it meets both the interstate commerce 
and certification requirements in the underlying statute. Lastly, the 
bill amends the Hate Crimes Statistics Act to include gender and 
requires the FBI to collect data from states on gender-based hate 
crimes in the same manner that it currently collects data for race, 
religion, sexual orientation, disability, and ethnicity.
  The number of reported hate crimes has grown by almost 90 percent 
over the past decade and we cannot afford to ignore this growing 
problem. The recent hate-motivated crimes in my state of Washington 
demonstrate the destructive and devastating impact hate crimes have on 
individual victims and entire communities. On May 9th, 2002, Patrick 
Cunningham pled guilty to the September 13, 2001 attack of an Islamic 
Idriss Mosque in Seattle. Mr. Cunningham doused two cars with gasoline 
in the mosque parking lot in an attempt to destroy the mosque and harm 
worshipers inside. Cunningham also shot at the worshipers after being 
discovered. Just a few days later, on September 18, 2001, Kulwinder 
Singh, a Sikh cabdriver in Seatac, Washington, was harassed and 
physically assaulted by a passenger.
  This legislation takes important steps to ensure that crimes 
motivated by the victim's race, gender, sexual orientation, disability 
or religion can be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and it 
removes the artificial limitations that currently keep local law 
enforcement from getting needed assistance. The Hate Crimes Act 
provides the necessary complement between state and federal law 
enforcement officials in order to ensure that perpetrators of hate 
crimes are brought swiftly to justice. The federal government's 
resources, forensic expertise, and experience in the identification and 
proof of hate-based motivations have often provided invaluable addition 
to the important work conducted by local investigators. One need only 
remember the brutal killing of James Byrd in Jasper County, Texas to 
understand the benefits of an effective hate crimes investigative 
partnership between state and federal authorities. This partnership is 
also crucial to the work of the National Church Arson Task Force and to 
the increase in the number of hate crimes solved by arrests and 
prosecutions.

  I believe that the Hate Crimes Act is necessary to ensure that 
violent hate crimes based on sexual orientation, gender, or disability 
do not go unpunished. Every year, a significant number of hate crimes 
are perpetrated

[[Page S5333]]

