[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 72 (Thursday, May 3, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H4421-H4452]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT OF 2007
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 364 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 364
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
1592) to provide Federal assistance to States, local
jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes,
and for other purposes. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the nature
of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary
now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 1592 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the
bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for
debate only.
I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I ask unanimous
consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise
and extend their remarks on House Resolution 364.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 364 provides for
consideration of H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes
Prevention Act of 2007, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the
bill, except those arising under clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule
provides that the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute,
modified by the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report, shall
be considered as adopted, and the bill, as amended, shall be considered
as read. The rule waives all points of order against the bill, as
amended.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and of the
underlying legislation. H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate
Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, is a bipartisan piece of legislation
that has already passed the House multiple times with Members from both
sides supporting it.
In the 109th Congress, this legislation passed as an amendment to the
Child Safety Act by a vote of 223-199. And in both the 108th and 106th
Congresses, hate crimes legislation passed with bipartisan support.
With such a demonstrated history of strong bipartisan support, it
should come as no surprise that this bill has also garnered the support
of 171 cosponsors, Republicans as well as Democrats.
I would like to take note for my colleagues that H.R. 1592 has the
support of more than 210 civil rights, education, religious and civic
organizations. Equally as important, it has the support and endorsement
of the law enforcement community, including the International
Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Sheriffs Association.
Mr. Speaker, it makes sense that this bill has attracted such a wide
range of support. Hate crimes are a serious problem everywhere. They
continue to plague our society, and they happen in every State and in
every community.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has documented over 113,000 hate
crimes since 1991. In 2005 alone, nearly 7,200 crimes were identified
by the FBI as hate crimes. But despite this marked occurrence of
violent hate crimes, current law limits the ability of the Federal
Government to provide assistance to States and localities to prosecute
and investigate these crimes. It is long past time that Congress
address these shortcomings.
Mr. Speaker, some will claim that this law is not needed. Others will
claim that it adversely affects free speech. I strongly, very strongly
disagree with both these claims.
First, while we have made progress toward equality in many facets of
our society, hate crimes continue to spread in cities and towns across
the country.
[[Page H4422]]
The main reason why we have been unable to aggressively pursue and
prosecute hate crimes is because law enforcement agencies in our States
and towns lack the tools and resources.
I'd like to point out that this legislation has been endorsed by 31
Attorney Generals from all across the country, the very people who can
attest to how critical this legislation is to stemming hate crime
violence and to prosecuting and punishing the perpetrators of violent
hate crimes.
Secondly, with respect to whether this legislation will have a
negative impact on free speech, simply put, it will not. H.R. 1592 does
not punish or prohibit in any way first amendment rights. It does not
affect name-calling, verbal abuse, hateful expression or hate-filled
speech. It only addresses violent criminal acts. In fact, there is a
first amendment free expression and free exercise provision explicitly
included in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1592 solely applies to bias motivated violent
crimes. It does not infringe upon freedom of speech. It can only be
applied to violent crimes that result in death or bodily injury where
the motivation was based on the bias against a person's perceived race,
religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or
disability.
I want to remind all of my colleagues that behind all of the
statistics of hate crimes, there are real people, people who were
targeted for violence and who suffered violent attacks simply because
of who they are.
Let me tell you a story of Lisa Craig, a 35-year old mother of two
from my own State of Massachusetts. In 2003, Craig was assaulted on the
street by three teenage girls and kicked in the head multiple times,
causing her brain to bleed, and requiring 200 stitches in her head.
Craig's partner and her two daughters witnessed the attack by these
teenagers who, earlier in the evening, had been shouting anti-gay
epithets at the couple.
Lisa Craig's case is just one of thousands, but it demonstrates the
bloody results of hate crimes. We need to prevent hate crimes like the
one suffered by Lisa Craig from ever occurring again, and we need to
give our State and local law enforcement officers and court officials
the ability to prosecute and punish the perpetrators of such violent
acts for what they are, hate crimes. Passing H.R. 1592 will enable our
police, our prosecutors, our judges and our courts to do just that.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the
underlying legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
{time} 1030
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition
to this closed rule and the underlying bill, the Local Law Enforcement
Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
Mr. Speaker, no one supports violent acts of crimes committed out of
hatred toward a person based on personal characteristic whether that is
ethnicity, gender, religion, weight, height, age, eye color,
profession, socioeconomic background, or political beliefs. If someone
commits a crime, they should be punished for that crime. Period.
Instead, today, the Democrat majority has chosen to end equality
under the law and to bring legislation to the House floor that creates
special categories of people. Specifically, this bill allows Federal
assistance to be given to State and local law enforcement to
investigate and prosecute felonies that are believed to be motivated by
prejudice based on actual or perceived race, color, religion, national
origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
This bill also makes certain crimes a felony in cases where the
perpetrator was believed to be motivated by bias and there has been a
history of such bias-motivated violence.
Separate treatment is afforded for crimes based on hate against
protected classes of citizens under this bill, as opposed to crimes
against victims that are not in a protected category. As we learned
decades ago, separate is not equal.
The Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act is a bad bill and
should not be brought to the floor, but especially under the closed
process that does not allow for any changes or improvements to the
underlying bill.
Eighteen thoughtful amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee
yesterday, and sadly, not one of these amendments was allowed to be
considered by the full House of Representatives. I am disappointed the
Democrat majority again has missed an opportunity to live up to their
commitment of allowing input under an open process.
Mr. Speaker, how many special categories of people should this bill
create? Have all characteristics for which there has been a history of
bias-motivated violence been included in this bill? Should more
categories be added and should some be excluded from this bill?
Under this closed rule, these questions will not be answered today by
Members of the House through the amendment process.
Yesterday, Mr. Forbes of Virginia offered an amendment to this bill
that would expand the list of protected categories of individuals to
include members of the Armed Forces. If you believe the government
should afford special treatment to crimes committed against special
groups of citizens, then why not our military men and women? Why aren't
those who volunteer to protect our country's freedom not afforded this
protected status?
Mr. Gohmert of Texas offered an amendment that would add law
enforcement officers to the list. There have been several instances
where gang members and would-be gang members have targeted and killed
law enforcement officers because of their hatred towards them for
choosing to go to work each day to protect our communities. Is
committing a crime against law enforcement officers simply because
their job is to uphold our laws a crime not deserving of special
assistance to investigate and prosecute that crime?
Crimes have been committed against senior citizens, and an amendment
was offered to include them under the hate crimes legislation, but that
amendment, too, was not allowed under this closed rule today.
The question remains, if the Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention
Act creates special protection, then whom should it create special
protection for? Because this bill is being brought up under a closed
rule, Members of the House and the people they represent will not have
an opportunity to voice their opinion on this question through the
amendment process.
Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this closed rule, which not only gags the
minority party, but gags all Members of the House, who will be denied
the right to offer improvements to this legislation. I urge my
colleagues to oppose the gag order rule and the underlying bill that
creates special categories of citizens and ends equality under the law.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter signed by
31 State attorneys general, including the Republican attorney general
of the State of Washington, in strong support of the underlying
legislation.
April 16, 2007.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, The Capitol, Washington, DC
Hon. John Boehner,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives, The Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
We, the undersigned Attorneys General, are writing to
express our strong support of Congressional efforts towards
the immediate passage of federal hate crimes legislation. As
the chief legal officers in our respective jurisdictions,
State Attorneys General are on the front lines in the fight
to protect our citizens' civil rights. Although state and
local governments continue to have the primary responsibility
for enforcing criminal law, we believe that federal
assistance is critical in fighting the invidious effects of
hate crimes.
This much needed legislation would remove unnecessary
jurisdictional barriers to permit the U.S. Department of
Justice to
[[Page H4423]]
prosecute violent acts motivated by bias and hate and
complement existing federal law by providing new authority
for crimes where the victim is intentionally selected because
of his or her gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or
disability. Under current law, the Justice Department can
only prosecute crimes motivated by the victim's race,
religion, or national origin when that person is engaged in a
federally protected activity, such as voting. Legislative
proposals, such as the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crime
Prevention Act of2007 (LLEHCPA) and others, however, would
permit federal prosecution of hate crimes irrespective of
whether they were committed while the victim was engaged in
protected activity.
Removing this outmoded jurisdictional barrier to federal
prosecution of hate crimes is critical to protecting our
citizens' fundamental civil rights. In 2005, the most
recent figures available, the FBI documented 7,163 crimes
reported from 12,417 law enforcement agencies across the
country. Yet, it is not the frequency or number of hate
crimes, alone, that distinguish these acts of violence
from other crimes. Rather, our experiences as prosecutors
have shown us, that these crimes can have a special impact
on victims, their families, their communities and, in some
instances, the nation. Indeed, in Wisconsin v. Mitchell,
508 U.S. 47 (1993), Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote
for a unanimous Supreme Court in upholding the
constitutionality of enhanced penalties for crimes
motivated by bias or hate against a person because of
race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation,
national origin or ancestry. In so ruling, the Court
recognized that ``bias-motivated crimes are more likely to
provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional
harms on their victims, and incite community unrest.''
Hate crimes have lead to the polarization of communities,
increases in security needs at schools and churches,
declines in property values and the creation of an overall
atmosphere of fear and distrust. All too often that
climate has hindered the efforts of local law enforcement
and placed the lives of police officers and civilians in
jeopardy.
As the chief legal and law enforcement officers of our
respective states, we are mindful that the overwhelming
majority of criminal cases should be brought by local police
and prosecutors at the state level. However, in those rare
situations in which local authorities are unable to act,
measures such as the LLEHCPA and others provide a backstop to
state and local law enforcement by allowing federal
involvement if it is necessary to provide a just result.
These measures would provide invaluable tools to federal law
enforcement to help state authorities in their fight against
hate crimes. Therefore, we strongly urge the passage of
important hate crimes legislation by the 110th Congress.
Sincerely,
Lisa Madigan, Attorney General of Illinois; Mark
Shurtleff, Attorney General of Utah; Terry Goddard,
Attorney General of Arizona; Dustin McDaniel, Attorney
General of Arkansas; Richard Blumenthal, Attorney
General of Connecticut; Linda Singer, Attorney General
of District of Columbia; Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney
General of Georgia; Mark J. Bennett, Attorney General
of Hawaii; Tom Miller, Attorney General of Iowa;
Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General of Kentucky;
Charles C. Foti, Jr., Attorney General of Louisiana; G.
Steven Rowe, Attorney General of Maine; Douglas
Gansler, Attorney General of Maryland.
Martha Coakley, Attorney General of Massachusetts; Lori
Swanson, Attorney General of Minnesota; Jeremiah W.
Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri; Mike McGrath,
Attorney General of Montana; Catherine Cortez Masto,
Attorney General of Nevada; Gary King, Attorney General
of New Mexico; Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General of New
York; Marc Dann, Attorney General of Ohio; Hardy Myers,
Attorney General of Oregon; Patrick Lynch, Attorney
General of Rhode Island; William H. Sorrell, Attorney
General of Vermont; Vincent Frazier, Attorney General
of Virgin Islands; Rob McKenna, Attorney General of
Washington.
Let me also say, Mr. Speaker, that I stand by this rule. We are
talking about life and death issues here. We are talking about people's
civil rights. And, unfortunately, I think it is clear that there are
some on the other side of the aisle who oppose the expansion of civil
rights protections for threatened groups living in the United States,
and I believe they are flat wrong. But this gives the Members, every
Member of the House, the opportunity to vote up or down on whether or
not they believe that we should expand protections. I think this is an
appropriate rule, and I strongly support the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), a member of the
Rules Committee.
Ms. CASTOR. I thank my distinguished colleague from the Rules
Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Hate Crimes Prevention
Act. In doing so, I join with the majority of Americans and law
enforcement agencies who understand that violent acts fueled by bigotry
and hatred of a particular group simply because of who they are has no
place in America.
H.R. 1592, and this rule, strengthens and broadens protections for
our neighbors for attacks based on disability, gender, and sexual
orientation. This bill provides local law enforcement with tools needed
to partner with our Federal law enforcement agencies to investigate and
prosecute these hateful acts.
Why is it needed? Well, unfortunately, in my area of Florida, bigoted
crimes are on the rise. This week police arrested and charged two
Pinellas County teenagers after they spray-painted anti-Semitic and
racial slurs on nine portable classrooms at a local high school.
Last month, a Polk County man was stabbed to death for being gay.
Also last month, the Islamic Education Center of Florida in Tampa was
set on fire, and thousands of my neighbors were left without a place to
hold religious services.
Last year, two men in neighboring Polk County were jailed on hate
crime charges after they threw beer bottles at a club owner in Tampa,
who happened to be speaking Arabic, and threatened to kill him.
According to my local State attorney general's offices, 334 hate
crimes were reported in Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties in 2004, up
from 275 in 2003. Fifty-two of those hate crimes were motivated by
sexual orientation in 2004.
Nationwide, victims of hate crimes have reported an average of
191,000 hate crime incidents since the year 2000.
This bill says that we as Americans do not stand for violent acts
upon our neighbors based upon who they are; we will not tolerate
terrorism against any group of people; and we will provide our local
law enforcement agencies with the tools needed to prosecute you when
you use violence to spread fear and hate.
Members, I urge you to pass this important bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), a
member of the Judiciary Committee, but more importantly, a former
attorney general for the State of California.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in
opposition to this rule.
Let's understand what this is. This is a closed rule suggesting that
this is a perfect bill. This is anything but a perfect bill. People
ought to understand that we are denied the opportunity to present a
single amendment on this floor, and let me explain to my colleagues the
single amendment I wish to bring to the floor.
This bill defines hate crimes to include a number of different
subjects. One of them is a crime committed against someone where the
hate was motivated by hatred for their sexual orientation. ``Sexual
orientation'' appears as an undefined term in the bill.
I offered a simple amendment to define sexual orientation as it is
noted in the U.S. Code, the only specific reference to a definition in
the U.S. Code, which is a note that is a footnote in the statute which
directs the Sentencing Commission to take into consideration hate
motivation when they want to enhance penalties. There is no statutory
definition of it, however, with respect to the crime itself. And that
note refers to sexual orientation simply as consensual homosexual or
heterosexual conduct.
Now, why would they not allow us to have that simple amendment, which
when we discussed it in committee, I was told that is what they meant
the bill to be? The chairman of the committee said to me it sounded
like a reasonable amendment because that's exactly what they intended
it to be. So why don't we have the opportunity to offer this amendment
on the floor? I do not know.
And why would I be concerned about a failure for us to define this
term? Because if you use the term ``sexual orientation'' and use the
definition found in the dictionary of those two words, it means any
orientation of sexual conduct. Now, why would I be concerned, being a
former attorney general of the
[[Page H4424]]
State of California and having served in this Congress now for seven
terms representing my State? Because I recall some 20 years ago when a
debate ensued in my then-existing district in Palos Verdes, California,
where the local chapter of NAMBLA, which is the North American Man/Boy
Love Association, NAMBLA, and the dispute was that they wanted to have
their local chapter meetings at the local library. Some of you may have
seen their banners in certain parades that take place in San Francisco,
where NAMBLA, instead of hiding, proudly proclaims their position of
``sexual orientation.'' They argue, for instance, that we are denying
children their right to have sexual expression with adults and that
somehow we are hampering their development.
I am not making this up, my colleagues. This is a fact. And under a
nondefined term of ``sexual orientation,'' that very well may be
included.
I could give you other examples, but that is a current example. And
in order to make sure that that kind of activity is not enshrined in
the law and given special protection, I asked for this simple
amendment. And when I was in debate in the committee, I was told by the
chairman that it made ample sense and we ought to work to do that.
So then I go before the distinguished Committee on Rules, make this
presentation, have no argument against it, and yet am denied the simple
opportunity to offer that.
So the question is why? If you don't want to extend this definition,
if you don't want to have this free play out there in the legal
atmosphere, why do you deny me the opportunity to present this simple
amendment? Is there a hidden agenda here? Is there something we don't
know? Are we flying under false flags here? What are we doing?
This is more, my colleagues, than just a dispute between the majority
versus the minority on the Rules Committee. This is more than just
hampering the minority. This is a question of simple definition which
goes to a crucial question in our society today.
So my concern, my colleagues, is not fanciful. It is not made up. It
is not something that may happen in the future. This is based on an
experience that I have seen for 20-plus years in my home State. And yet
when I asked to have this considered, I was told that it made eminent
sense, we basically hear a great silence. A great silence.
Now, we can have games here in the House of Representatives, majority
versus minority, but when it affects the lives of our constituents,
when it affects in a very real way a serious social question in our
society, it seems to me we ought to rise above this kind of nonsense,
and we ought to at least give the Members the opportunity to consider
it.
Maybe the Members don't agree with me. Maybe the Members think we
ought to expand this definition. But at least we ought to have the
chance to debate it.
{time} 1045
Last time I checked, we're not under a time clock here that requires
us to leave. We could consider this.
So I would ask my colleagues to please vote down this rule. Allow us
to bring forward a rule that allows consideration of these and other
amendments.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentlelady from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), I would like to give my colleagues a couple of
examples of the kinds of crimes that we're talking about here.
