[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 53 (Thursday, April 22, 2004)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E620-E621]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   REINTRODUCTION OF LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 22, 2004

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the bipartisan 
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2003, along with 
Representatives Pelosi, Skelton, Frank, Baldwin, Ros-Lehtinen, Kolbe, 
Foley, Shays, and more than 170 other original cosponsors.
  There is no more important time in the history of this Nation, since 
the civil rights era, to pass legislation that sanctions hate violence. 
The FBI has reported a dramatic increase in hate motivated violence 
since the September 11 terrorist attacks which has sent a wave of fear 
through our immigrant communities. While the overall crime rate has 
grown by approximately 2 percent, the number of reported hate crimes 
have increased dramatically from 8,063 in 2000 to 9,730 in 2001, a 20.7 
percent increase.
  Although it is unclear how many of the 2001 reported hate crimes were 
directed at individuals in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist 
attacks, we do know that the number of reported ``anti-Islamic'' crimes 
increased from 28 in 2000 to 481 in 2001, which represents an increase 
of over 1600 percent. In addition, the number of hate crimes directed 
at individuals on the basis of their national origin/ethnicity more 
than doubled--from 911 in 2000 to

[[Page E621]]

2,098 in 2001. Racial bias again represented the largest percentage of 
bias-motivated incidents (44.9 percent), followed by Ethnic/National 
Origin Bias (21.6 percent), Religious Bias (18.8 percent), Sexual 
Orientation Bias (14.3 percent), and Disability Bias (0.4 percent).
  While many of these crimes do and should get prosecuted at the State 
and local levels, many do not. Current law limits Federal jurisdiction 
over hate crimes to incidents that occur during the exercise of 
federally protected activities, such as voting, and does not permit 
Federal involvement in a range of cases involving crimes motivated by 
bias against the victim's sexual orientation, gender or disability. 
This loophole is particularly significant given the fact that four 
States have no hate crime laws on the books, and another 21 States have 
extremely weak hate crimes laws.
  If enacted, this legislation would give the Federal Government the 
jurisdictional tools necessary to assist local law enforcement in 
fighting the scourge of hate violence. In instances where State and 
local governments do not have the capacity to prosecute such crimes, 
the legislation creates a Federal backstop--the ability for the local 
U.S. attorney to ensure that justice will be done, deterring hate 
violence regardless of whether the victim happened to be engaged in a 
``federally protected'' activity. And even in those cases, Federal 
prosecution can only proceed if approved by the Attorney General.
  The gruesome, hateful murders of James Byrd and Matthew Shepard 
remain symbols of the incidence of hate violence that have only 
worsened since their deaths. Hate crimes do not only visit unspeakable 
violence on the immediate victims, but also send a message of a desired 
apartheid that its sponsors want to violently enforce.
  The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2004 is a 
constructive and measured response to a problem that continues to 
plague our Nation--violence motivated by prejudice. Our primary desire 
here is to ensure that these crimes get prosecuted by State and local 
governments more effectively. That's why the bill authorizes funds to 
support State investigative and prosecutorial efforts. The bill is not 
and should not be treated as a partisan exercise. As a Congress, we 
should be in unanimous agreement that there will be ``zero-tolerance'' 
for the hate. This bill takes the first step in that direction.

                          ____________________