across our nation based on anti-gay bias. Current law, however, leaves 
the federal government without the authority to work in partnership 
with local law enforcement officials or to bring federal prosecutions 
when gay men or lesbians are the victims of murder or other violent 
assaults because of bias based on their sexual orientation.
  This Act would fix the inadequacies in pre-existing federal law, 
which became painfully apparent in the vicious murder of Matthew 
Shepard in Laramie, Wyoming, and the subsequent investigation and 
prosecution of his assailants. The lack of federal funding caused 
significant financial hardships on the local sheriff's department in 
its efforts to bring Matthew's killers to justice, and, as a result, 
five law enforcement staff members were laid off. In response, this 
bill amends the criminal code to cover hate crimes based on sexual 
orientation and authorizes grants for state and local programs designed 
to combat and prevent hate crimes.
  This legislation would have a measurable impact in my state of 
Washington and help prosecute the growing string of hate-based attacks 
targeting individuals' sexual orientation. On April 6, 1995 in Olympia, 
Washington, four young adults brutally assaulted Bill Clayton, an 
openly bisexual high school student, and his friends who happened to be 
walking with him. Just two months after the assault, the seventeen-
year-old committed suicide. Prior to his suicide he had explained to 
his mother that he was just tired of coping, and that it was the 
constant knowledge that any time he could be attacked because he was 
bisexual, that despite the love of his family and friends, all he could 
see ahead of him was a lifetime of facing a world filled with hate and 
violence, going from one assault to another. We cannot let our citizens 
live in fear for their safety, knowing that their attackers will not be 
prosecuted to the full extent of the law. This legislation is necessary 
to fill the current void to ensure vigorous prosecution of individuals 
who perpetrate a hate crime. The extra federal resources that this Act 
would make available in the investigations and prosecutions of hate-
motivated crimes would serve as both a significant deterrent and 
punishment, and would likely bring a greater number of cases to 
successful resolution through arrest and prosecution. We must do all we 
can to prevent the incidents that led to Bill Clayton's tragic death.
  I believe it is important that we recognize from the beginning that 
not all crimes are hate crimes. The reason behind this is simple. All 
crimes are not created equal and mental states, in addition to acts, 
have always played an important role in determining the severity and 
subsequent punishment of a crime. Recognizing this, it is well 
established that a legislature can properly determine that crimes 
committed against certain classes of individuals are different or 
warrant a stiffer response. Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court had 
unanimously ruled that bias-inspired conduct inflicts greater 
individual and societal harm.
  I share Senator Kennedy's concerns regarding hate crimes, and I have 
consistently supported hate crimes legislation, from the time I was in 
the Washington state House of Representatives to now. There are nearly 
8,000 hate crime incidents reported annually each year. The Hate Crimes 
Act sends a clear message that violence against a person based on skin 
color, sexual orientation, or religion will not be tolerated anywhere 
in this country. The bill will provide broader federal jurisdiction to 
prosecute hate crimes, including crimes motivated by race, color, 
religion, gender, sexual orientation, and disability. Broadening 
federal jurisdiction will allow effective prosecution even when hate 
crimes are committed in states that lack hate crime statutes, or where 
local law enforcement lacks the resources for this type of prosecution. 
Additionally, the bill will provide federal grant money to states to 
better enable these jurisdictions to successfully prosecute hate crime 
offenders. We cannot afford to wait any longer to pass this vital 
legislation. Our sons and daughters, brothers and sister, mothers and 
fathers depend upon this Act to ensure full protection of their right 
to be free from hate-motivated crimes. I urge my colleagues to support 
this bill.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in 
expressing my strong support for The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001, 
legislation of which I am an original cosponsor.
  Popularly known as The Hate Crimes Prevention Act, this legislation 
would: expand current federal protections against hate crimes based on 
race, religion, and national origin; amend the criminal code to cover 
hate crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, and disability; 
authorize grants for State and local programs designed to combat and 
prevent hate crimes; and enable the federal government to assist State 
and local law enforcement in investigating and prosecuting hate crimes.
  While past efforts to enact this legislation have received strong 
bipartisan support, we have not been able to get it to the President's 
desk for his consideration. We must now work to ensure that this 
legislation is not simply supported, but actually passed and signed 
into law by the President.
  In the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11th, we saw a 
terrible rise in hate crimes in the United States. California was not 
immune to the violence.
  In San Gabriel, CA, Adel Karas, an Egyptian-American grocer, was shot 
to death while he worked in his store. It is believed that he was a 
victim of an attack motivated by the September 11 attacks, not a 
robbery, because all the cash was left in his register.
  In Palmdale, CA, a public high school found a notice threatening a 
``massacre'' to avenge the terrorist attacks, complete with the names 
of five Muslim students who would be targeted.
  In Lancaster, CA, Gerald Pimentel, a Hispanic man, was attacked after 
he was mistaken for being Iranian. Two men bumped his car three times 
while he was driving. His car was then blocked, and the men began 
yelling and running toward him. They chased him through his yard and 
into his home. When he tried to defend his family, they beat him. 
``They'd been calling him an Iranian,'' Gerald's daughter later said. 
``I couldn't understand why. You know, my dad is not Iranian. They just 
kept hitting and hitting my dad,'' she said.
  The FBI has investigated over 300 incidents since September 11 in 
which individuals perceived to be Muslim or of Middle Eastern decent 
have been attacked or threatened because of their religion or national 
origin.
  President Bush moved swiftly to protect Muslims and Arab-Americans 
from hate crimes and sent out a message that this nation will not 
tolerate such attacks against any Americans.
  The President implored, ``In our anger and emotion, our fellow 
Americans must treat each other with respect . . . Those who feel like 
they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don't 
represent the best of America, they represent the worst of humankind . 
. . ''
  Attorney General John Ashcroft reiterated the President's message by 
warning that, ``We must not descend to the level of those who 
perpetrated [September 11th] violence by targeting individuals based on 
race, religion or national origin.''
  Now, it is the Senate's turn to speak out. We can, and must, do more 
to prevent these types of hateful threats and acts of violence, and 
passing The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act would do just that.
  I have seen, first-hand, the devastating impact hate crimes have on 
victims, their families and their communities. A hate crime divides 
neighborhoods and breeds a sense of mistrust and fear within a 
community.
  I am an original cosponsor of The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement 
Act because it is aimed at protecting citizens from crimes based on 
their real or perceived race, ethnicity, religion, gender, disability, 
or sexual orientation.
  The current hate crimes law simply does not go far enough. It covers 
only crimes motivated by bias on the basis of race, color, religion or 
national origin, and it only covers instances in which the victim was 
targeted because he or she was engaged in a federally-protected 
activity, such as voting, attending a public school, or if the crime 
occurred on federal property.
  The limitations of current Federal law prevent it from reaching many 
hate crimes where individuals are