In Los Angeles, California, 2003, after seeing him hugging another
man on the street, three men attacked Treve Broudy, who was 34 years
old, with a baseball bat. The incident left Broudy in a coma. Broudy
was also hospitalized for approximately 10 weeks after the attack, and
has lost half of his vision and has experienced trouble hearing.
In Charlottesville, Virginia, in 1997, James Kittredge was attacked
by three young men he offered a ride to outside of a gay club in
Charlottesville, Virginia. The men offered to take him to party, but
instead they dragged Kittredge out of his car, where they beat him,
smashing eight of his ribs and eye socket, urinated on him, put
cigarettes out on him and locked him in his own trunk. He was found
over a day later.
I can go on and on and on with examples of these hate crimes, but
this is what we are trying to prevent, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, at this point, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the Rules Committee for very
diligent and thorough review. About 14 Members of Congress were able to
present their case before the Rules Committee.
I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, to reaffirm that this is about
hate. There are already well-recognized doctrines and no disagreement
that no matter who you are as an adult, sex with children is wrong.
Many of us have enthusiastically supported Federal laws that already
oppose that kind of abuse and violation.
It is important to note that not only in the Rules Committee did
Members have the opportunity to make the case as to the relevance of
their amendments to this bill, but we sat for hours and hours in the
Judiciary Committee going over amendment after amendment, amendments
that were not about hate. They were, of course, certainly elements that
one could raise, but they were protected in other aspects of the law.
This bill pertains specifically to historical documented cases that,
because of your disability or because of your race, because of your
gender, because of your gender identity you have been abused.
You have not seen the depth of degradation unless you've listened to
people who have come to you in tears, who cannot, for any reason, tell
you why they are who they are, but they say they are who they are, sort
of a mix of words. And the pain of living as a human being who is
rejected every day of their life, fearful that they may encounter
brutality, that is the simplicity of this bill. That is why 31 Attorney
Generals currently serving have said we need this. That is why they
have asked the Federal Government simply to help us calm the
communities, prosecute the cases, make sure that those who have a
historical investment in themselves, who they are, can be protected;
that a young Hispanic teenager does not have to be brutalized by
skinheads. It is emotional, it is tearful, but it is true.
And so when my colleagues talk about this rule, let me assure you
that hours upon hours of attention to amendments have already been
given, debated, presented. But what we have tried to do is to answer
the pain, answer the violence, and yes, answer the call of 31 attorneys
of the United States of America.
Pass this rule so that we can debate the question of preventing hate.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, this is a critical piece of legislation,
not from the good that it will do, but from the chilling and even
killing effect it will have down the road on free speech.
Now, I know that there are people that have said that this is an
overreaction, much like people said in 1935 and 1936 that those nuts
here on the floor that were concerned Social Security numbers, once
created, might be used as identification numbers, and they were
promised and assured that it would not happen. But some folks here
could see down the road where it was going.
Now, the rule on this is so grossly unfair. If you really want to
deal with hate crimes, what about the hate crimes for the elderly?
We've seen that recently. They're not part of this. No, that wasn't
part of the agenda. You can have a 100-year-old woman beat up by some
mean thug, but that doesn't count; we're not going to prosecute. She
doesn't deserve protected status.
Frankly, I had a hard time believing we were taking up this law
immediately after the tragedy at Virginia Tech. We even had a Holocaust
survivor that was randomly shot. I had an amendment proposed that was
struck in committee, and the rule being proposed is a closed rule, no
amendments, but that would address random violence. Because what we see
is a Federal offense where a defense will be, you
[[Page H4425]]
know what, I didn't hate these people, I just randomly chose someone.
It's a senseless act of violence. That will be a defense to an
important element of this new created Federal offense.
Another thing we keep hearing people say is, and I had an amendment
to address this, is being shut out. We should have had a right to vote
on this. People say, well, no, you are specifically protected under the
rule of evidence provision in this law. We even had Mr. Davis'
amendment that further said religious speech is protected. But what
they don't point to is what I'm pointing to, under that it says, ``It
may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the
evidence specifically relates to the offense.''
Well, when you tie that with current existing Federal law, 18 U.S.C.
2(a), the law of principals, which is a good law, most States have it,
the Federal Code has it, it says, Whoever aids, abets, counsels,
commands, induces or procures a crime's commission is punishable, just
as the principal. And for those of us who have been judges or
prosecutors and have prosecuted or seen prosecuted people as a
principal who didn't commit the offense, but they induced it, then you
know every statement, things that you said to induce, could be
introduced. That's where they go after ministers.
I think a large part of this is the fact that many people do not
understand a Christian heart because they just don't like people that
disagree with them. Whereas the Christian, the true Christian heart can
disagree with people and love them, love them deeply and be willing to
give their lives for them.
This is an unfair law, the way the rule is being put to it. We are
not going to protect religious speech because you can go after a
minister, and this came up in committee, you can go after a minister
who says, gee, relations outside of a marriage with a man and a woman
is wrong. Someone goes out after hearing that, shoots somebody, and
then he says, well, the preacher told me it was wrong, that's what
induced me to do that, the sermons, the Bible teachings, whatnot, that
the preacher used that this person may have heard are all relevant on
whether or not he was a principal and can go to prison for the actual
shooting. And it also provides that nothing changes the rule of
impeachment.
So if he says, well, no, I never advocate violence, well, here comes
everything he has ever said, his hard drives, his files, and we had an
amendment to deal with that, and we were not allowed to use it.
This is not a good law. These things are already protected. We ought
to have an open rule to fix it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of the time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bad rule because it's a closed rule, which has
been demonstrated with the observations of Mr. Lungren and Mr. Gohmert.
Mr. Speaker, if someone commits a crime, they should be punished.
Period. This is a bill that ends equality under the law by authorizing
$10 million in grants over 2 years to State and local law enforcement
to combat hate crimes targeted to special categories of people. It is a
bad bill. This rule is a bad bill, not allowing for improvement, so I
ask Members to oppose the rule and the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record at this time
a list of endorsements from law enforcement organizations all across
the country. I will also submit for the Record the endorsement of the
National Education Association, the Religious Action Center of Reformed
Judaism, the Matthew Shepard Foundation and the UAW.
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crime Prevention Act of 2007
law enforcement support for this legislation
This legislation has received bipartisan majority support
in Congress. In the last session of Congress, on September
14, 2005, the House of Representatives approved the measure
as an amendment to the Children's Safety Act by a vote of
233-199. The Senate has approved the bill on two occasions
since 2000, most recently in June, 2004 by a vote of 65-33.
Unfortunately, in the past, the House leadership has acted to
block approval of this legislation.
The measure also enjoys the support of over 210 civil
rights, professional, civic, and religious groups, 31 state
Attorneys General, former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh,
and a number of the most important national law enforcement
organizations, including:
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Hispanic
American Police Command Officers Association, Hispanic
National Law Enforcement Association, International
Association of Chiefs of Police, International Brotherhood of
Police Officers, Major Cities Chiefs Association, National
Asian Peace Officers Association, National Black Police
Association, National Center for Women & Policing, National
Coalition of Public Safety Officers, National District
Attorneys Association, National Latino Police Officers
Association, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement
Executives, National Sheriffs' Association, Police Executive
Research Forum, Police Foundation.
Here's what some of them are saying about the legislation:
Police Executive Research Forum
``This measure is critical to helping law enforcement
effectively address the ravaging effects on hate crimes on
both the victims of these crimes and the communities
destabilized by the fear and anger they generate . . . In the
past, PERF has opposed efforts to expand the federal
government's authority over traditionally local crimes.
However, given the unusual nature of hate crimes and the
substantial gaps in state laws, PERF believes in a
significant federal role in combating hate crimes.''--
Excerpts from letter to Members of Congress from Chuck
Wexler, Executive Director, PERF, July 19, 2004.
National Sheriffs' Association
``On behalf of the more than 22,000 members of the National
Sheriffs' Association I am writing to seek your support for .
. . the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act [LLEEA].
Unfortunately, there are situations where state and local
authorities are unable to properly investigate these crimes.
This legislation overcomes those situations . . . The passage
of LLEEA will greatly assist state and local law enforcement
agencies in investigating and prosecuting hate crimes.''--
Excerpts from letters to congressional leadership from
Sheriff Aaron D. Kennard, Salt Lake City, Utah, President,
National Sheriffs' Association, July 21, 2004.
Dick Thornburgh, Former U.S. Attorney General
``I would like to express my strong support for the passage
of . . . the Hate Crimes Prevention Act . . . From my
experiences as a Governor, the Attorney General, and as a
parent of a child with a disability, I can attest to the
importance of this legislation . . . Please add my name to
the list of supporters for the passage of this important
legislation.''--Excerpts from letter to the Honorable Orrin
G. Hatch, Sept. 29, 1998.
International Association of Chiefs of Police
``On behalf of the International Association of Chiefs of
Police (IACP), I am writing to urge you to vote in support of
. . . the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act . . . The
passage of the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act will
greatly assist state and local law enforcement agencies in
investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. The IACP urges you
to vote for [the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act] . .
.''--Excerpts from letter to the Senate from Daniel N.
Rosenblatt, IACP Executive Director, Alexandria, Virginia,
July 19, 2004.
Albany County Sheriff's Department
``As you know, last week saw the conclusion of the trial of
Aaron McKinney for the murder of Matthew Shepard, a case on
which we worked day and night for the last year . . . We
believe justice was served in this case, but not without
cost. We have been devastated financially, due to expenses
incurred in bringing Matthew's killers to justice. For
example, we had to lay off five law enforcement staff. We do
not want the federal take over of hate crimes, but
communities like ours must be able to call upon the expertise
and resources of the federal government. This approach worked
very well in Jasper, Texas in the case of James Byrd Jr.
Because of the multiple jurisdiction granted by current
federal law related to race-based hate crimes, Jasper was
able to access approximately $284,000 in federal Byrne grant
money. These grants are only available when a federal
jurisdictional basis exists. Presently, unlike race, color,
religion and national origin, sexual orientation is not
covered. We believe this is a grave oversight that needs to
be corrected . . . We respectfully urge you to do everything
you can to give law enforcement the tools it needs to fight
crime in this country.''--Excerpts from letter to House
Speaker Dennis Hastert from Sheriff James Pond and Detective
Sergeant Robert DeBree, Albany County Sheriff's Department,
Nov. 11, 1999.
Eric Holder, Former U.S. Deputy Attorney General
``The enactment of H.R. 1082 [bill number for Hate Crimes
Prevention Act, 106th Congress] would significantly increase
the ability of state and federal law enforcement agencies to
work together to solve and prevent a wide range of violent
crimes committed because of bias based on the race, color,
national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or
disability of the victim. This bill is a thoughtful, measured
response to a critical problem facing our Nation.''--Excerpts
from testimony before the House Judiciary Committee hearing
on hate crimes, Aug. 4, 1999.
[[Page H4426]]
Jeanine Pirro, District Attorney from Westchester County,
N.Y.
``The vast majority of criminal prosecutions are brought by
local prosecutors . . . That is the way it should remain . .
. However, there are times when states are unable or
unwilling to recognize and address fundamental issues vital
to our society. And, when that time comes, the federal
government must act. Hate crime is a civil rights issue, and
the proper role of the federal government in controlling this
menace should mirror federal action in other areas of civil
rights . . . I maintain hope that immediate federal action on
this pressing issue will encourage states . . . to enact
legislation of their own . . .''--Excerpts from testimony
before the Senate Judiciary Committee, May 11, 1999.
Laramie, Wyoming, Police Department
``When it comes to the families of hate crime victims,
Congress needs to also be able to look these people in the
eyes and say it is doing all it can. In all honesty, right
now they cannot say this. There is much more they can do to
assist us in helping these families--if they can only find
the political will to do so . . . Yes, justice was served in
the end during the Shepard investigation. But the Albany
County Sheriff's office had to furlough five investigators
because of soaring costs. If the Local Law Enforcement
Enhancement Act were passed, this would never have happened .
. .''--Excerpts from press statement made by Commander David
O'Malley, chief investigator in the murder of Matthew
Shepard, Sept. 12, 2000.
National Association of Attorneys General
``We are writing to express our enthusiastic support for
the passage of . . . the Hate Crimes Prevention Act . . .
Although state and local governments will continue to have
the principal responsibility, an expanded federal role in
investigating and prosecuting serious forms of hate crimes is
critically needed if we are to be successful in addressing
and deterring these crimes in our nation. The amendment to 18
U.S.C. Section 245 would provide invaluable tools for the
United States Department of Justice and the United States
Attorneys to combat hate crimes effectively. Therefore, we
strongly urge passage of this important hate crimes
legislation.''--Excerpts from letter signed by 31 State
Attorneys Generals to Speaker Dennis Hastert, Majority Leader
Bill Frist, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate
Minority Leader Harry Reid, April, 2006.
National Center for Women & Policing
``. . . I want to assure you of our support for the Hate
Crimes Prevention Act . . . We realize the significance of
this important piece of legislation.''--Excerpts from letter
from Chief Penny Harrington, Director, National Center for
Women & Policing, to Elizabeth Birch, Human Rights Campaign,
March 23, 2000.
National District Attorneys Association
``On behalf of the members of the National District
Attorneys Association, I am writing to express our
organization's support of . . . the `Local Law Enforcement
Enhancement Act of 2005.' . . . With local law enforcement
and prosecutors investigating and prosecuting approximately
95 percent of the crimes committed such assistance would
certainly provide state and local officials with the
necessary tools to address crimes motivated by hate. The
National District Attorneys Association supports [the bill]
not only because of its proposal to provide additional
resources and federal assistance to state and local
authorities for the investigation and prosecution of hate
crimes but also its recognition of the primacy of state and
local jurisdiction over such crimes.''--Excerpts from letter
to The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy, April 14, 2006.
Police Foundation
``The Police Foundation urges you to support . . . [the]
Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act. Hate crimes are
extremely debilitating to individuals, groups, and entire
communities, and the prevention, investigation, and
prosecution of these crimes present important challenges for
local law enforcement . . . This legislation will be of
valuable assistance to state and local agencies . . .''--
Excerpts from letter to Members of Congress from Hubert
Williams, Chairman of the Board, Police Foundation, July 26,
2004.
Updated January, 2007.
____
support for this legislation
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act is
supported by thirty-one state Attorneys General and over 210
national law enforcement, professional, education, civil
rights, religious, and civic organizations.
A. Philip Randolph Institute, AIDS National Interfaith
Network, African-American Women's Clergy Association,
Alliance for Rehabilitation Counseling, American-Arab Anti-
Discrimination Committee, American Association for
Affirmative Action, American Association of University Women,
American Association on Mental Retardation, American Citizens
for Justice, American Civil Liberties Union, American Council
of the Blind, American Counseling Association, American
Ethical Union, Washington Office, American Federation of
Government Employees, American Federation of Musicians,
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO,
American Foundation for the Blind, American Jewish Committee.
American Jewish Congress, American Medical Association,
American Music Therapy Association, American Network of
Community Options and Resources, American Nurses Association,
American Speech-Language Hearing Association, American
Therapeutic Recreation Association, American Psychological
Association, Americans for Democratic Action, American
Veterans Committee, And Justice For All, Anti-Defamation
League, Aplastic Anemia Foundation of America, Inc., Arab
American Institute, The Arc of the United States, Asian
American Justice Center, Asian American Legal Defense &
Education Fund, Asian Law Caucus, Asian Pacific American
Labor Alliance, Asian Pacific American Legal Center.
Association for Gender Equity Leadership in Education,
AYUDA, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Bi-Net, B'nai
B'rith International, Brain Injury Association, Inc.,
Business and Professional Women, USA, Catholics for Free
Choice, Center for Community Change, Center for Democratic
Renewal, Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism, Center
for Women Policy Studies, Central Conference of American
Rabbis, Chinese American Citizens Alliance, Christian
Church Capital Area, Church Women United, Coalition of
Black Trade Unionists, Coalition of Labor Union Women,
Communication Workers of America.
Congress of National Black Churches, Consortium of
Developmental Disabilities Councils, Cuban American National
Council, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund,
Disciples of Christ Advocacy Washington Network, Easter
Seals, The Episcopal Church, Equal Partners in Faith,
Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, Office for Government
Affairs, Fair Employment Council of Greater Washington,
Family Pride Coalition, Federal Law Enforcement Officers
Association, Federally Employed Women, Feminist Majority,
Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, Gender Public
Advocacy Coalition, General Federation of Women's Clubs,
Goodwill Industries International, Inc., Hadassah, Hispanic
American Police Command Officers Association.
Hispanic National Law Enforcement Association, Human Rights
Campaign, Human Rights First, The Indian American Center for
Political Awareness, Interfaith Alliance, International
Association of Chiefs of Police, International Association of
Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, International Association of
Jewish Vocational Services, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, International Dyslexia Association, International
Union of United Aerospace and Agricultural Implements,
Japanese American Citizens League, Jewish Council for Public
Affairs, Jewish Labor Committee, Jewish War Veterans of the
USA, Jewish Women International, JAC-Joint Action Committee,
Justice for All, LDA, The Learning Disabilities Association
of America, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement,
Latino/a, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Organization,
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights, LEAP--Leadership Education for
Asian Pacifics, Inc., Learning Disabilities Association of
America, League of Women Voters.
