Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 119 (Tuesday, September 28, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 119 (Tuesday, September 28, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H7689-H7698]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4200, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4200) to authorize appropriations for
fiscal year 2005 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department
of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for
the Armed Forces, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference
asked by the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.

Motion to Instruct Offered by Ms. Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:

Ms. Pelosi moves that the managers on the part of the House
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4200 be instructed
to agree to the provisions contained in title XXXIV of the
Senate amendment (relating to the enhancement of local law
enforcement and the prohibition of hate crimes).

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Feeney) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer a motion to instruct conferees
to the defense authorization bill to agree to the hate crimes
prevention provisions contained in the Senate bill.
I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), our ranking member
on the Committee on Armed Services, for his commitment to including
hate crimes prevention provisions in this bill.
Before I speak to the motion, I want to speak to the excellent
credentials of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). Every man and
woman in uniform in our country, whether regular service or Reserves or
National Guard, owes a deep debt of gratitude, as does our entire
country, for his commitment to the national security of our country and
to his commitment for the well-being of our troops in the United States
and certainly in harm's way.
I have seen firsthand the respect that they have for him, both at
Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, in his own district, and in Iraq
and Afghanistan, where we have seen them in the theater of war. I say
to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), thank you for your
magnificent leadership and service to our country.
Madam Speaker, hate crimes have no place in America. I think we can
all agree to that. All Americans have a right to feel safe in their
communities. Yet FBI statistics continue to demonstrate a high level of
hate crimes in our country. Federal hate crimes prevention legislation
is the right thing to do, and it is long overdue.
Some opponents argue that there is no need for Federal hate crimes
prevention legislation because assault and

[[Page H7690]]

murder are already crimes. However, when individuals are targeted for
violence because of their race, sexual orientation, religion, national
origin, gender or disability, the assailant intends to send a message
to all members of that community. The message is, you are not welcome.
When violence is visited upon people because of who they are, the
color of their skin, how they worship and who they love, we all suffer.
When this happens to one of us, it happens to all of us.
We all will remember very sadly the brutal murders of James Byrd in
Texas, Matthew Shepard in Wyoming, Waqar Hasan in Texas, and Gwen
Araujo in my own State of California.
Current law limits Federal jurisdictions to ``federally protected''
activities such as voting and does not permit Federal jurisdiction over
violent crimes motivated by bias against the victim's sexual
orientation, gender, or disability.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), our distinguished ranking
member on the Committee on the Judiciary and a great leader in civil
liberties and protecting the American people and public safety, has
introduced H.R. 4204, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act, to
expand Federal jurisdiction to include hate crimes. Along with 175 of
my colleagues, I am proud to cosponsor his bill; and I commend the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his untiring leadership and
commitment to this and so many other issues. Thank you for your
leadership.
When State and local law enforcement do not have the capacity to
prosecute hate crimes, this bill would permit Federal prosecution
regardless of whether a federally protected activity is involved.
This legislation would increase the ability of local, State, and
Federal law enforcement agencies to solve and prevent a wide range of
violent hate crimes. Numerous law enforcement organizations, including
the International Association of Chiefs of Police, support the need for
Federal hate crimes legislation.
Four years ago, both Houses of Congress supported the hate crimes
prevention provisions on a bipartisan basis as part of the defense
authorization bill, only to see those provisions stripped by the
conference committee. We cannot let that happen again.
This June the Senate, the other body, adopted an amendment to include
language identical to H.R. 4204 in its version of the defense
authorization bill on a strong bipartisan vote.
Today we have the opportunity to put the House on record in favor of
Federal hate crimes prevention provisions. We must not allow the
provisions to be stripped in conference again. We must continue to
fight for justice, hope, and freedom by ensuring that hate crimes
prevention provisions are enacted into law. That would be a true and
fitting memorial to James Byrd, Matthew Shepard, Waqar Hasan, Gwen
Araujo and so many others who have died because of ignorance and
intolerance.
I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct.
Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and ask unanimous consent that he control said
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. FEENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, whatever any one of us thinks about the merits of the
specific language, it does not belong in a defense authorization bill.
If these provisions were introduced as a freestanding piece of
legislation, they would have been referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary; and that is where they should appropriately be dealt with,
not in a conference on a wholly unrelated topic.
Second and more importantly, let me address the merits of the
proposal before us. All of us, as the gentlewoman from California
pointed out, all of us deplore hate crimes. The perpetrators of such
crimes deserve the harshest punishment under the law as the law allows.
The evidence indicates that they are receiving such punishments under
the current law in a wide majority of the cases.
However, this really is misnamed as a hate crimes piece of
legislation. What it ought to be called is an unequal protection
proposal, because what this bill basically does is to say that the
dignity and the property and the person and the life of some Americans
gets less protection under the law if we pass this amendment than other
American lives. That sort of unequal treatment is exactly what the 14th
amendment was designed to prohibit, in my view.
I completely understand the positions of those who want this
legislation, but I fear they have not fully thought through the
potential consequences of adopting this legislation.
When someone is murdered because the killer does not like the color
of their skin, that killer deserves harsh punishment; but the killer
deserves it because the victim is a human, not because of the killer's
hateful thoughts.
We must honor the victim's humanity and do justice, irrespective of
the race, gender, the sexual orientation, or any other given trait. It
is the victim's humanity that matters here. Nothing that the killer has
thought about the victim can alter the value of that human's life which
has been taken.
This proposal does not target hate crimes; it just specifies certain
types of hate crimes for special treatment. I think we go down the
wrong road here when we value certain lives differently because of
race, gender or other factors, and believe that the hate crimes
provisions tend to do that. That road leads to all sorts of mischief
that I do not like to think the well-meaning sponsors of this proposal
intend to accomplish.
So I ask that we continue to honor the value that all human life is
precious, and value it no matter what the person's skin color is, no
matter what some vicious criminal thought of that person's skin color.
Justice ultimately ought to turn on the fundamental worth of the
human being and not the thoughts of the specific criminal. Article XIV
of our Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. But in
this regard, I would ask what about other groups that have not been
targeted for special protection under this piece of legislation? What
about children? What about senior citizens? What about the infirm,
disabled, teachers, seniors, mailmen, women, veterans, and even public
servants who may be the victims of the ultimate hate crime, terrorism?
The same spirit that hate compels a criminal to commit a crime due to
one's race, gender or religious persuasion also may compel him or her
to commit a crime against anyone in these and many other groups. Yet
these others are excluded from protection. Under this hate crime
proposal, they are protected and they are treated unequally.
So we oppose the inclusion of these provisions. The so-called hate
crimes provision is a political feel-good statement that is anti-
prosecution and anti-law enforcement and makes it less likely that
violent criminals will ultimately be convicted and punished.
The bill will make it easier for criminals to create a shadow of a
doubt and evade conviction for certain types of crimes if the
prosecutor decides to roll the dice and include the necessity to prove
the burden of intent based on race or the other special categories set
out in the bill. It increases the burden on the prosecution to prove
one additional element, and it increases the opportunities that
criminals and their defense attorneys will have to create that certain
shadow of a doubt and ultimately escape justice altogether.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield such time as he
may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton),
the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services.
(Mr. SKELTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for
yielding me time.
I do rise in support of this motion to instruct conferees on the
National Defense Authorization Act.
Madam Speaker, our Nation has seen far too many cases of violent
criminal acts related to prejudice, bigotry, and