[[Page S5334]]

killed or injured by just walking down the street or, in the case of 
Clint Risetter, where he was sleeping in his own home.
  On February 24, 2002, Clint Risetter awoke in his Santa Barbara 
apartment engulfed in flames and then tried to escape as he was 
burning. When firefighters arrived, they found him dead on his patio. 
Two days later, Martin Hartmann walked into the Santa Barbara Police 
Department and admitted to entering Clint's apartment, pouring gasoline 
on him as he slept, and then setting him on fire.
  Hartmann had known Clint for several months but had learned just 
recently that Clint was gay. He told police about his hatred toward 
gays and how he `` . . . decided to put [Clint] out of his misery,'' 
because he was gay. He believed that he was doing the right thing and 
that Clint deserved to die.
  Clint's murder is being prosecuted as a hate crime because it took 
place in California which has its own hate crimes law that includes 
sexual orientation. However, had it taken place in one of the 27 states 
that do not have hate crimes laws that include sexual orientation, 
Clint's family might not receive the justice they are entitled to.
  Gay men and lesbians are the third-largest hate-crime victim group in 
the country, the second-largest in California. They were the targets of 
more than 16 percent, or almost 1,300, of all hate crimes in 2000. Yet, 
current Federal hate crimes law does not include crimes against 
individuals because of their real or perceived sexual orientation.
  Current law does not extend basic civil rights protections to every 
American, only to a few and under certain circumstances.
  The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act would expand current 
Federal protections against hate crimes based on race, color, religion, 
and national origin, and amend the criminal code to cover hate crimes 
based on gender, disability, and sexual orientation.
  Extending the law would not provide special rights, it would ensure 
equal protection.
  In the past, we have made some progress in the sentencing and 
prosecution of hate crimes, but more needs to be done. I am proud to 
have sponsored The Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act which was 
signed into law in 1994, and has just recently been invoked for the 
first time.
  In 1996, Julianne Marie Williams and Laura Winans were discovered 
dead in Virginia's Shenandoah National Park, bound and gagged with 
their throats slit.
  In April of this year, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that 
The Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act would be invoked in the 
murder indictment against the perpetrator of this horrific crime, 
Darrell Rice, ``to ensure justice for victims of hate crimes.''
  Rice chose his victims based on their gender and sexual orientation. 
He even stated that he intentionally selected women to intimidate and 
assault ``because they are more vulnerable than men'' and that these 
two women ``deserved to die because they were lesbian whores.''
  With this indictment, the Federal Government has recognized the 
horrendous nature of this hate crime and that it should be prosecuted 
to the fullest extent of the law.
  However, prosecutors were only able to use The Hate Crimes Sentencing 
Enhancement Act because the two women were killed in a national park. 
If these murders had occurred in almost any other place in America, The 
Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act could not have been invoked and, 
again, justice might not have been ensured for the victims and their 
families.
  Enacting The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act would ensure that 
all hate crimes can be investigated and prosecuted no matter what the 
victims are doing when they are targeted and no matter where the crime 
is perpetrated.
  It would also significantly increase the ability of State and Federal 
law enforcement agencies to work together to solve and prevent hate 
crime.
  Until we enact this legislation, many hate crime victims and their 
families may not receive the justice they deserve.
  Those who are opposed to this legislation would say that we should 
leave it up to the states to legislate, enforce and prosecute hate 
crimes laws.
  To those, I would refer you to a May 3rd, 2002, New York Times 
editorial which put it best. It read:

       Congress has long recognized that the Federal Government 
     should play a role in pursuing certain crimes, like bank 
     robbery, kidnapping and racketeering, where the national 
     interest is great and where federal law enforcement is in a 
     good position to offer help to local police and prosecutors. 
     Crimes in which individuals are singled out because of their 
     race, religion or membership in other protected groups strike 
     directly at this nation's commitment to equality, and are 
     worthy of this sort of special federal involvement.

  Other opponents of this legislation often argue that any crime of 
violence is a hate crime and that the motives behind and harms caused 
by a hate crime are not relevant or distinguishable from other crimes. 
I disagree.
  The crimes perpetrated against Gerald Pimentel, Julianne Williams and 
Laura Winans, and Clint Risetter were carried out with a different 
intent and motive than other violent crimes.
  Unfortunately, they are characteristic of many hate crimes in 
America; where an attacker repeatedly beats, stabs or severely burns 
his victim as if he is removing whatever it is he hates out of the 
person.
  And the attacker feels justified in doing so, as if he is doing a 
great service to humanity by killing the person.
  Congress should expand the ability of the Federal Government to 
investigate these heinous crimes, and it should expand the ability to 
prosecute anyone who would target victims because of hate.
  Final passage of the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is long 
overdue. It is necessary for the safety and well being of millions of 
Americans.
  No American should be afraid to go to work or school because of his 
or her religion or national origin.
  No American should be afraid to go hiking for fear of a gender-
motivated attack.
  And certainly, no American should be afraid to sleep in their own 
home because of his or her sexual orientation.
  We have had strong bipartisan support for this legislation in the 
past, and it continues to receive bipartisan support. It now has 50 
cosponsors in the Senate and 206 cosponsors in the House.
  Today, I urge my colleagues to invoke cloture and vote in favor of 
this legislation. Let us now send a message to all Americans, that we 
will no longer turn a blind eye to hate crimes in this country.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I speak today because it is time for 
Congress to send its own message to those who would perpetrate hate 
crimes. That message should be that Federal law will no longer tolerate 
intolerance. Hate crimes are a stain on our national greatness, and it 
is time to stop that stain from spreading.
  Fighting hate crimes should not be a partisan issue. This is not 
about giving preferences to one group of people or another. I am 
talking about opposing violence. I am talking about opposing brutal 
crimes.
  When the fight for a hate crimes law first began in the early 1990s, 
many Americans questioned whether the problem was serious enough to 
warrant a specific law. But during the past decade, from one coast of 
the United States to the other, tragic events have proven that a law is 
badly needed.
  These crimes are so unspeakably ugly that the names of the victims 
are seared in our minds. James Byrd, Jr., dragged to his death because 
he was black. Matthew Shepard, beaten and left for dead because he was 
gay.
  My home State has been wounded by hate crimes, too. Oregonians will 
not forget Roxanne Ellis and her partner, Michelle Abdill, who were 
taped up and shot twice in the head in the back of their own pickup 
truck in Medford, Oregon in December 1995. Or Loni Okaruru, who was 
found last August bludgeoned to death in a field in Washington County, 
just outside Portland. Loni was a transsexual planning to undergo 
surgery. She had been beaten multiple times prior to that night.
  The Senate has passed hate crimes legislation unanimously several 
times, only to see it jettisoned in Conference with the other body. The 
consequences of all this legislative wrangling are