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Log Cabin
Republicans, Major Cities Chiefs Association, MALDEF--Mexican
American Legal Defense & Education Fund, MANA--A National
Latina Organization, Maryland State Department of Education,
Matthew Shepard Foundation, The McAuley Institute, National
Abortion Federation, NAACP, NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, Inc., NA'AMAT USA, NAKASEC--National Korean
American Service & Education Consortium, Inc., National Asian
Pacific American Women's Forum, National Asian Peace Officers
Association, National Association for Multicultural
Education, National Association of Commissions for Women,
National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, National Alliance of
Postal and Federal Employees, National Asian Pacific American
Bar Association.
National Association for the Education and Advancement of
Cambodian, Laotian and Vietnamese Americans, National
Association of Collegiate Women Athletics Administrators,
National Association of the Deaf, National Association of
Developmental Disabilities Councils (NADDC), National
Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials
(NALEO), National Association of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and
Transgender Community Centers, National Association for
Multicultural Education, National Association of People with
AIDS, National Association of Private Schools for Exceptional
Children, National Association of Rehabilitation Research and
Training Centers, National Association of School
Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers,
National Black Police Association, National Black Women's
Health Project, National Center for Lesbian Rights,
National Center for Transgender Equality, National Center
for Victims of Crime, National Center for Women &
Policing, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community
Development, National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs,
National Coalition on Deaf-Blindness, National Coalition of
Public Safety Officers, National Conference for Community and
Justice (NCCJ), National Congress of American Indians,
National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, National
Council of Jewish Women,
[[Page H4427]]
National Council of La Raza, National Disability Rights
Network, National District Attorneys Association, National
Education Association, National Federation of Filipino
American Associations, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force,
National Hispanic Leadership Agenda (NHLA), National Italian
American Foundation, National Jewish Democratic Council,
National Korean American Service and Education Consortium,
National Latino Police Officers Association, National League
of Cities.
National Mental Health Association, National Multicultural
Institute, National Newspaper Publishers Association,
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives,
National Parent Network on Disabilities, National Partnership
for Women & Families, National Puerto Rican Coalition, Inc.,
National Rehabilitation Association, National Respite
Network, National Sheriffs' Association, National Spinal Cord
Injury Association, National Spiritual Assembly of the
Baha'is of the United States, National Therapeutic Recreation
Society, National Urban League, National Victim Center,
National Women's Law Center, National Youth Advocacy
Coalition, NOW--National Organization for Women, NOW Legal
Defense & Education Fund, NETWORK, A National Catholic Social
Justice Lobby.
Organization of Chinese Americans, ORT--Organization for
Educational Resources and Technological Training, Paralyzed
Veterans of America, Parents, Families and Friends of
Lesbians and Gays, People For the American Way, Police
Executive Research Forum, Police Foundation, Presbyterian
Church (USA), Washington Office, Pride at Work, Project
Equality, Inc., Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, Rehabilitation
Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North
America, The Rabbinical Assembly, Rock the Vote, Service
Employees International Union--AFL-CIO, Sikh American Legal
Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF), Society for the
Psychological Study of Social Issues, South Asian American
Leaders of Tomorrow (SAALT), Southeast Asia Resource Action
Center, Spina Bifida Association of America.
Union of Reform Judaism, Union of Needletrades, Industrial
& Textile Employees (UNITE), Unitarian Universalist
Association, United Church of Christ--Office of Church in
Society, United Food and Commercial Workers International
Union, United Methodist Church--General Commission on
Religion and Race, The United States Conference of Mayors,
United States Student Association, United Synagogue of
Conservative Judaism, The Woman Activist Fund, Inc., Women of
Reform Judaism--Federation of Temple Sisterhoods, Women
Work!, Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics & Ritual,
Women's American ORT, YWCA of the USA.
Updated February, 2007
____
April 30, 2007.
Hon. James P. McGovern,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman McGovern: On behalf of the National
Education Association's 3.2 million members, we would like to
urge your support for the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes
Prevention Act (H.R. 1592), scheduled for floor debate this
week. Votes associated with these issues may be included in
the NEA Legislative Report Card for the 110th Congress.
In spite of our nation's substantial advances toward
equality over the past 40 years, prejudice and hatred
continue to lead to violence. As educators, NEA members share
a commitment to protecting the civil and human rights of our
students and communities. We believe the federal government
must play a leadership role in confronting criminal acts
motivated by prejudice.
NEA has taken aggressive steps to address the issue of hate
crimes in the context of schools and school districts. NEA
and its affiliates have worked to develop training for
educators and programs for students regarding hate crimes and
human relations skills. But our efforts in this area will not
be successful absent a comprehensive federal/state/local
partnership to address hate crimes.
This legislation has strong bipartisan support in Congress;
the support of more than 210 law enforcement, civil rights,
civic and religious groups; and the support of the
overwhelming majority of American people. We urge your
support for this important initiative.
Sincerely,
Diane Shust,
Director of Government Relations.
Randall Moody,
Manager of Federal Advocacy.
____
Religious Action Center
of Reform Judaism,
April 30, 2007.
Dear Representative, On behalf of the Union for Reform
Judaism, whose more than 900 congregations across North
America encompass 1.5 million Reform Jews, I urge you to vote
for H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes
Prevention Act of 2007 (LLEHCPA).
All violent crimes are reprehensible, but the damage done
by hate crimes cannot be measured solely in terms of physical
injury or dollars and cents. Hate crimes rend the fabric of
our society and fragment communities; they target a whole
group of people, not just the individual victim. By providing
new authority for federal officials to investigate and
prosecute cases in which the violence occurs because of the
victim's real or perceived sexual orientation, gender
identity, gender, or disability, the LLEHCP A will
significantly strengthen the federal response to these
horrific crimes.
This legislation only applies to bias-motivated crimes, and
will not affect lawful public speech or preaching in any way.
States will continue to play the primary role in prosecuting
bias-motivated violence, but the LLEHCPA will allow the
federal government to intervene in cases where local
authorities are either unable or unwilling to investigate and
prosecute a criminal act as a hate crime.
Studies demonstrate that gay, lesbian, transgender, and
disabled persons face a significantly increased risk of
violence and harassment based solely on these immutable
characteristics. This long-overdue legislation would rightly
classify violence based On sexual orientation, gender
identity, and disability as a hate crime under federal
statute. We cannot allow another Congress to slip by without
enactment of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention
Act
As Jews, we cherish the biblical commandment found in
Leviticus 19:17: ``You shall not hate another in your
heart.'' We know all too well the dangers of unchecked
persecution and of failing to recognize hate crimes for what
they are: acts designed to victimize an entire community. We
also take to heart the commandment ``You may not stand idly
by when your neighbor's blood is being shed'' (Leviticus
19:16). Jewish tradition consistently teaches the importance
of tolerance and the acceptance of others. Inasmuch as we
value the pursuit of justice, we must actively work to
improve, open, and make safer our communities.
This bill has come far too close to becoming law for far
too long. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention
Act of 2007 is one of our organization's top legislative
priorities for the 11Oth Congress. I urge you to vote for
this legislation.
Sincerely,
Rabbi David Saperstein,
Director and Counsel.
____
Matthew Shepard Foundation,
May 2, 2007.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the Matthew Shepard
Foundation and our family, we urge you to vote YES and resist
any amendments and motions to recommit on the Local Law
Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (LLEHCPA) of 2007
(H.R. 1592).
Hate crimes are an unrelenting and under-addressed problem
in the United States. By enacting the LLEHCPA, a crucial step
will be taken to address violent crimes committed all too
often against individuals based on actual or perceived sexual
orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability.
In particular, hate crimes based on sexual orientation are
of grave concern. According to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's (FBI) Unified Crime Reports, approximately
10,000 hate crime incidents based on sexual orientation have
been reported since 1998. Consistently, since 1998, hates
crimes based on sexual orientation have ranked as the third
highest category of reported incidents in the United States.
These are just the statistics. Behind these numbers are real
human beings--our son Matthew being one of them.
Despite evidence of the grave reality of hate crimes, anti-
gay political organizations are spreading misinformation and
lies. Many members of Congress have been targeted by these
organizations claiming that this legislation would punish
religious people for anti-gay speech--dubbing this a
``thought crimes bill.''
These claims are completely false. This legislation would
grant local law enforcement officials federal funds for the
investigation and prosecution of violent crimes motivated out
of prejudice and hate that result in serious bodily injury
and death. Claims that the bill would punish preaching or
other ways of speaking out against homosexuality ring
particularly hollow because the legislation was specifically
crafted to prevent that. Two separate provisions make clear
that speech unrelated to the violent crime under
consideration could not be used to prove a hate crime. This
is about violent actions.
As the parents of a young man killed simply for being gay,
we refuse to be silent and let this bill be misconstrued by
these organizations. Let each of us be mindful that the only
crime of thought we can commit this week would be to let
these lies take our collective sights off of this vital bill
and the thousands of Americans who have lost their lives to
senseless hate violence.
Since Matthew's death, while we have continued our own
personal grieving, we have met too many other parents who
have lost children in the same way we did. For all of those
parents, for our own family, and for Matthew--we are calling
on all members of the House of Representatives to vote YES on
the H.R. 1592 and to resist any attempts to kill this
critical piece of legislation to protect all Americans from
violence. If you have any questions or would like additional
information, please contact Brad Clark, Outreach & Advocacy
Director, at (303) 830-7400 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Judy Shepard,
Executive Director.
Dennis W. Shepard,
Chairman, Board of Directors.
[[Page H4428]]
____
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America--UAW,
May 1, 2007.
Dear Representative: This week the House is scheduled to
take up the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act
of 2007 (H.R. 1592.) The UAW strongly supports this hate
crimes prevention legislation. We urge you to vote for this
vital legislation and to oppose any weakening amendments.
This legislation would strengthen existing federal hate
crimes laws by removing unnecessary obstacles to federal
prosecution and providing authority for federal involvement
in a wider category of bias-motivated crimes. Specifically,
H.R. 1592 would eliminate the current requirement that the
crime must have been committed because of the victim's
involvement in a ``federally protected activity,'' such as
voting, serving on a jury or attending public school. It
would also permit federal involvement in the prosecution of
bias-motivated crimes based on the victim's gender, sexual
orientation or disability.
This measure has repeatedly attracted majority, bipartisan
support in both the Senate and the House. In the 109th
Congress, the House of Representatives approved the text of
this measure as an amendment to the Children's Safety Act by
a vote of 223-199 on September 14, 2005. In the 108th
Congress, on June 15, 2004, the Senate approved this measure
as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2005 by a vote of 65-33. In September 2004, the
House approved a motion to instruct its conferees to retain
this provision in conference by a vote of 213-186.
Unfortunately, this legislation was dropped from the final
conference report.
The UAW believes there is a need for a strong federal
response against hate crimes. Congress has an opportunity to
provide leadership on this vital issue by acting to
strengthen the federal hate crimes statute. We therefore urge
you to support the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes
Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1592) and to oppose any
weakening amendments.
Thank you for considering our views on this important
issue.
Sincerely,
Alan Reuther,
Legislative Director.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us provides much needed
support for local law enforcement agencies in the fight against violent
hate crimes. That's why so many law enforcement agencies all across the
country are enthusiastically supporting this legislation. That's why 31
State Attorney Generals, including the Republican Attorney General from
the State of Washington, supports this bill.
Victims have reported an average of 191,000 hate crime incidents
annually since the year 2000. Seventy-three percent of Americans
support strengthening hate crimes laws.
This bill, as I said, is endorsed by virtually every major law
enforcement organization in the country. The legislation is also
supported by President George H.W. Bush's Attorney General, Dick
Thornburg. This legislation is virtually identical to the version
approved by a bipartisan majority in the Republican-led 109th Congress.
Hate crimes affect more than one individual, Mr. Speaker. It is
committed with the intention of terrorizing a group of people or an
entire community.
Now, we've heard arguments from some on the other side that this bill
somehow violates the first amendment. In fact, the measure includes an
explicit statement that the bill may not be interpreted as limiting
first amendment protections language that is based on the existing
Washington State hate crime statute. The provision only applies when a
person's conduct, not thought or speech, is being punished.
Mr. Speaker, the United States Supreme Court has rejected the claim
that a hate crime law is a law against thoughts. The Supreme Court
recognized in Wisconsin v. Mitchell that it is common to take motive
into account in criminal law.
So to those of my colleagues who are worried about protecting bigoted
speech, they can stop worrying because this bill, sadly, will not
affect that kind of speech.
Now, some have argued that this law is an unnecessary extension of
the Federal Government. The bill provides support and resources to
assist local law enforcement agencies. The majority of hate crimes will
still be prosecuted at the State level. The Federal Government only has
jurisdiction in certainly limited and extreme circumstances.
The Federal Government has the responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to
protect all Americans against bigotry and against violent crime.
So what we have before us, Mr. Speaker, is relatively simple; you
either support providing an expansion of civil liberties and civil
rights and civil protections under the law, or you don't. So that is
the question that my colleagues have to deal with.
I think the answer is simple. I think we should support this
legislation. This is a good bill. It should enjoy bipartisanship
support because it has in the past. I would urge all of my colleagues
to support this rule and to support the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of
the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217,
nays 196, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 296]
YEAS--217
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--196
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
[[Page H4429]]
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--19
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Engel
Fattah
Gingrey
Graves
Hirono
Hunter
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Lampson
McMorris Rodgers
Moran (VA)
Ortiz
Paul
Radanovich
Tancredo
Tanner
{time} 1124
Mr. DUNCAN, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, and Mr. BURGESS changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 296, I was attending a
hearing on S. 310, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of
2007 and missed this vote. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213,
noes 199, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 297]
AYES--213
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--199
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--20
Boucher
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Engel
Fattah
Gingrey
Graves
Heller
Hunter
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Lampson
McMorris Rodgers
Moran (VA)
Ortiz
Paul
Radanovich
Tancredo
Tanner
{time} 1134
Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 364, I call up
the bill (H.R. 1592) to provide Federal assistance to States, local
jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1592
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Local Law Enforcement Hate
Crimes Prevention Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or
perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender,
sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the
victim poses a serious national problem.
(2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of
communities and is deeply divisive.
(3) State and local authorities are now and will continue
to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority
of violent crimes in the United States, including violent
crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out
their responsibilities
[[Page H4430]]
more effectively with greater Federal assistance.
(4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this
problem.
(5) A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated
by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and
the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages
the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be
selected.
(6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce
in many ways, including the following:
(A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded,
and members of such groups are forced to move across State
lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.
(B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from
purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining
employment, or participating in other commercial activity.
(C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.
(D) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of
interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of
such violence.
(E) Such violence is committed using articles that have
traveled in interstate commerce.
(7) For generations, the institutions of slavery and
involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and
ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary
servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption
of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, through widespread public and private violence
directed at persons because of their race, color, or
ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly,
eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means
of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges,
incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.
(8) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th
amendments to the Constitution of the United States were
adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious
and national origin groups were and are perceived to be
distinct ``races''. Thus, in order to eliminate, to the
extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of
slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of
real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to
the extent such religions or national origins were regarded
as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and
15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
(9) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes
motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local
authorities to work together as partners in the investigation
and prosecution of such crimes.
(10) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is
sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as
to warrant Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions,
and Indian tribes.
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.
In this Act--
(1) the term ``crime of violence'' has the meaning given
that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;
(2) the term ``hate crime'' has the meaning given such term
in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and
(3) the term ``local'' means a county, city, town,
township, parish, village, or other general purpose political
subdivision of a State.
SEC. 4. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS
BY STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICIALS.
(a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance.--
(1) In general.--At the request of State, local, or Tribal
law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide
technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of
assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of
any crime that--
(A) constitutes a crime of violence;
(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or Tribal
laws; and
(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or
perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender,
sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the
victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Tribal hate
crime laws.
(2) Priority.--In providing assistance under paragraph (1),
the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed
by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one State
and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the
extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or
prosecution of the crime.
(b) Grants.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General may award grants to
State, local, and Indian law enforcement agencies for
extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and
prosecution of hate crimes.
(2) Office of justice programs.--In implementing the grant
program under this subsection, the Office of Justice Programs
shall work closely with grantees to ensure that the concerns
and needs of all affected parties, including community groups
and schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed
through the local infrastructure developed under the grants.
(3) Application.--
(A) In general.--Each State, local, and Indian law
enforcement agency that desires a grant under this subsection
shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such
time, in such manner, and accompanied by or containing such
information as the Attorney General shall reasonably require.
(B) Date for submission.--Applications submitted pursuant
to subparagraph (A) shall be submitted during the 60-day
period beginning on a date that the Attorney General shall
prescribe.