[[Page H7691]]

intolerance. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has reported a
significant number of cases involving violence directed against a
member of a religious, ethnic, disabled, race-based, or gender-specific
association. Statistics show that nearly 8,000 acts of violence have
occurred annually since 1994. Society cannot and should not tolerate
the cowardly, mean-spirited, and hateful acts that we call hate crimes.
Indeed, such hate-based acts have a deeper impact on society than
many other crimes. They are injurious to the community, and they are
often committed by offenders affiliated with large extended groups
operating across State lines.
I think all of us at one point or another in our lives have seen the
ugly face of prejudice, bigotry, and discrimination. When hatred is a
motivating factor in the commission of a crime, I believe it should be
an aggravating factor that is taken into account in the sentencing
process.
Moreover, Madam Speaker, as a former trial lawyer and State
prosecuting attorney, I do not view the Senate proposal lightly.
Although the ability to prosecute crimes against individuals exists
today, the Senate bill would provide prosecutors with more tools with
which to fight crimes and in which bias, prejudice, and discrimination
are motivating factors.
The Senate bill is narrowly tailored. A hate crime would occur only
if the person charged deliberately committed or tried to commit an act
of violence resulting in bodily injury to another person. In addition,
the Senate language only speaks to crimes involving the use of fire, a
firearm, an explosive, or an incendiary device. So this is not a case
which would criminalize free speech or would address a broad range of
conduct.
Madam Speaker, agreeing to the Senate language is simply the right
thing to do, and I urge my colleagues to support this instruction.
Mr. FEENEY. Madam Speaker, before I yield, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the esteemed gentleman from Missouri's
comments. I happen to agree that in terms of sentencing, there ought to
be consideration of certain aggravating factors like hate and bigotry,
as he expressed.

{time} 1645

I believe that under the current Federal sentencing guidelines for
virtually all, if not all Federal crimes, that is exactly what the
guidelines permit now, but they do not create the burden of a separate
element.
Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time.
This is an issue, I think, that moves some of us to come to the floor
to talk about it, because it sends us down a path that is awfully hard
to get back from.
One of the questions that we need to answer here before this Congress
is, what is a hate crime? And that question seems real simple, but the
answer to that question is almost always, any crime committed against
any individual, especially a violent crime, which requires a certain
amount of hatred or jealously, a certain kind of emotional attachment
or emotional reaction from the perpetrator towards the victim. I do not
know how you could assault or murder or rape someone without having
anger or hatred or fury in you.
So I will say that any of these crimes here that we are talking about
with regard to this are all hate crimes.
The question is, what is not a hate crime? I do not have much of an
answer to that, unless it be a crime against property rather than
people, but I do not believe you can commit a crime against people and
not feel an emotional effect one way or another on their personality.
So we have two significant cases here that were mentioned by the
gentlewoman, the Minority Leader, the James Byrd case and the Matthew
Shepard case. In both of those cases, there were murders committed in a
most violent, hateful fashion. Also, there have been many other murders
committed in this country in a violent, hateful fashion, but the
perpetrators of those crimes, the murderers of James Byrd and Matthew
Shepard, were quickly apprehended, prosecuted and sentenced to death.
What more would we choose to do to people who have committed hate
crimes than sentence them to the ultimate penalty, which I believe they
deserve most vigorously?
Another misconception that I believe is here is that the list of
those categories that would be used to define hate crimes, that list
is: actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin,
ethnicity, gender, disability or sexual orientation of any person. That
list sounds suspiciously like title VII of the Civil Rights Act, except
it has been amended in a couple of places. In one place, it has
replaced the word ``sex'' with the word ``gender.'' Gender is what you
think you are; sex is what you physiologically are. So only the person
who is the bearer of gender can know what their gender is, and anything
else that can be an independently verified, immutable characteristic is
what sex is. Sexual orientation is another thing. That is self-
identifying.
So we would put people in jail or potentially execute them for crimes
committed when they may not even know the circumstances. Those two
words are not legally sustainable, and they send us down a very
dangerous path.
There is a question of federalism. The States are to be reserved
everything that is not specifically designed in the Constitution, and
yet we are reaching into the States' province here and stepping across
them and saying, but we know better here in Congress, better than you
know in Wyoming, better than you know in Texas, better than you know in
Iowa. I believe it is better off left up to the States. But I would
oppose hate crimes in the States because they are discriminatory in
their nature. They discriminate in favor of certain groups and against
other groups, and sometimes, they backlash.
If we look statistically, and I have seen some of those in my
internet blog searches, about how the hate crimes have backlashed, and
there are more Caucasians now, American whites, that are using hate
crimes against minorities. Where you have a prosecutor who is willing
to go down that path, you are going to see this happen. There will also
be the backlash on the prosecutor. When that prosecutor chooses to
prosecute a crime and call it a hate crime, some of the people in the
public will say, no, that is racist, that is bigoted for one reason or
another. Or, if he chooses not to, there is going to be the challenge
that he decided not to for discriminatory reasons. It opens up a whole
other world here.
I would just boil it down to this, that we are all equal under the
law. This Nation is a nation of equal rights for individuals. When God
created us, he did not draw a distinction between us, and neither
should we in our Federal law.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, this is the only civil rights measure
that we will be considering in this Congress, and it is the first civil
rights measure, as distinguished from voter rights, that we have
handled on this floor since 1968 when 18 U.S.C. 242 was amended.
Please, let us understand that we have witnessed a dramatic increase
in hate-motivated violence. The definitions are very clear. To my
friends who have wondered what a hate crime is, there are 8,000 hate
crimes each year.
I want my colleagues to know that we have already approved of this.
The House has voted on this measure. The Senate has voted on this
measure. And now, we are doing the same thing again.
For all of my colleagues who want to know where law enforcement
stands on this, please know that the Police Foundation endorses the
measure. The National Sheriff's Association endorses this measure. The
International Association of Chiefs of Police endorses the measure. The
Police Executive Research Forum likewise. So we have law enforcement
realizing that we need a comprehensive law banning hate crimes, and
what this bill essentially does is modify the Federal nexus that is
connected with it.
Please, let us understand that this is the only opportunity we will
have to go on record to show that we want to assist States in
prosecuting their hate

