Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 76 (Tuesday, June 11, 2002)

[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.

____________________