(C) Requirements.--A State, local, and Indian law
enforcement agency applying for a grant under this subsection
shall--
(i) describe the extraordinary purposes for which the grant
is needed;
(ii) certify that the State, local government, or Indian
tribe lacks the resources necessary to investigate or
prosecute the hate crime;
(iii) demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement
the grant, the State, local, and Indian law enforcement
agency has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit,
nongovernmental victim services programs that have experience
in providing services to victims of hate crimes; and
(iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this
subsection will be used to supplement, not supplant, non-
Federal funds that would otherwise be available for
activities funded under this subsection.
(4) Deadline.--An application for a grant under this
subsection shall be approved or denied by the Attorney
General not later than 30 business days after the date on
which the Attorney General receives the application.
(5) Grant amount.--A grant under this subsection shall not
exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any 1-year
period.
(6) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2008, the Attorney
General shall submit to Congress a report describing the
applications submitted for grants under this subsection, the
award of such grants, and the purposes for which the grant
amounts were expended.
(7) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
SEC. 5. GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Authority To Award Grants.--The Office of Justice
Programs of the Department of Justice may award grants, in
accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may
prescribe, to State, local, or Tribal programs designed to
combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs
to train local law enforcement officers in identifying,
investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST
STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department
of the Treasury and the Department of Justice, including the
Community Relations Service, for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and
2010 such sums as are necessary to increase the number of
personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations of
section 249 of title 18, United States Code, as added by
section 7 of this Act.
SEC. 7. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 13 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 249. Hate crime acts
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color,
religion, or national origin.--Whoever, whether or not acting
under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any
person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an
explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily
injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived
race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--
``(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in
accordance with this title, or both; and
``(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for
life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
``(i) death results from the offense; or
``(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to
kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
``(2) Offenses involving actual or perceived religion,
national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity,
or disability.--
``(A) In general.--Whoever, whether or not acting under
color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph
(B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through
the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary
device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person,
because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin,
gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of
any person--
``(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in
accordance with this title, or both; and
``(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for
life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
``(I) death results from the offense; or
``(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to
kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
``(B) Circumstances described.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this
subparagraph are that--
[[Page H4431]]
``(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs
during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the
defendant or the victim--
``(I) across a State line or national border; or
``(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of
interstate or foreign commerce;
``(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or
instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in
connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);
``(iii) in connection with the conduct described in
subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, explosive
or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in
interstate or foreign commerce; or
``(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--
``(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity
in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or
``(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.
``(b) Certification Requirement.--No prosecution of any
offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the
United States, except under the certification in writing of
the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the
Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General
specially designated by the Attorney General that--
``(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to
believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion,
national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity,
or disability of any person was a motivating factor
underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and
``(2) such certifying individual has consulted with State
or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution
and determined that--
``(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not
intend to exercise jurisdiction;
``(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government
assume jurisdiction;
``(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government
assuming jurisdiction; or
``(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State
charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal
interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.
``(c) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `explosive or incendiary device' has the
meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;
``(2) the term `firearm' has the meaning given such term in
section 921(a) of this title; and
``(3) the term `gender identity' for the purposes of this
chapter means actual or perceived gender-related
characteristics.
``(d) Rule of Evidence.--In a prosecution for an offense
under this section, evidence of expression or associations of
the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence
at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that
offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules
of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for
chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``249. Hate crime acts.''.
SEC. 8. STATISTICS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (b)(1) of the first section of
the Hate Crimes Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is
amended by inserting ``gender and gender identity,'' after
``race,''.
(b) Data.--Subsection (b)(5) of the first section of the
Hate Crimes Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by
inserting ``, including data about crimes committed by, and
crimes directed against, juveniles'' after ``data acquired
under this section''.
SEC. 9. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this
Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any
person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the
remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and
the application of the provisions of such to any person or
circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McNulty). Pursuant to House Resolution
364, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill,
modified by the amendment printed in House Report 110-120, is adopted
and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 1592
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Local Law Enforcement Hate
Crimes Prevention Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.
In this Act--
(1) the term ``crime of violence'' has the meaning given
that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;
(2) the term ``hate crime'' has the meaning given such term
in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and
(3) the term ``local'' means a county, city, town,
township, parish, village, or other general purpose political
subdivision of a State.
SEC. 3. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS
BY STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICIALS.
(a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance.--
(1) In general.--At the request of State, local, or Tribal
law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide
technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of
assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of
any crime that--
(A) constitutes a crime of violence;
(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or Tribal
laws; and
(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or
perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender,
sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the
victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Tribal hate
crime laws.
(2) Priority.--In providing assistance under paragraph (1),
the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed
by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one State
and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the
extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or
prosecution of the crime.
(b) Grants.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General may award grants to
State, local, and Indian law enforcement agencies for
extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and
prosecution of hate crimes.
(2) Office of justice programs.--In implementing the grant
program under this subsection, the Office of Justice Programs
shall work closely with grantees to ensure that the concerns
and needs of all affected parties, including community groups
and schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed
through the local infrastructure developed under the grants.
(3) Application.--
(A) In general.--Each State, local, and Indian law
enforcement agency that desires a grant under this subsection
shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such
time, in such manner, and accompanied by or containing such
information as the Attorney General shall reasonably require.
(B) Date for submission.--Applications submitted pursuant
to subparagraph (A) shall be submitted during the 60-day
period beginning on a date that the Attorney General shall
prescribe.
(C) Requirements.--A State, local, and Indian law
enforcement agency applying for a grant under this subsection
shall--
(i) describe the extraordinary purposes for which the grant
is needed;
(ii) certify that the State, local government, or Indian
tribe lacks the resources necessary to investigate or
prosecute the hate crime;
(iii) demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement
the grant, the State, local, and Indian law enforcement
agency has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit,
nongovernmental violence recovery service programs that have
experience in providing services to victims of hate crimes;
and
(iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this
subsection will be used to supplement, not supplant, non-
Federal funds that would otherwise be available for
activities funded under this subsection.
(4) Deadline.--An application for a grant under this
subsection shall be approved or denied by the Attorney
General not later than 30 business days after the date on
which the Attorney General receives the application.
(5) Grant amount.--A grant under this subsection shall not
exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any 1-year
period.
(6) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2008, the Attorney
General shall submit to Congress a report describing the
applications submitted for grants under this subsection, the
award of such grants, and the purposes for which the grant
amounts were expended.
(7) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
SEC. 4. GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Authority To Award Grants.--The Office of Justice
Programs of the Department of Justice may award grants, in
accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may
prescribe, to State, local, or Tribal programs designed to
combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs
to train local law enforcement officers in identifying,
investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST
STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department
of Justice, including the Community Relations Service, for
fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010 such sums as are necessary
to increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to
alleged violations of section 249 of title 18, United States
Code, as added by section 7 of this Act.
SEC. 6. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 13 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 249. Hate crime acts
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color,
religion, or national origin.--Whoever, whether or not acting
under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any
person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an
explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily
injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived
race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--
[[Page H4432]]
``(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in
accordance with this title, or both; and
``(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for
life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
``(i) death results from the offense; or
``(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to
kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
``(2) Offenses involving actual or perceived religion,
national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity,
or disability.--
``(A) In general.--Whoever, whether or not acting under
color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph
(B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through
the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary
device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person,
because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin,
gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of
any person--
``(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in
accordance with this title, or both; and
``(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for
life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
``(I) death results from the offense; or
``(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to
kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
``(B) Circumstances described.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this
subparagraph are that--
``(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs
during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the
defendant or the victim--
``(I) across a State line or national border; or
``(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of
interstate or foreign commerce;
``(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or
instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in
connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);
``(iii) in connection with the conduct described in
subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, explosive
or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in
interstate or foreign commerce; or
``(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--
``(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity
in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or
``(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.
``(b) Certification Requirement.--No prosecution of any
offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the
United States, except under the certification in writing of
the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the
Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General
specially designated by the Attorney General that--
``(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to
believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion,
national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity,
or disability of any person was a motivating factor
underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and
``(2) such certifying individual has consulted with State
or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution
and determined that--
``(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not
intend to exercise jurisdiction;
``(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government
assume jurisdiction;
``(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government
assuming jurisdiction; or
``(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State
charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal
interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.
``(c) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `explosive or incendiary device' has the
meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;
``(2) the term `firearm' has the meaning given such term in
section 921(a) of this title; and
``(3) the term `gender identity' for the purposes of this
chapter means actual or perceived gender-related
characteristics.
``(d) Rule of Evidence.--In a prosecution for an offense
under this section, evidence of expression or associations of
the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence
at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that
offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules
of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 13 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following
new item:
``249. Hate crime acts.''.
SEC. 7. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this
Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any
person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the
remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and
the application of the provisions of such to any person or
circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act,
shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct
protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities
protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the
First Amendment to the Constitution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers)
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
General Leave
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
H.R. 1592.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the hate crimes bill, H.R. 1592, will provide assistance
to State and local enforcement agencies and amend Federal law to
facilitate the investigation and prosecution of violent, bias-motivated
crimes.
Last Congress, this legislation passed with a bipartisan vote, and it
also passed in the 108th Congress and the 106th Congress. So we have
the same bill before us that we had in the 109th Congress.
This legislation has attracted the support of over 211 civil rights
organizations, educational institutions, religious organizations, civic
groups; and importantly, virtually every major law enforcement
organization in the country has endorsed the bill, including the
International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National District
Attorneys Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the Police
Executive Research Forum and 26 State attorneys general.
Hate crimes are disturbingly prevalent and pose a significant threat
to the full participation of all Americans in our democratic society.
It just so happens that we documented 113,000 hate crimes by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and in the year 2005, the most current
data available, the FBI compiled reports on law enforcement agencies
across the country, identifying 7,163 bias-motivated criminal
incidents.
The fact of the matter that is known to law enforcement is that hate
crime incidents are notoriously underreported; and so we come here
today to take the civil rights laws that we have passed across the
years to the last, final extent, to crimes of violence based on the
hate of the individual, intended to intimidate the class or group that
that individual comes from.
We have a strong bill. We have more supporters than ever in the
Congress and in the national community, and we know that the current
law limits Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes against individuals on
the basis of race, religion, color or national origin, but only when
the victim is targeted because he or she is engaged in a Federal
protected activity, such as voting.
Further, the existing statutes do not permit Federal involvement in a
range of cases where the crimes are motivated by bias against the
victims' actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender
identity or disability.
This legislation, identical to the version approved in the 109th
Congress, will strengthen existing Federal law in the same way that the
Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 helped Federal prosecutors combat
church arson, by addressing the rigid jurisdictional requirements under
Federal law and expand the jurisdiction to crimes motivated by bias
against the victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender,
gender identity or disability.
This bill only applies to bias-motivated crimes of violence. It does
not impinge on public speech or writing in any way. In fact, the
measure improves two explicit first amendment free speech protections
for the accused, and we want you to know that there are no first
amendment disabilities about this measure in any way. As a personal
advocate of the first amendment, I can assure you that that would be
the last thing that would be allowed to be in this bill.
What we are saying now is that a vote for this bill is not a vote in
favor of any particular sexual belief or characteristic. It is a vote,
rather, to provide basic rights for and protection for individuals so
that they are protected from assaults based on their sexual
orientation.
But the majority of incidents reported on racially motivated crimes,
54 percent, are based on racially motivated crimes, 17 percent on
religious bias, and 14 percent on sexual orientation bias.
The time has come for the Congress to finally deal with this whole
subject
[[Page H4433]]
of hate crimes. It is a blot on our constitutional understanding of
what democracy is all about, and it is so important that today we
debate and pass finally the hate crimes law that has been here and
approved in three different Congresses.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill, H.R. 1592, for three reasons. First,
the bill will result in disproportionate justice for crime victims who
do not fall within the categories it contains. Second, it will have a
chilling effect on religious freedom and first amendment rights. And
third, it is probably unconstitutional and raises significant
Federalism issues.
We can all agree that every violent crime is deplorable, regardless
of its motivation. Every violent crime can be devastating not only to
the victim, but also to the larger community whose public safety has
been violated. That is why all violent crimes must be vigorously
prosecuted. However, this bill, no matter how well intended, undermines
basic principles of our criminal justice system.
Our criminal justice system has been built on the ideal of equal
justice for all. Under this bill, justice will no longer be equal, but
depend on the race, sex, sexual orientation, disability or status of
the victim. It will allow different penalties to be imposed for the
same crime. For example, criminals who kill a homosexual or transsexual
will be punished more harshly than criminals who kill a police officer,
a member of the military, a child, a senior citizen or any other
person.
{time} 1145
To me, all victims should have equal worth in the eyes of the law. In
fact, in 1984, Congress, in a bipartisan manner, enacted the Sentencing
Reform Act to ensure the consistent application of criminal penalties
to avoid, ``unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants who
have been found guilty of similar criminal conduct.''
Why are we departing from the fairness embodied in that Act?
Ordinarily, criminal law does not concern itself with motive, but
rather with intent.
This legislation forces law enforcement officials to comb the
offender's past to determine whether the offender ever expressed
hostility toward a protected group. In addition, the bill raises the
real possibility that religious leaders or members of religious groups
could become the subject of a criminal investigation focusing on a
suspect's religious beliefs, membership and religious organizations and
any past statements made by a suspect. A chilling effect on religious
leaders and others who, press their constitutionally protected beliefs,
unfortunately, could result.
Some of my colleagues on the other side will claim that an amendment
adopted during committee markup protects religious speech. However, it
would not diminish the chilling effect of possible involvement in
criminal investigations. Religious speakers and groups will feel in
greater jeopardy as a result of this bill.
The facts of the Supreme Court decision in Wisconsin v. Mitchell
underscore the danger of this legislation. In that case, Todd Mitchell
received an enhanced hate crime sentence because of remarks he made to
prior to others attacking a teenager because of his race. Mitchell did
not participate in the physical assault of the teenager. His sentence
was upheld. He was punished for his words.
My colleagues on the other side have argued that no prosecutor would
ever subject members of a religious community to the criminal process.
Are we willing to take the risk and leave the first amendment
protections to a prosecutor's discretion?
I also believe the bill itself is probably unconstitutional and will
likely be struck down by the courts. There is little evidence to
support the claim that hate crimes impact interstate or foreign
commerce, an important consideration for any Federal court reviewing
the constitutionality of this legislation.
In 2000, the Supreme Court in the United States v. Morrison struck
down a prohibition on gender-motivated violence. In that case, the
court specifically warned Congress that the commerce clause does not
apply to noneconomic violent criminal conduct that does not cross State
lines, nor does the proposed legislation authorized under the 14th and
15th amendments. Those amendments only extend to State action and do
not cover the actions of private persons who commit violent crimes.
While the 13th amendment reaches private conduct such as individual
criminal conduct, it is difficult to argue that one's sexual
orientation, disability or gender identity constitutes a badge and
incidence of slavery. Aside from the constitutional defects of this
bill, it purports to federalize crimes that are being effectively
prosecuted by our States and local governments.
FBI statistics show that the incidence of so-called hate crimes has
actually declined over the last 10 years. Only six of approximately
15,000 homicides in the Nation involved hate crimes.
As the Washington Post stated in a previous editorial, ``Rape, murder
and assault--no matter what prejudice motivates the perpetrator--are
presumptively local matters in which the Federal Government should
intervene only when it has a pressing interest. The fact that hatred
lurks behind a violent incident is not, in our view, an adequate
Federal interest . . .''
Unfortunately we cannot legislate away the hatred that some feel in
their hearts. We need fewer labels and more unity in our country. For
all the reasons I have mentioned above, I oppose the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a
distinguished member of the committee, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, the House today has a historic opportunity
to expand upon the principles of equal rights and equal protection
embodied in our Constitution by passing the Local Law Enforcement Hate
Crimes Prevention Act.
This Act would offer Federal protections for victims of hate crimes
targeted because of their race, color, religion, national origin,
sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability. These
characteristics are included in this hate crimes legislation, not
because they deserve any special protection as opponents of this
legislation claim, but because of the history of particularly heinous
and violent crimes committed against individuals based on such
characteristics. That's what warrants this inclusion.
I wanted to share several stories about why this legislation is so
important. I only have time for one. Let us never forget the story of
Matthew Shepard, who was brutally attacked by his hateful, homophobic
assailants and left to die on a fence in a remote area of Wyoming.
Matthew's death generated international outrage by exposing the
violent nature of hate crimes and its horrific effect on the entire
targeted commune. The sponsors of the Senate hate crimes legislation
have renamed the bill the Matthew Shepard Act. Today we have been
joined by Matthew's mother, Judy Shepard and a lead investigator in
this case, David O'Malley, who are still courageously advocating for
the passage of this legislation more than 8 years after Matthew's
death.