[[Page H7692]]

crimes by re-endorsing and re-supporting this measure.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FEENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman
from Florida for yielding me this time.
I rise in opposition to this motion by the gentlewoman from
California. I believe sincerely all violent crimes are hate crimes
regardless of race or any other classification.
My concern is, today, that as we begin to move down this road, what
will happen to freedom of speech in this country? Some people might
say, well, you are missing the big picture. Maybe I am, but I can tell
my colleagues what has happened in Sweden already. A minister who spoke
from the Bible and talked about certain lifestyles not being acceptable
in the Bible spent a month in jail for speaking out and preaching.
I believe in compassion. I believe in respect. I believe in the civil
rights of each and every one of us who lives in this great Nation. But
my concern sincerely is that we might have it one day, as they do in
other countries that have outlawed the use of Roman Catholic teachings
and also Islamic teachings about certain lifestyles that are not
acceptable based on their religion, and I would hate to see that happen
in this great Nation.
Yes, I want to see every crime that is committed against any
American, no matter what their lifestyle is, I want to see that person
who committed the crime to go to jail. I believe in the death penalty,
as my voting record would say. But I am saying here today, if we pass
this motion and send this back, the Senate language, we will begin to
go down the road of where one day, I am afraid; it has happened in
Canada, it has happened in Sweden. I am afraid, one day, what we will
see happen in this country is that certain religious leaders will have
their free speech threatened, and I do not want to see that happen.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), a senior
member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I am torn. I cannot decide
which argument has less merit. There was the gentleman from Florida who
said, do not take it up on this bill; it is in the jurisdiction of the
Committee on the Judiciary. It is in the dungeon of the Committee on
the Judiciary. I envy the gentleman's ability to say that without
smiling. This bill is introduced, and it is sent to the Committee on
the Judiciary. And that committee, of which he is a member,
consistently refuses to take any action on it. Of course, it would be
better if the Committee on the Judiciary did its duty and had a markup
and let us vote on the bill.
The Committee on the Judiciary tyrannically refuses to deal with the
bill. That is bad enough. But it literally adds insult to the
democratic process to injury of the democratic process to refuse to act
on the bill, and then complain when people find another way around.
This is like locking somebody up, and she escapes through your
backyard, and you charge her with trespassing. We have found a way out
of your prison, and that bothers you. How can anyone seriously argue
that, having refused to let the bill be subjected to the normal
processes, we are the ones who are at fault because we have found
another way to bring it up?
And then we have the gentleman from North Carolina who said this is a
violation of free speech. I guess it is easy when you do not read the
bill. This bill criminalizes actions that consist of violence against
individuals. It allows the Attorney General to enter under certain
limited circumstances, if it is a Federal crime of violence under the
Federal U.S. Code. It allows certain other things if there is an act of
bodily injury or an attempt to cause bodily injury. Nothing in here
criminalizes speech. In fact, when people start talking about Sweden,
it is a pretty good indication that they do not have anything to talk
about with regard to the law that we are voting on in America. By the
way, America, unlike Sweden, has a first amendment, and the Supreme
Court would have banned that if anybody tried to.
Finally, to refute that argument, which is without any merit
whatsoever; I mean, sometimes we get close questions here. That one has
no merit. There is nothing remotely in this bill that threatens
anybody's speech. But here is the proof of it, and it also is a sign of
the gross inconsistency of those on the other side. We are not starting
down any path today, except the path of their illogic. What we are
doing is adding a category to existing Federal categories. There are
already on the books laws that create hate crimes. It is not the case
that every crime is treated equally.
By the way, there was one category of people, and violence against
them is much more seriously treated than violence against anybody else.
If you are so offended by that, where is your motion to amend the law
and take away the statute that says it is a super Federal crime to
assault one of us. If a Member of Congress and a private citizen are
walking down the street and they are both assaulted, it is a much more
serious crime against the Member of Congress. Where is your
consistency? If you mean what you say, why have you not gone after
that, or is it okay if you are protected, Madam Speaker?
And then we have race on the books, and we have religion. Has anybody
ever found a case where they say, well, once you do this, someone's
free speech will be impugned? Are you telling me there are no racists
in America? Are you telling me that no one makes racially offensive
remarks? People do. And none of them, none of them have ever been
prosecuted for hate speech.
So, in fact, you deny the reality, Madam Speaker, when people say
this, that there are already on the books certain categories that are
treated as hate crimes. None of them have led to there being any
impugning of people's free speech.
Then the question is, why do we want to do this? In the first place,
no one is saying that if you were violently assaulted, you will not be
protected by the law. Why do we add an additional element if it is a
hate crime? And here is the reason: When people are going out and
singling out people because of their race or their color; and, by the
way, if people who are white are being assaulted by people of another
race because of their race, that is a hate crime, and it ought to be
treated as such. I do not share the view that that is a bad thing. It
is wrong for thugs to tyrannize people because of that, and it is worse
than another crime for this reason.
If some individual is walking down the street and is randomly
assaulted, he or she is traumatized. But if another individual is
singled out because of her race or religion or sexual orientation or
gender, then it is not simply the individual who has been assaulted but
others who share that characteristic who are put in fear.
We do have a particular problem. The gentleman said, well, you are
saying gender instead of sex. Yes, there are people who are
transgendered in our society. They are sadly often victimized. They are
often victims of violence. Yes, I think it is a good idea to come to
their aid. And if the gentleman thinks it is a mistake to go to the aid
of people who are transgendered who are more often than others
victimized and who are put in fear for that, then we do disagree, and I
welcome the chance to vote on it.