[[Page S5335]]

real. Each time Congress delays, more brutal, hate-driven deaths go 
unpunished. Each time Congress delays, more hate crimes happen, because 
the perpetrators have no fear of being punished for the true nature of 
their acts.
  The legislation before this body today will close the loopholes in 
Federal hate crimes law. It will give local law enforcement the full 
force of Federal resources in investigating and prosecuting crimes 
motivated by bias against sexual orientation, gender or disability.
  This legislation will not preempt State and local laws or 
authorities. But it will provide Federal backup to important local 
efforts. Based on testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, it 
is likely that Federal help will be sought by local authorities in a 
dozen cases a year.
  The message Congress sends in passing this bill is as important as 
the resources that will be made available to local law enforcement. It 
is time to limit the lengths to which people can go to infect our 
society with diseases like racism, and homophobia, and religious 
intolerance.
  Hate crimes are intentionally directed at victims because of who they 
are. They strike not just at a person but at the heart of a community, 
be it a black community, a gay community, or a disabled community. And 
when any one group is targeted, the entire American community feels the 
blow.
  The scourge of hate crimes must be confronted and eradicated. This 
legislation gives Congress the means to do so. I urge my colleagues to 
vote for cloture on the bill so that it can be enacted swiftly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I understand we have 3\1/2\ minutes remaining. I yield 2 
minutes to the Senator from Oregon, and I will take the last minute and 
a half.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. As I contemplate the conclusion of this debate, 
my own judgment is that it has been one of the poorer debates I have 
witnessed in the Senate. Until this moment, there has been very little 
participation in it. Frankly, I find that disappointing because, as the 
Senator from Minnesota pointed out, this is an emergency.
  I have to think of all of our gay brothers and sisters who may be 
watching, who cannot follow the confusion of Senate procedure, who will 
be very disappointed that once again we are thwarted from proceeding on 
a matter that is, in fact, very important. This is about domestic 
terrorism and about the Federal Government showing up to work.
  On a positive note, I say, as Senator Kennedy has said, we will be 
back and we will find another vehicle and another opportunity to 
proceed. I hope in the meantime we will reach out to Senator Hatch and 
others who have legitimate concerns to find ways to incorporate their 
concerns in an even better bill, and I hope we will do that in the 
spirit of the great example set in the New Testament. When confronted 
with a woman who had committed adultery, Christ himself was able to say 
in the public square he did not condemn, he did not endorse the 
lifestyle, but he did save a life. I think we ought to do the same as 
the Federal Government. It is in that spirit I intend to vote to invoke 
cloture.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the most fundamental right we have as 
citizens is to be able to live in a peaceful country without the fear 
of violence in our society. We have seen so many different instances 
where violence has come in our society based on race, religion, and 
national origin. We have, over a period of years, tried to free 
ourselves from that form of discrimination. That is what this is about: 
Making sure that every American, regardless of their race, religion, 
national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender, is going to 
have the full support and weight of the Justice Department to ensure 
they will be able to live in this country in peace and dignity and some 
security. That should be a responsibility of the Justice Department, 
and it should be a common responsibility for all Americans.
  That is not the state of affairs today, but this legislation will 
guarantee that. That is why it is so important. We are not prepared to 
exclude any different group. We want to include all Americans. That is 
why this legislation includes all of those groups. It is broadly 
supported by the law enforcement community, 22 attorneys general, 
former attorneys general from the United States, Republicans, and by 
virtually all the diverse religious leaders. They understand the moral 
issues, the moral compulsion, as well as the issues of liberty that are 
included. I hope we would now invoke cloture.
  So all Members know, obviously if the amendments are germane, they 
will be considered after cloture. But let us give this message to all 
Americans that they will live in a secure nation.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, 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 
           Schumer, Debbie Stabenow, Maria Cantwell, Daniel Akaka, 
           Ron Wyden, Carl Levin, Daniel Inouye, Joseph Lieberman, 
           E. Benjamin Nelson, Byron Dorgan, Patrick Leahy.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call under the rule is waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the 
Senate that debate on S. 625, a bill to provide Federal assistance to 
States and local jurisdictions to prosecute hate crimes, and for other 
purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), and the Senator from 
Idaho (Mr. Crapo) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 147 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--43