The passage of hate crimes legislation is long overdue. This will be
critical for both symbolic and substantive reasons. The legal
protections are essential to our system of ordered justice and
essential for ensuring that those who commit heinous crimes are
punished. But on a symbolic basis, it is important for Congress to
enunciate clearly that hate-based violence targeting women, gays,
lesbians, transgender individuals and people with disabilities will no
longer be tolerated.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Conyers, Chairman Scott, and
the staff of the Judiciary Committee for their diligent work in
bringing the bill to the floor.
Hate crimes are different than other violent crimes because they seek
to instill fear into a whole community--be it burning a cross in
someone's yard, the burning of a synagogue, or a rash of aggravated
batteries of people outside a gay community center. These are crimes
motivated by prejudice and meant to send a message to society and
others who
[[Page H4434]]
belong to the same category. 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.
I want to share with you a few reasons why the passage of this
legislation is so urgent and necessary. Last week in Committee, we
heard from a very young man, Mr. David Ritcheson, who was brutally
beaten last year by two individuals due to his ethnicity as a Mexican-
American. Mr. Ritcheson spent the next 3 months and 8 days in the
hospital, recovering from severe internal injuries. Yet because the
attack took place in a private yard rather than an area of public
access, the FBI had no grounds to investigate the attack under existing
hate crimes laws.
The story of Brandon Teena also demonstrates the need for this
legislation. Dramatized in the movie ``Boys Don't Cry,'' Brandon was
raped and later killed after the discovery of his biological gender by
two acquaintances. Five days before his murder, Brandon reported his
rape and beating by the same perpetrators, but the Richardson County
Nebraska Sheriff would not pursue the case against Brandon's attackers.
Let us never forget the story of Matthew Shepard, who was brutally
attacked by his hateful homophobic assailants and left to die on a
fence in a remote area of Wyoming. Matthew's death generated
international outrage by exposing the violent nature of hate crimes and
its horrific effect on the targeted community. I remember the impact
locally in Wyoming. I was in the midst of my first campaign for
Congress in October 1998. Many gay and lesbian youths roughly Matthew's
age were working on my campaign. I remember the impact of the crime on
them. They were afraid for their safety, and that is precisely the
effect these crimes have. The sponsors of the Senate hate crimes
legislation have renamed the bill the Matthew Shepard Act, and today we
are joined by Matthew's mother Judy Shepard and the lead investigator
in his case David O'Malley, who are still courageously advocating for
the passage of this legislation more than 8 years after Matthew's
tragic death. Mr. Speaker, the passage of hate crimes legislation is
long overdue.
The passage of H.R. 1592 today will be critical for both substantive
and symbolic reasons. The legal protections are essential to our system
of ordered justice and essential for ensuring that those who commit
these heinous crimes are punished . . . but on a symbolic basis, it is
important for Congress to enunciate clearly that hate-based violence
targeting women, gays and lesbians, transgender individuals, and people
with disabilities will no longer be tolerated.
The opponents of this legislation will disseminate a lot of
misinformation today in order to derail this bill. But make no mistake,
the legislation we are considering today has been carefully crafted to
protect an individual's First Amendment right to speech, expression,
and association. It also provides much needed federal resources to
local law enforcement authorities without usurping local authority.
Finally, the bill is fully consistent with Supreme Court precedence on
both First Amendment and interstate commerce cases.
Our society is not perfect; the passage of the Local Law Enforcement
Hate Crimes Prevention Act will not make all hate crimes go away. H.R.
1592 is about giving state, local, and federal law enforcement
authorities the necessary resources and tools to combat violent crimes
based on prejudice and intended to terrorize a group of people or an
entire community. Such hate crimes are in desperate need of a federal
response, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in support of this
bill.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) a senior member of the
Judiciary Committee and a former attorney general of California.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, hate crimes are a serious issue. That's why 45 out of
the 50 States have laws against them. That's why we have an already
existing Federal law where there is a Federal interest involved.
Unfortunately, this bill is not necessary or is not drawn
appropriately for any specific Federal problem. Some 20 years ago, I
remember supporting the gentleman from Massachusetts against an effort
by a Member on my side of the aisle to remove homosexuals from
protection under the Hate Crimes Act at the time, that is the Hate
Crimes Statistics Act. That went to the definition.
I am concerned about the definition in this bill. I mentioned this
during the rule. In this rule there is no definition of sexual
orientation, which becomes a protected class in the sense of enhanced
penalty or a new crime for protection for such a victim.
We asked whether we would put the definition that is noted in the
statute that goes to the sentencing commission in the bill. In fact,
many on the committee said that I had a good idea. Yet, I was denied
the opportunity in committee and in the Rules Committee to present
that.
So, therefore, we have no definition of sexual orientation. I wanted
the simple definition that's recognized in the note to the sentencing
commission, which limits it to homosexual or heterosexual conduct. So,
now we have an undefined term of sexual orientation.
Why am I concerned about it? Because I come from the State of
California, where, for the past 20 years, we have had a problem dealing
with an organization called NAMBLA, North American Man/Boy Love
Association. They march in parades. They asserted the right, under the
first amendment, to be able to hold their meetings in the local chapter
in a library in my district. That's a sexual orientation.
Without limiting the definition, as I asked us to do, we open up the
potential for creating a new protected class. I do not understand why
the majority refused to allow us a serious amendment to just define
what this is and get rid of this problem.
We were told, look at the statute. It defines it. We found out it
didn't. It said it does it by reference. We went to it. The only
reference is to a note to the sentencing commission. It is not defined.
If this is not taken care of, this bill, I know it's not the intent,
but it becomes essentially a NAMBLA Protection Act, because it allows
that sort of conduct or any other sexual orientation to be considered
because there is a lack of definition.
Why you didn't allow it, I don't know. But you didn't allow it. On
that grounds alone, this bill ought not to go forward.
This bill needs to be reviewed, it needs to be amended, it needs to
be perfected. It doesn't do what it claims it does. It has an expansion
beyond all that anybody would support. At least in the committee they
told me they didn't support it.
They said they would take care of it. They didn't take care of it. I
asked for a simple amendment in the Rules Committee. We were denied a
simple amendment. I don't know why you are doing this, but it is a
failure of this bill and will probably defeat this bill.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
First of all, I want to assure my friend Mr. Lungren, the former
attorney general of California, that we have no opposition about
dealing with the definition of which he complained.
I also take this opportunity to remind him that 26 State attorney
generals, just like you were, approved this bill.
Now I turn to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Bobby Scott,
and I yield him 2 minutes.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, bias-based crimes are an unfortunate reality in this
country. This legislation is necessary because existing law, 18 U.S.C.
section 245(b)(2) does not protect individuals from violent acts based
on race, color, national origin or religion, unless the defendant
intended to interfere with the victims' participation in certain
enumerated Federal activities.
Additionally, Federal law does not presently provide for hate crime
protection at all for a tax based on sexual orientation, gender, gender
identity or disability.
Mr. Speaker, this bill also addresses many of the express concerns
about the first amendment rights to free speech and association. H.R.
1592 addresses these concerns by providing an evidentiary exclusion,
which prohibits the government from introducing evidence of expression
or association as substantive evidence at trial, unless it is directly
relevant to the elements of the crime.
This provision will ensure that defendants will only be prosecuted
and
[[Page H4435]]
convicted based on their criminal acts, not on what they say or what
they believe, or because of the people with whom they are associated.
There are some of us who criticize the bill as an improper exercise of
Federal jurisdiction. But based on testimony and the issues of the
witnesses at our hearings, this legislation has been carefully drafted
to address the Supreme Court's decisions in Lopez and Morrison, which
limited Congress' jurisdiction to pass legislation.
Furthermore, H.R. 1592, in response to the gentleman's complaint,
Federal prosecutors must confer with State authorities to decide
whether Federal jurisdiction is appropriate, and no prosecution can
proceed without the express approval of the United States attorney
general or his designee. Additionally at trial they must prove a valid
Federal interest as a specific element of the crime.
In addition to creating new hate crime offenses and expanding the
application of existing ones, this bill also establishes an important
grant program to provide financial assistance to States, local, and
tribal law enforcement agencies to provide much-needed assistance in
investigating high-profile crimes.
Mr. Speaker, this bill has broad support. For these reasons, I urge
my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), a senior member of the Judiciary
Committee and a ranking member of the IP subcommittee.
Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill before us.
All crimes are deplorable, particularly when they are motivated by
some form of discrimination. But this bill, in my opinion, does nothing
to prevent these acts. States and Federal governments traditionally
prosecute hate crimes now. I agree with the argument that this bill
would unfairly classify crimes against certain groups of people, and
ignore others such as law enforcement, children, veterans or senior
citizens who deserve the same degree of protection.
{time} 1200
I am concerned that this legislation will lead to unseemly
investigations, possibly into thoughts and beliefs, which could have
the effect of criminalizing religious or political speech.
Furthermore, I understand that the legislation does not have a nexus
with interstate commerce that would survive a constitutional challenge.
I understand the need to protect vulnerable people, Mr. Speaker, and
I support funding to help community safety and to prosecute criminals,
but I cannot support this legislation.
Oftentimes, Mr. Speaker, those of us who oppose hate crime
legislation are accused of being uncaring and insensitive. Now, to
those charges I plead ``not guilty,'' but I oppose this, among other
reasons, because hate crime legislation is duplicative. There is
sufficient statutory relief readily available now to aggrieved victims.
There is such a thing as having too many laws, and I think this would
result if we enact this today, and I urge its defeat.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
(Mr. SHAYS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, as one of the lead Republican cosponsors of H.R. 1592, I
am pleased we are considering this legislation, which will allow the
Justice Department to investigate crimes committed on the basis of the
victims race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual
orientation, gender identity or disability.
Under this bill, hate crimes that cause death or bodily injury
because of prejudice can be investigated federally, regardless of
whether the victim was exercising a federally protected right.
In my judgment, violence based on prejudice is a matter of national
concern that federal prosecutors should be empowered to punish if the
States are unable or unwilling to do so.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said:
We must scrupulously guard the civil rights and civil
liberties of all citizens, whatever their background. We must
remember that any oppression, any injustice, any hatred, is a
wedge designed to attack our civilization.
That statement is no less true today than it was back then. I urge
support of this legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this as the original
cosponsor of this legislation. We find that a hate crime can ignite
group-on-group violence that would tear a community apart. We have seen
it in other countries; we want to make sure it never happens here.
This is especially dangerous when group-on-group violence can
overwhelm a small suburban police department, and this offers
assistance so that a small problem doesn't become a big problem and
doesn't become a national problem. We saw when Rodney King was beaten
that a riot broke out in Beloit, Wisconsin, and overwhelmed that police
department.
So to be able to make sure that the Federal Government can defend the
Nation and to make sure that our country stands not just for freedom
and democracy, but also tolerance, is one reason why we should follow
enactment of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, under President George
Herbert Walker Bush, to also pass this legislation.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Feeney), a member of the Judiciary Committee and a
former speaker of the Florida house.
Mr. FEENEY. I am very grateful to the ranking member.
Mr. Speaker, hate is an awful thing, but we cannot punish people for
what is in their hearts. We cannot punish people and make it a crime
for what people are thinking. We punish acts in this country.
Unfortunately, I think this bill is badly misnamed. This bill should
not be called the hate crimes bill, this should be called the unequal
protection bill, because what it does is to say that the dignity and
the property and the person and the life of one person gets more
protection than another American. That is just wrong. With respect to
my friend from Illinois, who just said hate crimes can tear this
country apart, that is what this bill does. It gives different people
the protection of their life, their property, and their person based on
their special status.
We need to treat all Americans equally. Justice ultimately must turn
on the fundamental word of each and every human being as equal before
God and before the law. This bill undermines both of those principles.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the chairman
of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, the gentleman from New York,
Mr. Jerry Nadler, for 2 minutes.
Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with violent crimes committed against
victims who are singled out solely because someone doesn't like who
they are.
Violent attacks because of actual or perceived race, color, religion,
national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or
disability often cause serious injury or death. They are more serious
than a normal assault because they target not just an individual, but
an entire group. They spread terror to all members of the group and
often deter them from exercising their constitutional rights, sometimes
for simply walking down the wrong street.
The only question for Members is whether they believe that singling
out a person for a crime of violence because of his or her race or
religion or because any other trait is sufficiently heinous to merit
strong punishment.
For many years, Mr. Speaker, Congress debated what were known as the
Federal lynching laws. They were designed to deal with the widespread
practice of lynching primarily African Americans. There was staunch
resistance to those laws here in Congress. For three decades, they did
not pass while thousands were lynched. We heard many of the same
arguments then that we are hearing today. That was not a proud period
in our Nation's history. Today, we can do the right thing. I hope we
can agree to do so.
[[Page H4436]]
Under current law, the attackers of someone like Michael Sandy of
Brooklyn, who was attacked simply because he was walking down a street
and he was gay, could not be prosecuted for a hate crime because, under
existing law, only victims targeted because they are engaged in a
federally protected activity, such as voting, are protected. This bill
expands the definition to cover all violent crimes motivated by race,
color, creed, national origin, et cetera.
This is not an issue of free speech. This bill deals only with crimes
of violence in which the victim is selected with his or her status.
The law routinely looks to the motivation of a crime and treats the
more heinous of them differently. Manslaughter is different from
premeditated murder, which is different from a contract killing. We all
know how to make these distinctions. The law does it all the time. We
ought to do it here; we ought to say that crimes of violence motivated
by one's status are particularly heinous and ought to be treated as
such.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ranking member of the
Judiciary Committee yielding to me.
This bill before us today is one that I have dreaded seeing come
before the American people.
I was born in 1949. That was the year that George Orwell published
the book ``1984.'' I offered an amendment in committee to change the
title of this bill from the Hate Crimes bill to the Thought Crimes
bill. In fact, you are seeking to punish thought. And even though the
gentleman from Virginia has stated correctly that under this bill, they
will be prosecuting crimes, they will also be sentenced for thoughts.
Orwell wrote in 1949 in the book ``1984,'' ``We are not interested in
those stupid crimes that you have committed. The party is not
interested in any overt act. The thought is all that we care about. We
do not merely destroy our enemies; we change them. Do you understand
what I mean by that?''
And he goes on to define ``crimethink,'' which is exactly the bill
before us today. And he defines it this way: ``To even consider any
thought not in line with the principles of Ingsoc. Doubting any of the
principles of Ingsoc. All crimes begin with a thought. So, if you
control thought, you control crime. Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime
does not entail death. Thoughtcrime is death, the essential crime that
contains all others in and of itself.''
And the definition of ``Ingsoc'' is English socialism, which is how
he defined the coming creeping of socialism and Marxism that he feared.
So I make that point strongly that we have now come to this. ``1984''
has manifested itself on the floor of the United States Congress with
the belief that, somehow or another, we can divine what somebody thinks
and then punish them for it. And I have been called a racist on the
floor of this House for using the term ``cultural continuity.'' How can
someone who could make that allegation who has been elected to the
United States Congress be sitting on a jury of me? We judge by a jury
of our peers, or the peers of the accused and what's in their mind.
That's a thoughtcrime in and of itself.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield 1 minute now to a distinguished member of the
Judiciary Committee, Mr. Ellison of Minnesota.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, it is horribly sad that anyone would want
to vocalize hateful ideas, but it is not illegal. What Don Imus said
about African American women was legal though deplorable. But violence
is not. Violence is different. Violence is acts, if motivated by
hateful thoughts, that make an impact on the community that is much
more harmful than to the individual. It expands to an entire community
and injects an immobilizing, terrorizing fear into that community which
makes it even more wrong than an act against an individual.
When Eric Richey drove his Mustang into the largest mosque in Ohio on
September 16, 2001, he didn't just destroy a building, he injected fear
into an entire community.
My question is this: Why do you want to protect thugs and
hatemongers? Why don't you want to stand with the civilized community
and say, hate is wrong and we must stop it now?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Pence), also a member of the Judiciary Committee.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today in strong
opposition to the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. It
would be Thomas Jefferson who would remind the American people that the
government reaches actions only and not opinions, in his famous letter
to the Danbury Baptists.
This legislation is unnecessary and bad public policy. Violent
attacks on people or property are already illegal regardless of the
motive behind them, and there is no evidence that underlying violent
crimes at issue here are not already being fully and aggressively
prosecuted. Therefore, hate crimes laws serve no practical purpose and,
instead, serve to penalize people for their thoughts and beliefs.
Now, some of these thoughts and beliefs are abhorrent, like racism
and sexism, and I disdain them. But hate crimes bills are broad enough
to encompass legitimate beliefs as well, and protecting the rights of
freedom of speech and religion must be paramount on our minds.
The first amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting the
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
There is a real possibility that this bill, as written, that religious
leaders or members of religious groups could be prosecuted criminally
based on their speech or protected activities under conspiracy laws or
section 2 of title XVIII, which holds a person criminally liable if
they aid and abet in the commission of a crime. Putting a chill on a
pastor's words or a religious broadcaster's programming, an evangelical
leader's message, or even the leader of a small group Bible study is a
blatant attack on the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of
religion.
Last week, I offered an amendment before the committee that simply
would have stated that nothing in this section limits the religious
freedom of any person or group under the Constitution. Unfortunately,
this amendment was rejected by the majority and rejected by the Rules
Committee for consideration today.