{time} 1700

Mr. FEENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, in addition to the other arguments that we have put
forth saying that it is just wrong to treat people unequally in terms
of the protection we give victims, focusing on victims, I want to tell
my colleagues a lot of us believe very deeply that, as with respect to
every individual American before the law and before God, we are equal
and ought to be treated equal and certainly our laws ought to include
that.
What we oppose is the fact that what this bill does is specifies
certain people for extra protection under the law. It necessarily says
other people are not going to get that extra protection, and it tends
to do the very things that a lot

[[Page H7693]]

of my friends on the other side say they do not want to do. It tends to
divide Americans. It tends to Balkanize Americans. It tends to separate
Americans. It tends to put hyphens in front of all Americans, because
if one does not have a hyphen in front their name they are not eligible
for protection under this piece of legislation.
Once again, this is misnamed. This is not a hate crimes proposal.
This is an unequal protection under the law proposal.
Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
the time.
Does he then seek to undo the Federal law that singles out race and
religion currently for a protection of this sort? If he thinks it is
wrong to do division, does he oppose the existence of those laws and do
we expect to see a law repealing these?
Mr. FEENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
No, but I will support my colleague when he files the bill to take
away the special protections of Members.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, why not race and religion?
Mr. FEENEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his question.
The point of this is that we should not be giving certain people
special protections that we are not giving all Americans, and the
gentleman earlier stated that he thinks it is very different for a thug
to come along and batter, for example, somebody because of their race
or their color or their ethnicity than it is to beat up somebody just
on the street because of the fear it creates.
Madam Speaker, I can tell my colleagues that a lot of senior
citizens, a lot of little old ladies carrying their purses from and to
the market, one example, who are not protected by this bill live in
fear every time they have to go out on to the streets. All of us
deserve equal protection.
What we want to do in opposing this is make sure all Americans get
the equal protection they are entitled to under the law.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2\1/4\ minutes to
the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), an excellent member of
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of our Democratic
leader's motion.
It is tragic that hate crimes occur, but they do; and it is
irresponsible and naive to deny that there are people out there who
seek to commit violence against others because they are gay, lesbian or
transgender, because they are female, because they have a disability.
It happens far too often, and we must not be silent about it.
Enactment of Federal hate crimes protections is important for both
substantive and symbolic reasons. The legal protections are essential
to our system of ordered justice; but on a symbolic basic, it is
important that Congress enunciate clearly that hate-motivated violence
based on gender, sexual orientation, or disability is wrong. Because,
quite frankly, too much of what we have been doing in this Chamber
conveys the message that we really do not believe in full equality for
all, and it is sort of like a wink and a nod that maybe a little
discrimination is okay.
I want to speak briefly about why hate crimes differ from other
violent crimes. A senior Republican Member of the other body said a few
years ago, ``A crime committed not just to harm an individual, but out
of motive of sending a message of hatred to an entire community is
appropriately punished more harshly, or in a different manner, than
other crimes.''
Hate crimes are different than other violent crimes because they seek
to instill fear and terror throughout a whole community, be it burning
a cross in someone's yard, the burning of a synagogue, or a rash of
physical assaults near a gay community center. This sort of domestic
terrorism demands a strong Federal response because this country was
founded on the premise that persons should be free to be who they are
without fear of violence.
The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act should stay in the defense
authorization bill. For too long this body has failed to act to prevent
or respond to hate crimes. We have the opportunity today to say
something and do something about it.
I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this motion.
Mr. FEENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I agree with the gentlewoman from Wisconsin that the Americans she
cited ought to be free from the fear of violence whether it is because
of their color, their ethnicity, their race, their religious beliefs.
But what about American veterans? Should they not be free from the fear
of violence? What about senior citizens? They are not protected by this
bill. How about America's children as they come to and from school
every day. Is there anything in this that gives same protection it
gives the special treated classes? Is there anything that protects our
teachers in this bill and then protects the police officers that patrol
our streets in this bill? Is there anything that protects a lot of
Americans who have served their country and are just going about their
business every day?
Madam Speaker, it is the position of those who oppose this unequal
protection proposal that all Americans deserve equal protection under
the law.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a former Secretary of State
in his State.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
the time.
Madam Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on Armed Services,
I rise today to register my strong support to maintain the Senate's
hate crimes provisions in the defense authorization conference report.
The brutal murders of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd graphically
demonstrated to the Nation the horrors of violence motivated by hate
and bigotry. In 2002 alone, law enforcement agencies reported 7,462
bias-motivated criminal incidents. Nearly half of those crimes were
targeted at the victim's race with biases against religion, sexual
orientation and ethnicity, also common reasons for violence. Fifty
people were even harmed because of a physical or mental disability.
Unfortunately, four States have no laws against hate crimes, and the
statutes in another 17 States fall far short of full protection. Even
in a State such as Rhode Island, where we have strong laws against hate
crimes, law enforcement officials recorded 38 cases of bias-motivated
offenses in 2002. Because current Federal hate crimes laws cover only
crimes motivated by racial, religious or ethnic prejudice, Congress
simply must expand the definition to include violence based on gender,
sexual orientation and disability, and promote the aggressive
prosecution of all hate crimes.
Madam Speaker, no American should be targeted for violence based on
prejudice; and we must, therefore, pass the Local Law Enforcement Hate
Crimes Prevention Act which would provide Federal assistance to State
and local authorities in prosecuting hate crimes. Additionally, the
legislation would expand the Federal definition of hate crimes.
As a person with a disability, one of the categories that would be
covered under the expanded definition, I know how important it is that
our Nation protect all those that could be singled out for violence
based on personal characteristics.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this motion to
instruct conferees.
Mr. FEENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 9\1/4\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for the time, and let
me start by saying that we all are opposed to hate crimes. They are a
terrible thing, and any legislation that had a positive effect on
stopping hate crimes I would be here supporting.
I sincerely believe by looking at this legislation that this
legislation could not only interfere with our ability to, as a
practical matter and in an effective manner, prosecute hate crimes; it

[[Page H7694]]