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Craig
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bond
     Crapo
     Helms
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 54, the nays are 
43. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, not having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote 
by which cloture was not invoked on S. 625, the hate crimes 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my severe 
disappointment in the Senate's failure to invoke cloture on the Local 
Law Enforcement Enhancement Act--also known as the

[[Page S5336]]

Hate Crimes bill. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill, but I am 
not proud of what the Senate did to that bill today.
  One of the things we try to do in this Chamber, as lawmakers, is to 
adopt laws that express and encode our values as a society--to, in some 
sense, put into law our aspirations for the kind of people we want to 
be. Clearly, one of the bedrock values, one of the fundamental values, 
of America is equality--equality of treatment before the law, equality 
of opportunity but, beyond that, a broader notion of tolerance in our 
society. It is part of what brought generations of immigrants to this 
country--the idea that they would be judged on their personal merit, 
not on anything related to their personal status or characteristics.
  Starting with our Declaration of Independence--our nation's 
documentary explication of the values underpinning our experiment in 
self-government--our country's leaders have laid out a vision of a 
nation born and bred in notions of tolerance and equality. We know for 
a certainty that our nation did not live up to that vision when it was 
first articulated, but in each successive generation we have tried hard 
to meet the ideals we set out for ourselves. And in each successive 
generation we have come a bit closer to meeting that goal. Sometimes, 
obviously, we do not achieve those aspirations and we are intolerant 
toward one another. Then the law has not only the opportunity but the 
obligation to step in and to try to create incentives or deterrents 
toward the worst forms of intolerance, even hatred. That is what this 
bill is about.
  Clearly, over the decades our Nation has built a strong and proud 
history of protecting the civil rights of Americans who are subject to 
racial, religious, gender-based, or disability-based discrimination in 
the workplace, in housing, in life. In more recent times, many of us 
here in the Chamber have worked to try to extend some of those 
protections to cover discrimination based on sexual orientation.
  This bill stands solidly in that tradition and is just one more step 
on our nation's path to make its vision of itself a reality. Like the 
civil rights laws of which we are all so proud, this bill proclaims 
that there is certain conduct that is unacceptable to us as a nation. 
This bill takes Federal criminal jurisdiction and extends it to the 
prosecution and punishment of those who are accused of having caused 
bodily injury or death based on an animus, a hatred that comes from 
feelings about the victim's race, religion, nationality, gender, 
disability, or sexual orientation. In other words, this is another way 
for our society to express our disdain, to put it mildly, at acts of 
violence committed based on a person's race, religion, nationality, 
gender, disability, or sexual orientation.
  It is also a way, as is traditionally the province of criminal law, 
not just to speak to the common moral consensus of our society about 
what is right and what is wrong--that, after all, is what the law is 
all about--but also by punishing those who are proven to have committed 
the wrongs and to deter others in the future from committing those same 
acts that society generally finds abhorrent.
  Current law expresses this but in a way that is limited. It permits 
Federal prosecutions of hate crimes resulting from death or bodily 
injury if two conditions are met: First, the crime must be motivated by 
the victim's race, religion, national origin, or color. Second, the 
perpetrator must have intended to prevent the victim from exercising 
certain specific federally protected rights. Of course, I support this 
law and the goals that it embraces: The Federal prosecution of people 
who inflict serious harm on others because of the color of the victim's 
skin, the sound of the victim's voice, a foreign accent, or the 
particular place in which the victim worships God. In short, these are 
crimes committed because the victim is different in some way from the 
perpetrator. Such crimes, I conclude, should be eligible for federal 
prosecution.
  But the current federal law is too limited to address many of the 
hate crimes that are deserving of federal prosecution, and we need for 