We must guard against the potential for abuse of hate crimes laws.
The Pence amendment would have done so by stating, once and for all,
that people in groups will not have their constitutionally guaranteed
right to freedom of religion taken away.
On this National Day of Prayer, let's take a stand for the right of
every American to believe and speak and pray in accordance with the
dictates of their conscience and reject this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today in strong opposition to
H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
As Thomas Jefferson once said, ``Believing with you that religion is
a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes
account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the
legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions,
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
people which declared that their legislature should `make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church
and State.''
This legislation is unnecessary and bad public policy. Violent
attacks on people or property are already illegal regardless of the
motive behind them and there is no evidence that the underlying violent
crimes at issue here are not already being fully and aggressively
prosecuted in the States. Therefore, hate crimes laws serve no
practical purpose and instead serve to penalize people for their
thoughts, beliefs or attitudes.
Some of these thoughts, beliefs or attitudes such as racism and
sexism are abhorrent, and I disdain them. However the hate crimes bill
is broad enough to encompass legitimate beliefs, and protecting the
rights of freedom of speech and religion must be paramount in our
minds.
The First Amendment to the Constitution provides that ``Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' America
[[Page H4437]]
was founded upon the notion that the government should not interfere
with the religious practices of its citizens. Constitutional protection
for the free exercise of religion is at the core of the American
experiment in democracy.
There is a real possibility that as this bill is written, religious
leaders or members of religious groups could be prosecuted criminally
based on their speech or protected activities under conspiracy law or
section 2 of title 18, which holds criminally liable anyone who aids,
abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission; or one
who ``willfully causes an act to be done'' by another.
In the debate at the Judiciary Committee, much was made of the fact
that an amendment was adopted by the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Davis.
However, that amendment did not go far enough in making it clear that
the bill will not limit religious freedom. The sponsor of the amendment
admitted that a pastor could still be targeted under the bill for
incitement of violence for simply preaching his religious beliefs. For
example if a pastor included a statement in his sermon that sexual
relations outside of marriage is wrong, and a member of the
congregation caused bodily injury to a person having such relations,
that sermon could be used as evidence against the pastor.
Putting a chill on a pastor's words, a religious broadcaster's
programming, an evangelical leader's message, or even the leader of a
small-group Bible study is a blatant attack on the Constitutionally-
guaranteed right to freedom of religion.
Last week when the Judiciary Committee took up this bill, I offered
an amendment to make it clear that the bill will not affect the
Constitutional right to religious freedom.
The Pence Amendment stated, ``Nothing in this section limits the
religious freedom of any person or group under the Constitution.''
Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated by the majority in the
Judiciary Committee. Yesterday, I submitted the Pence Religious Freedom
Amendment to the Rules Committee for consideration, but that committee
chose to adopt a closed rule for today's debate, effectively blocking
my amendment and many other good amendments from consideration.
We must guard against the potential for abuse of hate crimes laws,
and the Pence Amendment would have done so by stating once and for all
that people and groups will not have their Constitutionally-guaranteed
right to religious freedom taken away.
Mr. Speaker, this bill threatens religious freedom by criminalizing
religious thoughts. On this National Day of Prayer, let's take a stand
for the right of every American to believe, speak and pray in
accordance with the dictates of their conscience. Take a stand for
religious freedom and the First Amendment and vote no on the Local Law
Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield to a
distinguished Member on the Judiciary Committee, Steve Cohen of
Tennessee, for 1 minute.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand in support
of this bill. The fact is, these crimes, the victims of which have been
Matthew Shepard, James Byrd, Emmett Till over the years have shocked
the conscience of this country, and that is why they need special
treatment.
When you look at the laws and the type of activities that we are
looking at, discrimination based on race, color, religion, national
origin, or disabilities, you are looking at the same people that the
Nazis tried to exterminate. If you were Jewish, if you were black, if
you were disabled, if you were gay, the Nazis made a systematic attempt
to eliminate you. And people who do that, even if they are not
governments, should be punished, because that is the type of conduct
that this world has seen and abhors and went to war for; and our U.S.
attorneys should be given the ammunition to go to war against people
that perpetrate those type of crimes.
And if you stand against this, what's going to happen? Certain
villainous hooligans will maybe get less time. These are the people we
need to lock up and put away, because this is a country about life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and everybody gets an
opportunity.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Judiciary Committee, and also
the ranking deputy member of the Crimes Subcommittee.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, this bill starts off with a preamble that
makes it faulty to begin with.
There are all kinds of recitations in the beginning, factual, so-
called findings that were not supported and are not supported by any
evidence. That is a major problem here.
First of all, people want to talk about how desperately this is
needed to stop hate-based crimes. However, there are laws that protect
every man, woman, and child from violent acts. In fact, I have heard my
colleague across the aisle reference that the Matthew Shepard case
shows how desperately we need hate crime legislation. Those
perpetrators that did that horrible act both got life sentences under
regular murder laws. This was not necessary.
People in committee threw up the Byrd case, a horrible tragedy where
a man was dragged to his death simply because he was African American.
Those two main perpetrators got the death penalty, and no hate crime
that has been passed would address that.
Now, these statistics, if you really want to look at the facts before
we pass bad legislation that is not justified by the facts, and I do
take issue with the preamble's fact findings. There is no evidence to
support them. But let's look.
Since 1995, the FBI statistics show that we have gone from 9,500 to
12,400 agencies reporting, more of the country is being covered, and
yet a steady decline has gone from right at 8,000 to 7,100 incidents.
{time} 1215
Offenses have gone down near well a thousand, to 8,300. Victims have
gone down 1,600. Offenders have gone down 1,600. The laws are working.
What this is trying to do is protect a class from any ill speech,
anything that's derogatory.
Now, friends across the aisle say no, no, no. We put that in the
bill. We've got an amendment that protects that. But if you go to the
law in this bill, it says that, yeah, religious or protected speech
would not be used at trial, unless it pertains or is relevant to the
offense. And as anybody that's prosecuted someone as a principal, not a
conspiracy, but a principal, a principal under Federal law, it says
whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, procures a crime's
commission is punishable as if he committed the crime.
And this is where this is going; ministers reading from the Bible,
rabbis reading from the Torah, imams reading from the Koran who say
sexual activity outside of marriage of a man and a woman is wrong, if
they have somebody from their flock, some nut go out and commit a crime
of violence and, by the way, this is not a restricted crime of
violence. It could be violence against property. It can be a touching
to be bodily injury. We've lowered the standard in this bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased now to recognize the gentleman
from Alabama, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, Artur
Davis for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, there's a pastor back home who has
a card that he carries around with him and it says, made by God, return
to the Creator upon expiration.
As a person of faith, if you believe that, as I do, you have to
believe that that admonition and that promise applies not just to you
and your kind, but to people who may be different, act different, think
different, and look different. So this is the simplest way I can put
this to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
If you are a person of faith, you have a Bible-based problem with
hate. And if you have a Bible-based problem with hate, it's legitimate
to say that hate ought to be punished a little bit more. That's all
this legislation says.
Obviously, it must be done consistent with the first amendment, and
that is why I offered an amendment that was accepted in committee and
that my good friend, Lamar Smith from Texas, not only voted for, but
praised during the markup. The amendment says specifically, nothing in
this statute shall change the terms of the first amendment as they
exist.
So this is as simple as I can put this to my good friend, Mr.
Gohmert. The only people who ought to fear this bill are people who
would say to another human being, you ought to do violence against
someone else. I don't know a man of God or woman of God who would take
to any pulpit in the land, any synagogue or mosque in the land and say,
do violence to another one of
[[Page H4438]]
God's children. And because I have confidence in people of faith and
know they wouldn't do that, I know they won't be hurt by this bill.
And, by the way, I say that as the only Democrat on the committee who
voted against gay marriage.
This bill ought to be passed, and I ask my colleagues to do so.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
fro Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin).
Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments about
faith and God. And I am a woman of God. I oppose hate, and I think all
crimes are awful. And I have a great disdain for violence produced by
hate.
But this bill is the wrong solution for an ideal goal. It is horrible
for anyone to hate for any class, race or religion or sexual
orientation. Violence produced by hate is already outlawed. Why would
we, as a Nation, want to divide our American citizens into various
categories of more worthy or less worthy of whatever protection the law
can give them? What happened to the great ideal this Nation was founded
on of equal, equal protection under law?
The hate crimes bill will chill the first amendment rights of
religious groups. This hate crimes bill will chill the first amendment
rights of the religious groups, and the government will be required to
prove the suspect's thoughts as a category of the victim involved in
the crime.
Religious groups may become the subject of criminal investigations in
order to determine the suspect's religious beliefs, membership in
religious organization, or past statements about persons associated
with specific categories. Religious leaders will be chilled from
expressing their religious views for fear of involvement in the
criminal justice system.
This hate crime bill will result in unequal justice for all and the
restriction of one of our ideals that has made this Nation great, free
speech.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased now to recognize the most
distinguished civil rights leader that we have serving in the House of
Representatives, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. John Lewis. And I
yield to him 1 minute.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, hate is too heavy a burden to
bear. We have the opportunity, with this bill, to move this Nation one
step forward toward laying down the burden, the burden of hate. With
this legislation, we can send the strongest possible message that
violence against our fellow citizens because of race, color, national
origin, religion, sexual orientation or transgender will not be
tolerated.
It was the Great Teacher who said, ``As much as you have done it unto
the least of these, you have done it unto me.''
During the 1950s and the 1960s, as a participant in the Civil Rights
Movement, I tasted the bitter fruits of hate, and I didn't like it. I
saw some of my friends beaten, shot and killed because of hate. Hate is
too heavy a burden to bear. It also was the Great Teacher who said,
``Love you one another.'' He didn't say hate you one another.
We're one people. We're one family. We all live in the same house. It
doesn't matter whether we're gay or straight. We're one people.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased now to yield to the
distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) for 1 minute.
(Mr. CLYBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CLYBURN. Last night, Mr. Speaker, I re-read Martin Luther King,
Jr.'s ``Letter from a Birmingham City Jail.'' In that letter, King
dealt with the notion of timing. He said to us that time is never
right; time is never wrong; that time actually is neutral, and it's
only what we make it. We can use it constructively, or we can use it
destructively.
King went on to say that it's always the right time to do that which
is right.
Now, a lot of people on yesterday told me that this was the wrong
time to bring this legislation. For a moment, I agreed. But reflecting
on Dr. King's admonition that the time is always right to do right, I
come before this body today to ask us to use the time that we have
before us to do right by those people who may not be like us.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lungren).
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, this is a serious
issue, and people ought to recognize it's a serious issue.
There is something called hate crimes. And in the past, the Supreme
Court has looked at issues to try and differentiate between mere speech
and speech connected with conduct and how you articulate a law in a
proper way that does not offend the first amendment, which allows
terrible speech. One of the prices of our democracy and one of the
prices of this society is to allow terrible speech, not to say you
accept it, but to allow it.
And so the Supreme Court has carefully reviewed hate crime
legislation. When I was attorney general of California, we issued an
amicus brief before the Supreme Court to support one version of the
hate crime legislation in one State that was similar to ours in
California. We declined to do it in another State. And in that one in
which we declined to do it, the Supreme Court found that it was afoul
of the law.
That's why I think it's very, very important how we carefully
construct a hate crimes bill. The underlying premise of this bill is
that we should extend the already existing Federal hate crimes
legislation, which has a Federal nexus, based on the individual victim
or victims being involved in a protected Federal activity.
This bill goes beyond that and suggests that the constitutional nexus
with Federal activity is that hate directed against the particular
protected classes here somehow restricts interstate commerce. And I
would just suggest that the findings in the bill did not have evidence
to back it up. And I think there may very well be a constitutional
attack that is successful in the Court on that. That's why we are
concerned about the way this is written.
Second, there are those who suggest that we will not have the concern
become a reality expressed by some on this floor and by some outside
this floor that this somehow will chill free speech. The suggestion is
we've carefully crafted the legislation so that's not to be the case.
I would just direct our attention to another section of the bill
which calls for participation by the Federal Government in the
investigation and prosecution of crimes at the State level which
delineates the definition of hate crimes in the first two paragraphs
but, in the third paragraph says, or any other hate crime established
by State law. So what we are doing is extending it beyond the carefully
constructed definitions that we have in this bill, considering the
constitutional questions and extended it far beyond that. That is
another legitimate concern about this bill.
And so I would just say that I hope we don't get totally involved in
the argument that there are no hate crimes and they, therefore, never
should be involved in our criminal justice system, versus that they are
the worst of all crimes, or they are so essentially different from
others that those who are subjected to attacks because of a random
attitude by the perpetrator, or for reasons outside the protected
class, somehow don't have the sufficiency of interest or the
sufficiency of importance to be included.
Hate crimes exist in our society. Hate crimes are to be condemned in
our society. As I said before, that's why 45 States have done so, most
of them successfully in negotiating the shows of constitutional concern
that are created by the first amendment. And therefore, one might
suggest that we need to review this in far greater detail than we've
been allowed thus far.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds to respond to my
dear friend from California (Mr. Lungren).
The purpose of this hate crime bill is to supplement State and local
actions. It is not to take over.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hank
Johnson, member of the Judiciary Committee, 1 minute.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, we've had Federal hate crime
legislation on the books since 1968. It covered violent crimes targeted
against
[[Page H4439]]
persons based upon race, color, religion and national origin.
Now we've got folks who don't want us to extend this hate crime
legislation to those who would be attacked because of their gender,
sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of the victim, and
this at a time, Mr. Speaker, when one in six hate crimes is motivated
by the victim's sexual orientation. And yet today's Federal laws don't
include any protection for these Americans.
{time} 1230
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. It is the right
thing to do. It is the humane thing to do. Let's bring protection to
those who need it now, 39 years later after the act was enacted.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this legislation because, at its core,
its purpose is to punish thought; and to respectfully suggest that this
new majority continues to bring sad and divisive legislation to the
floor.
All violent crime is wrong. All violent crime is founded in hate.
This legislation will easily move us to the point of punishing
thought and punishing motive. Hate crimes have already been used to
suppress speech opposed by cultural elites. In New York, for example,
city officials recently cited hate crime principles to force a pastor
to remove billboards containing biblical quotations on sexual morality.
Many pastors and ministers from around this Nation adamantly oppose
this legislation. And to bring this forward on the National Day of
Prayer adds insult to injury and may, in fact, be hateful.
The hate crimes bill creates a new Federal thought crime. The bill
requires law enforcement officials to probe, infer, or deduce if a
crime occurred because of a bias towards a protected group. A
criminal's thoughts will be considered an element of the crime.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that one can never reliably
determine the true thought or motive of a criminal.
And with thought crimes come thought police. What a sad day.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the
chairman of our caucus, Mr. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to hate and discrimination,
America speaks with one voice, ``no.'' Zero tolerance. You cannot be a
beacon of freedom around the world and fail that test here at home.
President Kennedy was moved on the civil rights movement because he
understood, in the battle of the Cold War, you could not be a beacon
for freedom against intolerance around the world if we weren't free
here at home. You could not. And as we talk, all our colleagues always
say, as we battle on the issues on the war in Iraq, Islamic fascism,
the whole world will watch what we say here in Congress.
People will watch this vote and understand, most importantly, whether
America remains true to its principles on freedom or not. People will
watch this vote. And I would hope my colleagues will remember, as we do
this today, that every time America widens the circle of democracy to
protect more of its citizens who sit in the shadows, it is true to its
principles.
I would hope people will vote ``yes'' on this legislation.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to a
distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary from Houston,
Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, with great emotion, I come to
this floor.
Congressman Frank, let me thank you. No one that may be listening had
the opportunity to listen to Congresswoman Baldwin and you speak of
your existence.
So I rise today to make sure that everyone understands that this bill
is about hate. Regular order is in place. It is about protecting young
people who have an identity that is different from any of us. It is
about reflecting the definition of hatred that says that it is an
affection of the mind awakened by something regarded as evil. Can we in
America regard human life as evil?
Even as Christians, and many of us are not, the Bible dictates about
the instruction of loving thy neighbor. This bill reflects on the needs
of African Americans and Hispanics and the disabled and those with
gender identity. It reflects on the fact that brutality and viciousness
because of hate cannot be tolerated by a country that believes we are
all created equal.
This is a fair bill. It does not encourage you to change your faith,
but it encourages you to adhere to democracy and to the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1592, the ``Local Law
Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.'' Mr. Speaker, as
important as it is to apprehend, prosecute, convict, and punish
severely those who commit hate crimes, we can all agree that in the
long run it is even more important and better for society if we can
increase our effectiveness in eradicating the desire to commit a hate
crime in the first place. I have long believed, and research confirms,
that if a person does not acquire a proclivity to hate as a juvenile,
he or she is not likely to be motivated to commit crimes out of hate as
an adult.
Mr. Speaker, Webster's Dictionary defines hate as a ``strong
aversion; intense dislike; hate; an affection of the mind awakened by
something regarded as evil.''