also would have some serious consequences for our enforcement of other
laws which now exist.
I say also say that, first of all, there is already Federal hate
crime legislation on the book, and I think it is well and narrowly
drafted and takes care of the situation. So saying that, let me give my
colleagues reasons why I feel that this legislation is a step back, not
a step forward.
Look at this legislation. Hate crime, the language is so overbroad
that hate is not even required. Nowhere in the legislation does it talk
about hate. What that would do is that hate or any other type of animus
is not even an element of this so-called hate crime legislation. It is
not even in here. So if someone commits some certain broadly defined
acts, and it says because if someone commits an act because of
someone's race, sex, disability or sexual orientation, it violates this
vague law.
If someone commits a crime because of someone's race because of
someone's sex, is not all rape committed because of someone's sex?
Could not that argument be made? So are we suddenly saying that all
rape cases, almost all rape cases will be federalized? I mean, only a
few rapists at the very most are indifferent to the sex of their
victims. So we would be federalizing all rape cases.
Even assume that there is a need for a Federal hate crimes law. This
is a poorly drafted bill. It should be debated. It should be amended
significantly in committee before it is considered by the full House
and the Senate because of this one thing, because we are fixing to
federalize all rape cases.
Second, I believe that this actually could have a negative effect on
our national security. Let me tell my colleagues why I believe that.
This proposed legislation would swamp Federal law enforcement
responsibilities; and in doing so, it would certainly distract them
from some of our national goals. Now, more than ever, Federal law
enforcement officers and prosecutors must concentrate their scarce
resources on combating national threats or uniquely Federal crimes, and
hate crime, there is not anything uniquely Federal about that. Those
that commit them are doing it because of hate, not because of some
Federal jurisdiction.
Terrorism, we have got our hands full of terrorism. On the Federal
level with kidnapping cases, with auto theft, with espionage cases, to
divert all our resources over to hate crimes and take them away from
our State and local prosecutors and our State prosecutors is a
tremendous redeployment of our resources.
I also fear that Federal officials might selectively enforce the law.
The only other option for Federal officials other than seriously
abandoning their other vital responsibilities is to enforce hate crime
laws in a highly selective way. That increases the risk of politicizing
prosecutions. If we federalize all these vague types of crimes, like
all rape cases, they are going to have to pick and choose which ones
they prosecute. Using the criminal enforcement agencies for political
or ideological purposes, picking and choosing which cases to prosecute,
by its very definition that is tyrannical.
A very important point, I think this legislation is going to
undermine State and local criminal enforcement. Because of the broad
expanse of Federal hate crime laws in this definition, I think it
undermines State and local efforts to fight crime in several ways. It
would undermine the morale of our frontline State and local law
enforcement officials because it tells them they cannot handle this
traditional role that they have been handling, prosecuting rape cases,
prosecuting murder cases, prosecuting assault cases.
All of the sudden we are telling them this is such a serious problem,
they are doing such a lousy job, we are going to take jurisdiction away
from the State, and only the Federal Government has the ability to
prosecute these cases. As I said, there is already a narrowly and well-
constructed Federal hate law, and I have looked at this. Every one of
these acts, and maybe the gentleman could respond to this, defined in
this already constitutes hate crimes and are prosecuted by State courts
today. Not a one of these things is a new crime.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BACHUS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I just wonder if the gentleman is aware
that many States have asked for this assistance; that this merely
amends the Federal nexus that already exists; and that the civil rights
organizations and more than half a dozen police and law enforcement
organizations have all strongly supported the request and the
Department of Justice has not taken the point of view that is
brilliantly argued by my friend from Alabama?
Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, I think that is actually predictable and
let me tell my colleague why.
Some States, but not all of them, but some of them already have hate
crimes statutes, and they can already prosecute these cases; but all
States, all of them, prosecute murder cases. They all prosecute assault
cases. They all prosecute assault with intent to murder cases. They all
today prosecute a battery case as a battery, assault as assault, rape
as rape, murder as murder.
What this would do is it would expand the jurisdiction. In every one
of those cases, a person could go to Federal court or State court,
every one of them, and, yes, the States are strapped for money. The
counties are strapped for money. Sure, they would like for us to come
in and pass a law that suddenly says that every crime out there, even
armed robbery with a pistol or robbery, all of those, but particularly
rape, murder, assault, battery cases, assault with intent to murder,
suddenly these are all Federal cases, yes.
I mean, from a money standpoint, how many Federal courts are we going
to build? We would have to double the size of the Federal court, and
sure, there are States that would just as soon take all these
responsibilities away from them. There are other States, other law
enforcement agencies, that think that their States are doing a good
job.
As I said, all of these acts defined by this thing are today
prosecuted by the States and prosecuted in State court. The only
difference is we are going to let all of them go to Federal court now,
and I do not think that is a good idea. Maybe this is an indictment
saying the State courts are doing a horrible job. I do not know which
States are doing a horrible job.

{time} 1715

Final point. Murderers who face the death penalty under State law,
now listen to this, murderers who face the death penalty under State
law are not going to be deterred by an additional Federal hate crime
law, especially a proposed Federal law that does not have the death
penalty.
We are going to pass this, and we are going to end up with somebody
being prosecuted in Federal Court that could have gotten the death
penalty in State court and we will not be able to give the death
penalty in Federal Court. Now, a lot of Members think that is just fine
because it does away with the death penalty in a number of cases. It
does in this.
And last, it is no less horrible for someone to be molested or
murdered because the murderer liked him or her or than because the
murderer hated him or her. If somebody kills me and they liked me, or
at one time they were a friend of mine, I am just as dead. And I do not
think that part of every case ought to be a day or two where we
determine how much hate there was involved in the case.
Let us prosecute and convict them and get them off the streets and
quit this tremendous shift to Federal jurisdiction.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the whip of the Democrats, who
has been a strong civil rights advocate throughout his career, and who
I have been pleased to work with.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend, the
chairman-in-waiting of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), for yielding me this time.
Madam Speaker, I support this motion to instruct conferees on the DOD
authorization bill to keep the Senate-passed hate crimes legislation in
the conference report. This straightforward legislation would provide
assistance to State and local law enforcement officials to investigate
and prosecute hate

[[Page H7695]]