the law to more fully express some of the principles I talked about at 
the outset: equality, tolerance, doing everything we can to stop the 
most abhorrent acts of violence against people based on their 
characteristics. I think we ought to add to the list of prohibited 
bases of these crimes, crimes committed against someone because of 
gender, because of sexual orientation, and because of disability. 
Adding these categories--gender, sexual orientation, disability--seems 
to me to be an appropriate extension of the basic concept of equal 
protection under the law. As the law now stands, it also imposes a 
requirement, a bar to prosecution relating to race, color, religion, 
and national origin that we ought to change, which is that the law is 
only triggered if the victim is prevented from exercising a specific 
type of federally protected activity.
  There are obviously crimes that are committed based on hatred that 
are triggered in cases other than the prevention of the exercise of a 
specific federally protected activity, thus, the provision of this bill 
that would eliminate this obstacle and, therefore, broaden the ability 
of Federal prosecutors to pursue crimes motivated by racial or 
religious hatred. It would still, however, require prosecutors to show 
a connection to interstate commerce.
  Just as importantly for those concerned that this bill unnecessarily 
intrudes upon State prerogatives, the bill also includes language 
requiring the Justice Department, prior to indicting a defendant for a 
hate crime, to certify not just that there is reasonable cause to 
believe that the crime was motivated by improper bias, but also that 
the U.S. Attorney has consulted with local law enforcement officials 
and determined one of four things--that the state doesn't have or won't 
exercise jurisdiction to prosecute the crime, that the State has asked 
for federal prosecution, that the State does not object to federal 
prosecution or that the State has completed its prosecution and the 
Justice Department wants to initiate a subsequent prosecution. This 
process ensures both that we will avoid an unnecessary overlap between 
the exercise of State and federal jurisdiction and that those in local 
law enforcement, closest to the alleged crime, will have the first 
opportunity to pursue those committing these heinous crimes.
  At the same time, it makes clear that in cases where federal 
prosecutors determine that federal prosecution is essential to 
vindicate federal values, this statute will be available to them. This 
certification process should lay to rest the concerns some of my 
colleagues have who fear that Federal prosecutors will interfere with 
State efforts to bring perpetrators of hate crimes to justice.
  At a time when so much else is going on here in the Capitol with the 
high profile issues of this session, this bill brings us back to 
America's first principles of equality and tolerance and challenges 
each of us to think about the appropriate and constructive role that 
the law can play, understanding that the law can't control the hearts 
of people in this country.
  Ultimately, we have to count on people's own sense of judgment and 
tolerance and, hopefully, the effect that other forces in their lives 
will have on them to make them fair and tolerant, such as their 
families, their schools, their religions, their faith. But this bill is 
here to say in the cases when all of those other sources of good 
judgment and values in society fail to stifle the hatred that sometimes 
does live in people's hearts and souls, to say that this is 
unacceptable in America and to attach to that statement the sanction of 
law, hoping that we thereby express the higher aspirations we have for 
this great country of ours as it continues over the generations to try 
to realize the noble ideals expressed by our founders in the 
Declaration of Independence, but also to put clearly into the force of 
law the punishment that comes with law when one goes so far over the 
line to commit an act of violence based on hatred, hoping thereby that 
we will deter such heinous acts from occurring again in the future.
  The Senate had a chance today to bring us one step closer to making 
the law more closely reflect our founding vision. The Senate should 
have taken that step. It is a truly deep disappointment that it did not 
do so. This will not, though, be our last chance. The bill's opponents 
will not be able to hide behind procedural posturing forever. This bill 
will come back again this

[[Page S5337]]

year to the Senate and when it does, I believe that we have no choice 
but to pass it. Our values as a nation will allow for no less.
  I thank the distinguished Chair. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________