Mr. Speaker, before I proceed any further, I would be remiss if I
failed to note that this legislation is more timely than any of us
could have predicted just a month ago. Two weeks ago, at Virginia Tech
University, one of the Nation's great land grant colleges, we witnessed
the most senseless acts of violence on a scale unprecedented in our
history. Neither the mind nor the heart can contemplate a cause that
could lead a human being to inflict such injury and destruction on
fellow human beings. The loss of life and innocence at Virginia Tech is
a tragedy over which all Americans mourn and the thoughts and prayers
of people of goodwill everywhere go out to the victims and their
families. In the face of such overwhelming grief, I hope they can take
comfort in the certain knowledge that unearned suffering is redemptive.
But the carnage at Virginia Tech also commands that we here in this
body take a stand against senseless acts of violence taken against
persons for no reason other than that they are different, whether in
terms of race, religion, national origin, gender, or sexual
orientation. It is long past time for our national community to declare
that injuries inflicted on any member of the community by another
simply because he or she is different poses a threat to the peace and
security of the entire community. For that reason alone, such conduct
must be outlawed and punished severely. That is why I have, Mr.
Speaker, since 1999 introduced and supported strong legislation to
deter and punish hate crimes, including as noted earlier, H.R. 254, the
``David Ray Hate Crime Prevention Act of 2007'' pending in this
Congress.
Mr. Speaker, every act of violence is tragic and harmful in its
consequences, but not all crime is based on hate. A ``hate crime'' is
the violence of intolerance and bigotry, intended to hurt and
intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin,
religion, sexual orientation, or disability.
The purveyors of hate use explosives, arson, weapons, vandalism,
physical violence, and verbal threats of violence to instill fear in
their victims, leaving them vulnerable to more attacks and feeling
alienated, helpless, suspicious and fearful. Others may become
frustrated and angry if they believe the local government and other
groups in the community will not protect them. When perpetrators of
hate are not prosecuted as criminals and their acts not publicly
condemned, their crimes can weaken even those communities with the
healthiest race relations.
Of all crimes, hate crimes are most likely to create or exacerbate
tensions, which can trigger larger community-wide racial conflict,
civil disturbances, and even riots. Hate crimes put cities and towns at
risk of serious social and economic consequences. The immediate costs
of racial conflicts and civil disturbances are police, fire, and
medical personnel overtime, injury or death, business and residential
property loss, and damage to vehicles and equipment. Long-term recovery
may be hindered by a decline in property values, which results in lower
tax revenues, scarcity of funds for rebuilding, and increased insurance
rates.
Mr. Speaker, a study funded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics
released September 2000, shows that 85 percent of law enforcement
officials surveyed recognize bias-motivated violence to be more serious
than similar crimes not motivated by bias.
[[Page H4440]]
Hate crimes are destructive and divisive. A random act of violence
resulting in injury or even death is a tragic event that devastates the
lives of the victim and their family, but the intentional selection and
beating or murder of an individual because of who they are terrorizes
an entire community and sometimes the Nation. For example, it is easy
to recognize the difference between check-kiting and a cross burning;
or an arson of an office building versus the intentional torching of a
church or synagogue. The church or synagogue burning has a profound
impact on the congregation, the faith community, the greater community,
and the Nation.
Mr. Speaker, some opponents of hate crimes legislation claim that
such legislation is a solution in search of a problem. They claim that
there is no epidemic of bias-motivated violence and thus no need to
legislate. I wish to briefly address this claim.
victims and perpetrators
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, racially motivated
hate crimes most frequently target blacks. Six in ten racially biased
incidents target blacks, and 3 in 10 incidents targeted whites.
Hispanics of all races were targeted in 6.7 percent of incidents
and Asians in 3 percent. Younger offenders were responsible for most
hate crimes and most of their victims were between 11 and 31. The age
of victims of violent hate crimes drops dramatically after age 45.
Thirty-one percent of violent offenders and 46 percent of property
offenders were under age 18. Thirty-two percent of hate crimes occurred
in a residence, 28 percent in an open space, 19 percent in a retail
commercial establishment or public building, 12 percent at a school or
college, and 3 percent at a church, synagogue, or temple.
examples of CRS hate crime cases
In Harris County--Houston--Texas, in a case that drew national
attention, 16-year-old David Ray Ritcheson, a Mexican-American, was
severely assaulted April 23, 2007, by two youths while attending a
party in the Houston suburb of Spring, Texas. One of his teen-age
attackers, a skinhead, yelled ethnic slurs and kicked a pipe up his
rectum, severely damaging his internal organs and leaving him in the
hospital for 3 months and 8 days--almost all of it in critical care.
For the supposed crime of allegedly kissing a white girl, young David
Ray's assailants punched him unconscious, kicked him in the head,
sadistically inflicted 17 cigarette burns that still scar his body,
poured bleach on his face and body, and then assaulted with a pipe
taken from a patio umbrella. He was left lying unconscious and
unattended in the back yard of a house for more than 8 hours. He has
endured more than 30 operations to restore his appearance and regain
the normal use of his bodily functions.
In Jasper, Texas, an African-American man, James Byrd, Jr., was
brutally murdered by being kidnapped, beaten unconscious, spray painted
in the face with black paint, tied to the back of a pick-up truck,
pants dropped down to his ankles, dragged 2.5 miles over pavement
through a rural Black community in Jasper County called Huff Creek,
leaving his skin, blood, arms, head, genitalia, and other parts of his
body strewn along the highway, his remains were dumped in front of a
Black cemetery.
In Springfield, Missouri, an African-American male in the company of
a white female was stabbed at local Denny's restaurant by a group of
white males.
Near San Diego, California, elderly immigrant workers were attacked
by white youths. The body of a Latino immigrant youth was also
discovered in the same vicinity as the attacks on the workers.
An African-American employee of a construction company in Marquette,
Kansas, reported that he had been racially harassed for several months
by fellow employees through racist graffiti and name-calling.
A Jewish synagogue was vandalized by four Arab-American males in the
Bronx, New York.
Every individual's life is valuable and sacred, and even one life
lost is too many. There is ample evidence that violent, bias-motivated
crimes are a widespread and serious problem in our Nation. But it is
not the frequency or number of these crimes alone, that distinguish
these acts of violence from other types of crime; it is the impact
these crimes have on the victims, their families, their communities
and, in some instances, the Nation.
Evidence indicates that bias-motivated crimes are underreported;
however, statistics show that since 1991 over 100,000 hate crime
offenses have been reported to the FBI, with 7,163 reported in 2005,
the FBI's most recent reporting period. Crimes based on race-related
bias were by far the most common, representing 54.7 percent of all
offenses for 2005. Crimes based on religion represented 17.1 percent
and ethnicity/national origin, 13.2 percent. Crimes based on sexual
orientation constituted 14.2 percent of all bias-motivated crimes in
2005, with 1,017 reported for the year.
The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP), a non-
profit organization that tracks bias incidents against gay, lesbian,
bisexual and transgender people, reported 1,985 incidents for 2005 from
only 13 jurisdictions, compared to the 12,417 agencies reporting to the
FBI in 2005.
Additionally, the Hate Crimes Statistics Act makes the reporting of
bias-motivated crimes by State and local jurisdictions voluntary,
resulting in no participation by many jurisdictions each year. Hawaii,
for instance, did not participate in reporting at all in 2005.
Underreporting is also common. Wyoming, for instance, reported only 4
incidents for 2005. Six States reported 10 or fewer incidents in 2005.
Some large cities have been egregiously deficient in reporting hate
crimes. Jacksonville, Florida, for example, reported only 5 incidents
in 2005.
Sadly, statistics only give a glimpse of the problem. It is widely
recognized that violent crimes on the basis of sexual orientation often
go unreported due to fear and stigmatization. A Department of Justice
report released in October 2001 confirms that bias-motivated crimes are
under-reported; that a disproportionately high percentage of both
victims and perpetrators of these violent crimes are young people under
25 years of age; and that only 20 percent of reported hate crimes
result in arrest.
A December 2001 report by the Southern Poverty Law Center, SPLC, a
nonprofit organization that monitors hate groups and extremist activity
in the United States, went so far as to say that the system for
collecting hate crimes data in this Nation is ``in shambles.'' SPLC
estimates that the real number of hate crimes being committed in the
United States each year is likely closer to 50,000, as opposed to the
nearly 8,000 reported by the FBI.
Next, Mr. Speaker, let me address the specious claim that H.R. 1592
abridges free speech. Opponents seem to be complaining that the
legislation would prohibit pursuant to Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the introduction of substantive evidence of the defendant's
expression or associations, unless the evidence specifically relates to
the offense or is used to impeach a witness. In this way, the
legislation strikes the appropriate balance between two competing
interests: the interest of the government in punishing hate crimes and
the rights of the defendant.
Hate crimes legislation allows society to prescribe greater
punishments for hate crimes because of the distinct emotional harm they
cause their victims, the community unrest they incite, and the
likelihood that they will provoke retaliatory crimes. See Wisconsin v.
Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 488 (1993) (upholding a hate crimes punishment
enhancement statute). However, H.R. 1592 also protects a defendant's
rights by only permitting the introduction of evidence within the
confines of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the First Amendment.
The First Amendment protects speech and expressive conduct. Our bill
only punishes criminal conduct, which is not protected by the First
Amendment. Any argument that this legislation punishes expressive
conduct would likely be unsuccessful because using violence to convey
one's ideas is outside the scope of the First Amendment. NAACP v.
Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 916 (1982). In Wisconsin v.
Mitchell the Court distinguished between statutes that are explicitly
directed at expression and statutes that are directed at conduct. 508
U.S. at 487. The Court upheld the statute in Wisconsin v. Mitchell
because it was directed at criminal conduct, unlike the statute at
issue in R.A.V. v. St. Paul, which the Court struck down because it was
explicitly directed at expression. Id. The critical flaw with the
statute at issue in R.A.V. was that it was viewpoint discriminatory: It
prohibited otherwise permissible speech based on the subject and
perspective of the speech. R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 391
(1992).
H.R. 1592 does not ban religious, political, or offensive speech, or
even punish expressive conduct, such as cross burning or flag burning.
Rather, the legislation is only directed at criminal conduct that is
independently criminal, such as assault or murder. It punishes conduct
that is already criminal more severely because of the defendant's
motivation in choosing the victim. Thus, evidence of a defendant's
expressions and associations properly can be admitted under certain
circumstances.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, nothing in this legislation would prohibit the
lawful expression of one's deeply held religious beliefs. If they wish,
any person will continue to be free to say things like: ``Homosexuality
is sinful''; ``Homosexuality is an abomination''; or ``Homosexuals will
not inherit the kingdom of heaven.'' This is because H.R. 1592 only
covers violent actions committed because of a person's sexual
orientation that result in death or bodily injury.
Mr. Speaker, the American public opinion strongly favors this
legislation. According to a recent survey by Peter Hart and Associates,
voters overwhelmingly favor expanding the definition of hate crimes to
include crimes against people based on sexual orientation or gender
identity. Three in four (73 percent) voters favor Congress's expanding
the definition
[[Page H4441]]
of hate crimes in this way, including 62 percent who strongly favor it.
Just 22 percent oppose this action, with 17 percent who strongly oppose
it.
Support for hate crimes definition expansion is strong across the
board. Large majorities of every major subgroup of the electorate--
including such traditionally conservative groups as Republican men (56
percent) and evangelical Christians (63 percent)--express support for
this proposal. Support also crosses racial lines, with three in four
whites (74 percent), African Americans (74 percent), and Latinos (72
percent) favoring Congress's including sexual orientation and gender
identity in the definition of hate crimes.
Voters believe strongly in government's obligation to protect all
citizens, the fact that crimes based on prejudice are directed against
an entire community, and that it would give local law enforcement extra
help in solving crimes.
Voters soundly reject arguments against this proposal. Whether it is
the idea that it creates unequal treatment under the law; that it
attacks the moral and religious beliefs of those opposed to
homosexuality; or that it equates being gay with being Black or a
woman, arguments against the hate crimes bill are not compelling to the
public.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, by passing H.R. 1592 we also pay fitting
tribute to David Ray Ritcheson of Spring, Texas, my constituent,
friend, and a very courageous young man. David Ray, a victim of one of
the most horrible hate crimes in Harris County, Texas came forward to
tell his story to the Crime Subcommittee in the hopes of saving others
from experiencing a similar brutal ordeal. In coming forward, he has
performed a valuable service to our Nation. In going forward with H.R.
1592 and seeing it through to final passage, this Committee is also
performing a great service to our Nation by hastening the day when we
make hate history.
In conclusion, let me say that I strongly support H.R. 1592 and will
vote to report the bill favorably to the full Committee.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to Jan
Schakowsky of Illinois.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman.
I am so proud to stand here against hate, but even more, I feel
compelled to stand here against violence.
When the categories of people that are named in this bill were
picked, it wasn't sort of a capricious or random or even a liberal bias
sort of thing, that we want to support certain people or single them
out. It is because the statistics show us and the law enforcement
community who supports this bill has said, these are the victims of
violence. They are named for only one reason and that's it. And we are
talking about people who are victims of assault, of brutal attacks, of
torture, or even of murder.
You can say it as many times as you want. This is not about thought.
This is not about speech. This is about violence. And you or your
pastor may not agree with homosexuals or transgenders, but surely you
don't think that is a reason for them to be assaulted.
Support the bill.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my colleagues. We have twice
as many requests for time than we have the time.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield 30 seconds to the brilliant gentlelady from
Oakland, California, Barbara Lee.
(Ms. LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank Congresswoman Baldwin and
Congressman Barney Frank for making sure we have a chance to vote on
this very important legislation today. And I just want to briefly tell
you a story, if I can, very quickly.
There was a young lady next to my district named Gwen Araujo. She was
viciously beaten to death and buried, again, by four men, simply
because she was born a male. Gwen was comfortable as herself, as a
transgendered woman who had gone through most of high school as a girl
and had the love and support of her family, particularly her mother,
Sylvia Guerrero.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say there are so many stories of countless
people who are dead, countless people who get killed because of their
God-given right that they were living to be themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1592, and I am
pleased that today, we can have a vote on the legislation that I know
many of us have in this chamber. Chairman Conyers, Congresswoman
Baldwin, and Congressman Frank.
This legislation is long overdue. In the history of this Nation,
there is a dark chapter. That chapter is full traumatic scenes of
people being murdered, beaten, attacked, raped, harassed, and
threatened because something about them was different from their
aggressors. Whether it has been the color of their skin, their
religion, their gender, their disability, National origin, or their
sexual orientation or identity the sad fact is that so many in this
country have suffered violence, often ending in death, because of one
of these reasons.
Sadly, many of the recent attacks based on sexual orientation have
been on black gay men. One of those stories happened in New York this
past October, when a young man named Michael Sandy, was beaten by four
men who set him up, just so they could beat and rob him. He ended up in
a coma for several days, before finally succumbing to his injuries. In
court proceedings, it was revealed that his at1ackers would often seek
out gay men to steal from and attack. Fortunately, New York has a Hate
Crimes law that includes sexual orientation.
Many hate groups have also used the debate on immigration to amp up
their hate speech, and violence, promoting hate crimes against Mexican-
Americans and other Latinos. In Houston, TX, David Ritcheson, a 16
year-old Mexican-American high school football team member was
viciously and savagely beaten by two young skinheads. They poured
bleach on him, and sodomized him, leaving him a coma, with massive
internal injuries and now deaf in one ear.
And closer to home, right outside my district in Newark, CA, a young
woman in high school, named Gwen Araujo, was viciously beaten to death
and buried, again, by four young men, simply because she was born a
male. Gwen was comfortable as herself, a transgendered woman, who had
gone through most of high school as a girl, and had the love and
support of her family, particularly her mother, Sylvia Guerrero.
Her story resonates with me because in my time in the California
Legislature, I championed the California School Hate Crimes Reduction
Act. I did so because our children needed to feel safe in their
schools. I was determined to include sexual orientation in that bill.
Doing so made passing that legislation an uphill battle, even leading
to a veto by Governor Pete Wilson. Nonetheless, we were finally able to
pass the California School Hate Crimes Act of 1995, thanks to the
assistance of our former Republican colleague, Congressman Tom Campbell
who was then serving with me in the California Legislature. During that
period, I learned just how deep-seated the hate against people who were
gay or transgendered, black or latino, or otherwise somehow different,
still is today and that is why we need to pass H.R. 1592 today.
Mr. Speaker, these stories are just a small glimpse of the vicious
crimes going on out there. We must pass this legislation today, in the
memory of Michael Sandy, Gwen Araujo, and countless others who are now
dead, simply because they were themselves. People have a God given
right to be themselves and as law makers we must protect everyone from
violence based on hate. As an African-American woman who has faced so
much hatred and so much discrimination in my life I implore you today
to remember the words of Dr. M.L. King, Jr. Injustice anywhere is a
threat to justice everywhere.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the
majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this will be one of the serious votes that we
cast during this session. This will be a vote on whether or not we are
going to allow bigotry to manifest itself in hate and result in
violence.