crimes. It also would add gender, disability, and sexual orientation to
the existing Federal hate crimes law and clarify the conditions under
which such crimes could be federally investigated and prosecuted.
Enacting these important additions to existing law will send, I
believe, a very powerful message that crimes committed against any
American just because of who he or she is are absolutely unacceptable
and that the Federal Government stands ready to assist or, yes, step in
to assure that perpetrators of these crimes are brought to justice.
While the heinous murder of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., will
never be forgotten, thousands of other brutal crimes are committed
every year that may not command the Nation's attention, yet nonetheless
strike fear among entire communities in which they occur. That is
exactly what makes forcefully addressing hate crimes so essential.
This legislation should have become law 4 years ago, when the Senate
added hate crimes legislation to the Department of Defense
authorization bill and the House, on a strong bipartisan vote,
instructed conferees to accept the Senate's position. Unfortunately,
however, because the Republicans' leadership opposed such a move, the
hate crimes provisions was dropped in the conference, thus opposing the
will of the majority of the House and the Senate.
Let us right that wrong this year. We should adopt this motion to
instruct. And if the motion succeeds, I urge the leadership of this
House and of the Senate to include it in the conference report.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, let me say this. Why do we include hate
crime as a specific and distinct crime? Clearly, if one knocks me over
the head, he or she commits an assault. That is a crime at the State
and local level. It is also a crime at the Federal level. Why should
there be a specific crime if the motivation for hitting me over the
head is that I am, well, I used to say blond, like my grandson, but
gray haired?
The reason for that is that this Nation holds as a principle truth
that all men and women are created equal and endowed by their creator
with certain inalienable rights. Therefore, because we believe that
every individual is entitled to rights, an assault on that individual
is a crime; but if it is because of the class to which that person
belongs, it is the undermining of the very essence of America, of our
welcoming of diversity, of our rejecting prejudice and bigotry, of
assuring every American equal protection of the laws. That is why this
is a distinct and different crime.
We have found all over the world that hate is dangerous, that bigotry
is dangerous. It undermines democracy. It undermines the safety and
security of individuals. Let us pass this motion to instruct.
Mr. FEENEY. Madam Speaker, I am glad to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), my great friend.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise in the midst of, I think, a very
important debate on the floor of this Congress, although I am sure many
of my constituents in Indiana wonder why we are debating such a
contentious social issue in the midst of a critical National Defense
Authorization Act. Nevertheless, we are here, and I am grateful for the
opportunity to speak.
I deplore violence for any reason against any person; and I believe,
without hesitation, that that is the view of the good and decent men
and women who serve on the floor of this Congress. But I oppose the
motion to instruct and hope our conferees will remove the so-referenced
hate crimes language because in addition to questioning whether this
issue has a place in the defense bill, I consider it, as many have
argued more eloquently than me, unnecessary, repetitive of State
jurisdiction, and it is constitutionally suspect, claiming as its
constitutional basis the 13th amendment, which would likely be rejected
in the courts, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) has argued.
But I rise today, Madam Speaker, as a member of the House Committee
on the Judiciary and a civil libertarian deeply concerned over the
issue of creating a crime for thought. It is difficult for me to
understand how the governing of thought in any way, Madam Speaker, is
consistent with the principles underlying a free society. That the
Kennedy bill serves to punish thought per se is nowhere more obvious
than in how, if passed, it will discredit the public mores of tens of
millions of Americans on matters of sex and sexuality.
Specifically, the Kennedy language in the bill that we are
considering includes a prohibition against gender-based and sexual-
orientation-based crimes. As the 2001 committee report of the Senate
committee on the bill made clear, the use of the term ``gender,''
instead of the proper term ``sex,'' is a deliberate effort to extend
the law's protections to individuals in the categories of transvestites
and those who have undergone sex change operations.
Obviously, Madam Speaker, it goes without saying that a great many
Americans have deeply felt, sincerely held moral beliefs about
homosexuality and about the various derivatives thereof. And make no
mistake about it, the language in this legislation condemns implicitly
those thoughts.
We all condemn actions that take the form of crimes, whatever their
motivation. Crimes of violence are to be deplored, and they have been
eloquently deplored by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
today. But legislation that focuses on the thoughts of Americans who
have moral reservations about certain behavioral choices ought not to
be a crime.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Tauscher), a civil rights leader from California.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I take that as a high compliment from
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and I thank him for yielding
me this time.
Madam Speaker, at a time when the House has so much important work to
do, I am deeply disappointed that I have to arise to address the
political posturing occurring on what should be one of the most
important bipartisan bills before us, the defense authorization bill.
As a member of the House Committee on Armed Services, I strongly
support the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers) and to agree and to accede to the language passed in the
other body that includes this hate crimes legislation.
We have been here before. I am also a proud cosponsor of the
gentleman's Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Congress
needs to be on the record supporting State, local, and tribal
governments in their efforts to combat crimes committed against people
based solely on their race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.

{time} 1730

I support including this hate crimes provision in the final version
of the defense bill and urge the conferees to do so, as they have done
before. We have included this vitally important language in previous
defense bills with bipartisan support, only to have the Republican
leadership strip it out in the end.
Mr. Speaker, it is irresponsible and unacceptable that Congress has
not been assisting those in need in the fight to eradicate these
crimes. Now is the chance to improve upon our previous actions and work
with the conferees to allow this hate crime legislation to become law.
Please support the Conyers motion to instruct.
Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, in the 1 minute that I have, I would
like to seek to illustrate what goes wrong if hate crimes legislation
is implemented into law.
One example would be just a little over a week ago I used the phrase
``cultural continuity'' on the floor of this Congress. Within hours,
there was a press release out declaring I was a racist. Now cultural
continuity does not define anything other than this great unity of
America, but the Members on the other side leaped to that conclusion,
and I would ask the body would people who simultaneously pass public
judgment be the same kind of people who would decide a case of hate
crimes as jurors. If that is the case, I submit that prejudice is so
great there cannot be an objective decision made.

[[Page H7696]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers) has 5 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Feeney) has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, just as a parliamentary inquiry, does the
gentleman from Michigan have the right to close?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers)
has the right to close.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey) who has worked with the civil rights community
in her State and Nation since she has come to Congress.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) for yielding me this time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. King) that his position is a perfectly legitimate one, and for
anyone to attack him as a racist on that regard I would take issue
with. I want the gentleman to know that would not be the sentiments of
anyone I know here in the Congress on this side of the aisle, and we
apologize for any misunderstanding which may have resulted from that.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, every day at least four hate crimes are
reported in the United States, at least four. But even worse are the
crimes that are not reported. They are not reported out of fear of
retaliation or feeling that law enforcement just will not follow
through.
That is why we need tough Federal hate crime language to protect all
Americans, and we need to include it in the Department of Defense
authorization bill. If we do that, then the lack of response will
change because no one in this country should live in fear, even for one
day, because of his or her ethnic background, his or her religious
affiliation, gender, disability, or sexual preference.
Mr. Speaker, that is why it is so important to pass meaningful hate
crimes legislation and pass it now, today; and today we can send a
message to all Americans that hateful behavior is wrong and will not be
tolerated any longer. It is clear that existing Federal law is
inadequate to vigorously fight and prosecute hate crimes.
Too often our law enforcement officials lack the resources and/or the
education required to deal with these crimes. They do not have what
they need within their own communities to step up to these criminal
charges.
In California, for example, a report called ``Reporting Hate
Crimes,'' a study commissioned by Attorney General Bill Lockyear,
reveals there is a general lack of understanding by California law
enforcement agencies on how to deal with hate crimes in local
communities. The study found that in some communities, and this is
horrible, in some communities public officials and business leaders
actually discourage law enforcement officers from reporting hate crimes
for fear of adverse publicity.
If law enforcement officers do not report hate crimes, what in the
world happens to their credibility when they are supposed to be
addressing the problem in the first place? Their credibility
diminishes.
What is even more alarming is that hate crimes based on gender and
disability are generally not reported at all. It is obvious we need
hate crimes language in the Department of Defense authorization bill.
We need it now. We need not have one person ever faced with a hate
crime based on who they are. I urge my colleagues to support this
motion to instruct.
Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, to close in opposition to this motion, I would say again
that the arguments against this proposal being added by the conferees
are very strong. This is a Department of Defense authorization bill. It
is about defending our country, and we are interjecting an extra issue
that we should not be dealing with here. This needs to go to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Number two, States can and often do prosecute these types of crimes.
We ought to preserve the 10th amendment and allow traditional State
crimes to be prosecuted at the State level.
Number three, this gives enormous prosecutorial discretion.
Prosecutors could add this as a bargaining chip to threaten that they
are going to bring a hate crimes allegation when in fact really are
just trying to impose a stiffer sentence through the plea bargaining
process.
Number four, we have not discussed how freedom of speech, as the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) so eloquently argued, can be tied up
in who should be charged with a hate crimes allegation and who should
be charged with just a typical crime allegation. Often it is political
correctness that determines who gets punished and who does not.
Finally, the most important reason is this is misnamed as a hate
crimes proposal. This is an unequal protection proposal.
Since before 1868 in this country, since before the 14th amendment,
sadly some Americans got less protections under the law than other
Americans. Fortunately, since 1868 we have made a lot of progress in
that regard.
What this proposal does is to give certain Americans more protections
than others, exactly what we tried to do in 1868 with the 14th
amendment. This does nothing to give protection to children, veterans,
teachers, police, or to our many seniors throughout the country; and
that why it is fatally and morally flawed, despite the best of
intentions by the proposer.
This proposal divides America. It hyphenates America, it balkanizes
America, and you get special protection if you are a member of a
special class under this bill.
Mr. Speaker, criminals are like wolves. They are like lions. They
prey on those who get the least protection from the herd. If we say
children and seniors and veterans should not get the same protection,
we need to be aware what the criminals will do. They will prey on those
left unprotected.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friends on the other side of
the aisle, the way to fight hate in America is to teach, it is to
preach, it is to love, and it is to respect. It is not to divide, to
balkanize, to hyphenate Americans and to grant special privileges and
protections.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the debate we have had here today. I close
with a reminder from the International Association of Chiefs of Police
in the United States: this is not a door-opener for State prosecutors
to get rid of cases or get into the Federal jurisdiction. They can only
bring these cases if the Department of Justice agrees that they can be
brought. Without that, the Department of Justice wants to make sure
that they need this help and in some cases will grant programs to the
State and local law enforcement to cover the costs of investigating and
prosecuting.
So this hate crimes law will greatly assist law enforcement officers
in investigating hate crimes.
Mr. Speaker, 175 organizations, law enforcement, civil rights,
Hispanic national law groups, the Presbyterian Church, the Episcopal
Church, Anti-Defamation League, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights,
the NAACP, National Council of La Raza, American-Arab Anti-
Discrimination Committee, National Asian Pacific American Legal
Consortium, Sikh Mediawatch and Resource Task Force, Human Rights
Campaign, the American Association of People With Disabilities, and the
National Center For Victims of Crime pray that we will take action
today.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion to
instruct conferees on the DOD Authorization bill to accept the
bipartisan Senate-passed provisions on hate crimes.
The purpose of the Senate provisions is to strengthen and close
loopholes in current law by making it easier for federal authorities to
prosecute or assist local authorities in prosecuting crimes motivated
by race, religion or ethnicity when appropriate. In addition, these
provisions expand current law to include gender, disability, and sexual
orientation. The Senate provisions are overwhelmingly supported by both
the civil rights community and law enforcement organizations.
Many of my colleagues have questioned the relevance of these hate
crimes provision in the DOD Authorization bill. However, it is naive to

[[Page H7697]]

presume that the military need not concern itself with hate crimes, and
there is devastating evidence that hate crimes occur in the military. I
am referring to the July 5, 1998 murder of Pfc. Barry Winchell at Fort
Campbell, KY. Twenty-one year old Private First Class Barry Winchell
was beaten to death while he slept by a fellow soldier. During the
court-martial trial, testimony from other soldiers showed that Pfc.
Winchell's murderer engaged in harassment, rumor-mongering and prying
into Pfc. Winchell's personal life in direct violation of the Don't Ask
Don't Tell policy. The horrible murder of Pfc. Winchell is a lasting
reminder of the need for vigilance in fiercely opposing and prosecuting
all hate crimes and for providing our law enforcement organizations
with the ability to prosecute these heinous crimes.
Every American, regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity,
gender, disability, and sexual orientation deserves the right to live
life to the fullest without the fear of bullying, persecution, or
violence. I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct
conferees on the DOD Authorization bill to accept the bipartisan
Senate-passed provisions on hate crimes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
Motion to Instruct Conferees on agreeing to the Local Law Enforcement
Enhancement provision of H.R. 4200, the Department of Defense
Authorization bill for fiscal year 2005. Since the 105th Congress in
1997 there has been legislation introduced that is designed to enhance
the ability of local law enforcement to fight hate crimes more
effectively. Hate crimes legislation passed the Senate during the 107th
Congress as part of the Department of Defense Authorization bill.
Similarly, it was approved by the House pursuant to a motion to
instruct on a 232-192 vote. Despite these bicameral, bipartisan votes,
the hate crimes provisions were stripped from the Department of Defense
bill in 2001. We must use the powers on Congress to fight hate crimes
in all its forms and this motion will put a much needed piece of
legislation into effect.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of the hate crimes bill that we
introduced this Congress, which is identical to the Senate's amendment
and has 177 bipartisan cosponsors. The Senate also supported this
legislation as a bipartisan effort, with a 65-33 vote to include the
Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act as an amendment to the Department
of Defense Authorization bill. Clearly, it has been the will of
Congress to include this hate crimes legislation. Let us not waver and
wait another day as Americans continue to be attacked and intimated by
those who commit hate crimes.
There may be those out there who say that effective hate crimes
legislation is no longer necessary, they would be dead wrong. From 2000
to 2002 alone, there were over 25,000 hate crime incidents. That alone
should be a staggering enough number to make us want to act
immediately. With this legislation, state and local authorities will
have the enhanced support of the federal government when prosecuting
hate crimes as the Justice Department will provide them with technical,
forensic, or prosecutorial assistance. The Attorney General can also
make grants to state and local law enforcement agencies which have
incurred extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and
prosecution of hate crimes. Finally, this legislation will ensure that
state and local authorities continue to take the lead on this issue and
prosecute the overwhelming majority of hate crimes by mandating that
high ranking DOJ official approve all federal prosecutions under this
law. It is truly the responsibility of the federal government to make
sure that those who commit hate crimes are punished to the full extent
of the law. Otherwise, we will only be showing a sign of weakness to
those bigots and racists who have no qualms about violating people's
basic human rights.
It saddens me but even to this day we see hate crimes in our own
neighborhoods. Recently, I have seen a rash of hate crimes against
Muslims in the state of Texas. There was an incident a week ago in
which a man was arrested after allegedly throwing two home-made
gasoline bombs into a mosque courtyard in El Paso during Friday
Prayers. The bombs landed in a play area and splattered gasoline on
children, luckily neither firebomb ignited. There was also an incident
in the Houston area in July where a home-made bomb exploded in the
mailbox of the Champions Mosque in Spring, Texas, again it was in the
vicinity of children. In August, law enforcement authorities in
McAllen, Texas were asked to investigate an intentionally-set fire at a
Muslim store as a possible hate crime. The fire followed two separate
incidents in which unknown parties painted the phrase ``Go Home'' on
the door of the store. The hate-graffiti appeared just after the store
began running advertisement on local television that featured a Muslim
woman wearing an Islamic head scarf. Earlier this year, a man was
arrested for threatening the same El Paso Islamic center targeted in
the October 2nd incident. In San Antonio, Chief Albert Ortiz said a
series of arsons, all at Muslim-owned businesses, were probably hate
crimes. The Associated Press reported: ``The first fire was set March
24 at a store in the northwest corner of the city near the University
of Texas at San Antonio. The second came five days later in north
central San Antonio. The third blaze occurred on Monday off Interstate
35 in southwest San Antonio. Clearly the great majority of people in
Texas are not hateful. Clearly, law enforcement is doing all it can to
prevent future attacks against the Muslim community, but they can use
all the help they can get against this scourge.
There can be no doubt that this legislation we hope to attach to the
Defense Authorization will help in our fight against hate crimes. After
the terrible murder of Paul Byrd our nation awakened to fact that our
nation is not free of unthinkable hatred. After the terrible murder of
Mathew Shephard our nation realized that hate is not just directed at
those who are racially different. Now, after Sept. 11th we realize that
even at times when our nation came together there will be those who
will use hatred to try to tear us apart. My point is that Hate Crimes
do not affect any one people and they have not disappeared from our
great nation. It is time we pass this needed legislation so that those
who commit these heinous crimes will know that their hate has no refuge
in the United States.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion to
Instruct.
As this debate goes on, the memory is still fresh of the vicious
attack on the Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles, and the brutal
slayings of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming, James Byrd in Texas, Arthur
Warren in West Virginia, and Joseph Ileto in California.
These episodes are tragic illustrations of the price we pay in human
lives for hatred and ignorance--and powerful testimony of the need for
hate crimes legislation.
Some have said that hate crimes legislation punishes thoughts rather
than deeds. I disagree. It punishes neither thoughts nor words, but
actions. Actions whose defining characteristic is that the victim is
selected--singled out--as a proxy for the social group to which he or
she belongs. Actions whose express purpose is to send a message of
hatred and intolerance to an entire community.
When such actions take place in other countries--when individuals are
persecuted because of their membership in a ``social group''--U.S. law
recognizes that it is no ordinary crime and grants them a remedy. We
entitle them to petition for asylum. Why would we do less to protect
our own citizens from the very same crimes?
Some have said we shouldn't pass this law because hate crimes are a
local matter. I agree. The authors of this legislation agree. The vast
majority of these crimes are investigated and prosecuted at the State
and local level. And if this measure is enacted they will continue to
be.
Federal hate crimes laws have been on the books for 36 years. All
this legislation will do is ensure that when local authorities request
assistance, or are unable or unwilling to act, Federal law enforcement
agencies will have the ability to come to their aid.
That's why the legislation is supported by the National Sheriff's
Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and other major law
enforcement organizations.
And that's why we need the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. For all the
Matthew Shepards and James Byrds and Joseph Iletos who can still be
saved.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Motion to
Instruct Conferees on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2005. This motion would instruct conferees to include the hate
crimes bill in the conference report, to stop the perpetration of
violence against Americans merely because of who they are.
The fact is that while there has been a significant drop in overall
crime in this country, the number of hate crimes continues to grow.
Hate crimes send a chilling message that some Americans are second-
class citizens who should fear for their lives because of their race,
religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. These crimes
target entire communities with the message that others in the community
could be next.
The hate crimes bill would seriously address this oppression by
expanding existing Federal law involving acts of violence motivated by
bias against race, religion, or national origin. In addition, the bill
would broaden Federal jurisdiction to include offenses that are
motivated by bias against gender, sexual preference, or disability.
Mr. Speaker, we should be embarrassed that we're having this vote
today, because in 2000, in response to several shocking hate crimes
that received national attention, 232 Republicans and Democrats in the
House and a bipartisan group of 57 Senators voted to pass the hate
crimes law. It was later taken out of the defense bill at the
insistence of the

[[Page H7698]]

Republican leadership in closed-door negotiations. So for 4 years,
thousands of American hate crime victims have gone without the
protection of their government because the will of the majority was
subverted. I urge all of my colleagues to right this wrong and vote
``yes'' on the motion.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support
for the Motion to Instruct Conferees to the National Defense
Authorization Act on hate crimes.
As a member of the Conference Committee and a cosponsor of the hate
crimes legislation, I will urge my fellow conferees to retain the Local
Law Enforcement Enhancement Act language.
According to the FBI, more than 7,400 hate crimes were reported in
2002. Hate crimes based on racial bias represented nearly half of all
of those reported; sexual orientation-based hate crimes constituted
nearly 17 percent; and nearly 15 percent were the result of bias
against one's ethnicity or national origin.
In addition, many hate crimes go unreported. The Southern Poverty Law
Center estimates that the actual number of hate crimes committed in the
U.S. each year is closer to 50,000.
Hate crimes terrorize more than a single individual. Instead, they
victimize an entire community.
Current Federal law on hate crimes is out of date. It does not cover
hate crimes based on sexual orientation, gender, or disability. Also it
severely limits the Justice Department's ability to respond to hate
crimes against religious, racial and ethnic groups.
The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act will strengthen the ability
of Federal, State and local governments to investigate and prosecute
these vicious crimes. Cooperation between State, local, and Federal law
enforcement officials offers the best chance of bringing perpetrators
of hate crimes to justice.
The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is supported by more than
175 law enforcement, civil rights, civic and religious organizations.
I urge Members to support this Motion to Instruct.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

____________________