My friend, Artur Davis, rose and he said he didn't know anybody of
faith who recommended violence. I would suggest that tragically the
citizens of the United States know all too well some who claim to be
men of faith and who have issued fatwas to kill those not of their
faith, and that if they do so, Allah will reward them. We call them
terrorists. They kill not because of individual wrongdoing or
individual action. They kill because of the membership in a faith or a
race or a nationality, because perhaps we are Christian or we are Jews
or we are Americans. And we call them terrorists.
This is an important vote. Neither the exercise of bigotry nor the
rationalization of bigotry ought to be sanctioned in this great House,
but we know through the centuries it has been. We know there were those
who in times past rose on this floor and rationalized slavery and
rationalized why we should not have antilynching laws in America. We
know that. We lament it, and we say to ourselves had we
[[Page H4442]]
lived in those times, had we lived in the 18th century, hopefully we
would have been beyond our time, or in the 19th century hopefully
beyond our time, or in the 20th century hopefully beyond our time, as
Martin Luther King, Jr., urged us to be.
We serve now in the 21st century, and we know that there are those in
America and throughout the world who preach hate against a class of
people not because of their actions, not because of their character,
but because of who they are. That is what this vote is about today.
Through this legislation, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes
Prevention Act, the Members of this body will make a strong statement
in favor of values that unite us as Americans: tolerance, respect for
our differences, and justice and accountability for those who
perpetrate violent acts against others.
It has been too recent that lynching was rationalized in our country.
It is too present in today's society that some across the sea and, yes,
some here rationalize violence because of membership in another class
different than they. It is long past time to bring the existing Federal
hate crimes law, which was enacted nearly 40 years ago, into the 21st
century. Under existing law, Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes is
limited to those acts directed at individuals on the basis of race,
religion, color, or national origin.
Let me say something about that to my friends. We have come to accept
in America in the 21st century that it is not respectable nor
acceptable to be bigoted against those who are black, be bigoted
against those who are women, be bigoted against those who are Catholic
or Baptist or Jews or Muslims. It is not respectable. It is not
acceptable. You don't talk about that in the restaurant anymore.
But there is a class in America that is still respectable,
rationalized many times by faith. But then segregation was rationalized
for faith-based reasons.
My friends, this is an important vote of conscience, of a statement
of what America is, a society that understands that we accept
differences. We may not agree with those differences, but we know if
society is to be free that we must accept differences.
{time} 1245
That is the bedrock of what America means, not just to us, but to all
the world.
And so today, my friends, I say we have an important statement to
make, not a bill to pass, but a statement to make about the values of
our country.
I had a prepared statement here, I won't read the balance of it. But
I hope that every Member has the courage and the perspective, that when
they rise from their bed 20 years from now, they will be able to say,
unlike some of our predecessors in centuries past who failed the test
of tolerance, to say that we had the courage to live out the principles
that makes America such a wonderful, great, decent and just Nation.
Vote for this bill. Vote for our principles. Vote for your faith that
teaches that we reach out to lift up and to love. Vote for this bill.
Mr. Speaker, today, through this legislation--``The Local Law
Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act''--the Members of this body will
make a strong statement in favor of values that unite us as Americans:
tolerance, respect for our differences, and justice and accountability
for those who perpetrate violent acts against others.
It is long past time to bring the existing Federal hate crimes law,
which was enacted nearly 40 years ago, into the 21st century.
Under existing law, Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes is limited
to those acts directed at individuals on the basis of race, religion,
color or national origin and only when the victim is targeted because
he or she is engaged in a Federally protected activity, such as voting.
This legislation broadens this provision to cover all violent crimes
motivated by race, religion, or national origin, when the defendant
causes bodily injury or attempts to cause bodily injury.
Furthermore, the bill expands current law to prohibit the same
conduct, if such conduct is motivated on the basis of the victim's
gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is, the Federal Government has long had a
history of combating crimes based on prejudice.
This bill simply expands the current law to groups that historically
have been affected by violence and thus it responds to the reality in
America today.
According to the FBI, race ranks first among motivations for hate
crimes and sexual orientation ranks second among the reasons that
people are targeted.
Some people ask: Why is this legislation even necessary?
To them, I answer: because brutal hate crimes motivated by race,
religion, national orgin, gender, sexual orientation and identity or
disability not only injure individual victims, but also terrorize
entire segments of our population and tear at our Nation's social
fabric.
Let us be clear: This legislation does not affect free speech, or
punish beliefs or thoughts. It only seeks to punish violent acts.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this bill would allow the Federal
Government to provide assistance to State and local law enforcement
officials to investigate and prosecute hate crimes, and would clarify
the conditions under which such crimes could be federally investigated
and prosecuted.
Enacting these important additions to current law will send a very
powerful message that crimes committed against any American--just
because of who he or she is--are absolutely unacceptable.
Not surprisingly, this legislation is supported by 31 State attorneys
general, and more than 280 national law enforcement, professional,
education, civil rights, religious and civic organizations, including
the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National
District Attorneys Association and the National Sheriffs Association.
I urge my colleagues: Vote for this legislation, not only because it
is important and necessary but also because it is the right thing to
do.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor now to recognize the Speaker
of the House, Ms. Nancy Pelosi, for 1 minute.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, Mr. Conyers, for yielding time, but more importantly, for
bringing this important legislation to the floor in his ongoing, long
commitment to justice in our country. And I want to commend
Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin and Chairman Barney Frank for their
leadership. It is an honor to call you colleague. Thank you for giving
us the opportunity today to make America more American.
Every day we come to this floor, we honor the tradition of our
Founders, that every person is created equal, and that we are all God's
children. Every day that we come to this floor, we pledge allegiance to
the flag, and at the end of that pledge we say ``with liberty and
justice for all.'' That is what today is about. Because in the preamble
to the Constitution, which we take an oath to, we talk about forming a
more perfect union. Our Founders knew that our Constitution had to be
amended. They knew that we had to move to a more perfect union in terms
of legislation to reflect the values of our country. And so we are here
today to extend to the hate crimes legislation others who have had hate
crimes committed against them. The record is clear.
What I am so interested in is the fact that so many law enforcement
organizations have endorsed this legislation. My colleagues have spoken
very eloquently as to why this is about the values of our country. They
have spoken very clearly about the need for this legislation. And if it
has been said, I think it bears repeating that the law enforcement
organizations, many of them, including the International Association of
Chiefs of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, the
National Sheriffs Association, the Police Executive Research Forum, as
well as nearly 30 attorney generals across the country, support need
for Federal hate crime legislation. They are joined by more than 230
civil rights, education, religious and civic organizations who have
voiced their support. Let us be clear that this Congress, this House of
Representatives, have heard their call.
Hate crimes, as have been said, have no place in America, no place
where we pledge every morning ``with liberty and justice for all.'' We
must act to end hate crimes and save lives.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation will help prevent bias-motivated
violence based on religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender
identity, national origin or disability, while respecting the first
amendment rights of free speech and religious expression. It increases
the ability of State, local and Federal law enforcement agencies to
solve a wide range of violent hate crimes.
[[Page H4443]]
We in our country take pride in saying that we are moving to end
discrimination of all kinds. Today, we have an opportunity to end
discrimination and the violence that goes with it that equal a hate
crime. So whatever you may think of any one of us, based on our
ethnicity or our gender or whatever, you have no right to act upon that
opinion in a violent way. Who would disagree with that? That is why I
hope that we can send a clear message from the Congress that this
Congress does not agree with that and pass this legislation.
Who of us can think of the story of the Shepard family and the Byrd
family and so many examples that we have of this and not say that is
wrong. And at the very least, we can pass legislation that tells
Federal authorities that they can assist State and local authorities in
enforcing the law. Over 100,000 hate crimes reported since 1991. There
are so many more that go unreported, many of them unprosecuted.
So today, let us take this step forward that is consistent with the
values of our Founders, both in terms of all being equal, and our faith
that we are all God's children, but also consistent with the call and
the preamble to form a more perfect union.
Again, passing this legislation makes America more American. I urge a
``yes'' vote.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield now for a unanimous consent request
to the gentleman from Ohio.
(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation,
because our Nation is one.
I rise today in support of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes
Prevention Act. Crime, violent crime in particular, has repercussions
beyond the individual perpetrator and victim. It impacts family and
friends and the surrounding community.
Hate crimes, whether motivated by the race, creed, or sexual
orientation of an individual, terrorize a community. In 2005, 7,163
hate crimes were reported to the FBI. Over half of those hate crimes
were motivated by race-related bias. Seventeen percent were crimes
based on religion. One in six hate crimes is motivated by the victim's
sexual orientation. The purpose and intention of these crimes extends
beyond the crime itself. They serve to instill fear in others sharing
that trait.
This legislation does not punish thoughts or speech; it punishes
crimes motivated by bias against the race, religion, national origin,
gender identity, or sexual orientation of the victim. It gives law
enforcement additional tools to punish violent crimes.
Hate crimes are inherently divisive. Regardless of the group
targeted, hate crimes undermine our collective ability to look past our
differences and find common ground. If we as a Nation seek the
eradication of acts of violence, we must address the underlying causes
of that violence. We must uncover and address the hatred and
discrimination that motivates these crimes.
This legislation is step towards that goal. I urge my colleagues to
support H.R. 1592.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we make progress in dealing with
discrimination based on sexual orientation when we're not distracted by
myth and bigotry, but when we deal with the rights and needs of real
people. I am pleased that that is why we will pass this hate crime
legislation today which follows progress in my State of Oregon just
this week, where we have provided protection for domestic partnerships
and antidiscrimination legislation. I hope it will herald changes on
the Federal level in the military for gays and lesbians, and in the
workplace with non-discrimination protection for all Americans.
When we deal with real people, their rights and needs, we will solve
these problems and America will be a better place.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 30 seconds to my
dear friend from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation
because it is time to take a stand against the violence, the violent
acts that flow from prejudice. This is not about the thought police,
this is not about sermons on morality, this is about the status of our
civilization, and it is about our humanity.
As human beings, we have the right to be safe from physical attack,
no matter our race, our religion, sexual orientation or gender
identity. In other words, human beings have the right to be safe from
attacks based on who they are. No one should have to be afraid because
of who they are.
We need to pass this legislation to ensure that this principle is
embodied in our law.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize our brother from
Missouri (Mr. Cleaver), himself a minister, for 30 seconds.
Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, as best as can be determined, I have
delivered at least 15,600 sermons. I have never been investigated, I
have never been indicted. I have spoken in churches and synagogues all
around this country. I have spoken to thousands of pastors and clergy.
I know not one who has been investigated for a sermon.
And so today I must not say I cannot, I must not, I will not sit
silently and watch any injustice because in the words of my unlettered
grandmother, ``The God I serve don't make no trash.''
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I now recognize the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Langevin) for 30 seconds.
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Hate
Crimes Prevention Act. This legislation will expand the Federal
definition of hate crimes to include crimes which a victim was selected
because of his or her disability.
So much has been done over the years to ensure inclusion of Americans
with disabilities in our communities. Sadly, though, there have been
shameful instances where these Americans, who may look or speak
differently than others, are victims of abuse, neglect or targeted
crimes. Investigating and prosecuting hate violence against someone
with a disability involves unique challenges to law enforcement. Many
violent crimes against people with disabilities go unreported or
unprosecuted. Providing Federal resources to law enforcement is
essential to help ensure proper prosecution of these crimes.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1592, the Local Law
Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. This legislation will
expand the Federal definition of hate crimes, allowing for Federal
resources for law enforcement in their investigations and prosecutions
of hate crimes.
I come to the floor today to draw attention to the inclusion of
crimes in which a victim was selected because of his or her disability.
The Supreme Court's Olmstead decision, the ADA and other progressive
policies have resulted in increased inclusion of Americans with
disabilities in our classrooms, workplaces and communities. As a
nation, we are growing in our acceptance of those who are perceived as
``different.'' But this effort has not been without growing pains. Many
people with disabilities look or speak differently or struggle with
challenges like chronic seizures. We have seen too many shameful
instances where these Americans are the victims of abuse, neglect and
targeted crimes.
I recently learned the story of Ricky Whistnant, a mentally retarded
adult man who was excited to have the opportunity to live independently
at the age of 39. With the support of a local social service agency, he
moved out of a Connecticut state group home and learned to cook for
himself, maintain an apartment and be a part of the community. One
evening, after cooking himself a chicken dinner, Ricky went to the
corner store to buy some soda. He encountered a group of teenagers who
mocked him, followed him back to his apartment, hurled a soda bottle at
him. After he fell, striking his head on a windowsill, the boys
continued to kick and taunt him. Ricky died a short time later in the
hospital.
Ricky's story is extreme, but it is not isolated. It represents the
reality of the challenges faced by individuals with disabilities.
Investigating and prosecuting hate violence against someone with a
disability involves unique challenges to law enforcement, and sadly
many violent crimes against people with disabilities go unreported or
unprosecuted.
As policymakers, we have a responsibility to address this problem.
The inclusion of disability in the Federal hate crimes statute is a
meaningful and substantive way to combat violence against Americans
with disabilities. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1592.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas controls 4 minutes.
[[Page H4444]]
The gentleman from Michigan has 50 seconds remaining.
Mr. CONYERS. I am now pleased to recognize Lynn Woolsey of California
for 30 seconds.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, my granddaughter, Julia, is 3 years old.
She goes to preschool. Even in preschool, they gang up and they bully.
The parents at that preschool tell me that my Julia steps in and she
stops it. She will not put up with bullying and unfairness.
It is our turn. Be as brave as a 3-year-old. Vote for H.R. 1592. Show
the world that if not now, when?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I will yield the balance of my time
to my good friend and colleague from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), a senior
member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Texas for his leadership on the committee and his strong opposition to
this legislation.
I rise in strong opposition to the legislation as well. This bill
would increase penalties for those who commit crimes against certain
groups of citizens, but not others. For example, if a man walks down
the street and punches another man because the victim is a
transvestite, the aggressor would be punishable by up to 10 additional
years in prison. However, if the same man walks down the street and
punches another person because the victim is a pregnant woman, a senior
citizen, a child under the age of 10, a veteran or the like, then the
aggressor would not be punishable by the potential 10-year prison
sentence. This is simply unfair.
While I strongly support efforts to rid our schools, neighborhoods
and communities of violent crimes, I do not believe that new Federal
laws specifically addressing hate crimes are necessary.
Today, there are few, if any, cases in which law enforcement has not
prosecuted violent crimes to the fullest extent of the law, regardless
of the background of the person.
In addition, this bill sets a dangerous and unconstitutional
precedent of punishing citizens for their thoughts. When prosecutions
occur under this bill, prosecutors will undoubtedly submit evidence of
prior statements by individuals to prove that the aggressor was
motivated by hate. This will have a chilling effect on citizens'
willingness to speak freely as citizens will adapt to a new world where
the Federal Government can cause any unpopular statements they make to
be used against them in the future.
One of the great freedoms we have as Americans is our first amendment
right to speak our minds, whether our thoughts are popular or
unpopular, and this legislation undermines that right.
{time} 1300
Again, I abhor acts of violence against any citizen. I abhor bigotry
and believe that such crimes should be punished to the fullest extent
of the law when aggressive violence occurs. However, this legislation
gives special preferences to certain classes of citizens and would
create a chilling effect on one of our most cherished constitutional
rights.
For these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
However, if my colleagues need to be reminded further, I would like to
share with them the statement of the administration regarding this
legislation, H.R. 1592:
``The administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent
crime, including crime based on personal characteristics such as race,
color, religion, or national origin. However, the administration
believes that H.R. 1592 is unnecessary and constitutionally
questionable. If H.R. 1592 were presented to the President, his senior
advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
``State and local criminal laws already provide criminal penalties
for the violence addressed by the new Federal crime defined in section
7 of H.R. 1592, and many of these laws carry stricter penalties
(including mandatory minimums and the death penalty) than the proposed
language in H.R. 1592. State and local law enforcement agencies and
courts have the capability to enforce those penalties and are doing so
effectively.
``There has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to
federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement,
and doing so is inconsistent with the proper allocation of criminal
enforcement responsibilities between the different levels of
government. In addition, almost every State in the country can actively
prosecute hate crimes under the State's own hate crimes law.''
Mr. Speaker, I include the balance of the statement of administration
policy for the Record.
H.R. 1592 prohibits willfully causing or attempting to
cause bodily injury to any person based upon the victim's
race, color, religion, or national origin, gender, sexual
orientation, gender identity, or disability. The
Administration notes that the bill would leave other classes
(such as the elderly, members of the military, police
officers, and victims of prior crimes) without similar
special status. The Administration believes that all violent
crimes are unacceptable, regardless of the victims, and
should be punished firmly. Moreover, the bill's proposed
section 249(a)(1) of title 18 of the U.S. Code raises
constitutional concerns. Federalization of criminal law
concerning the violence prohibited by the bill would be
constitutional only if done in the implementation of a power
granted to the Federal government, such as the power to
protect Federal personnel, to regulate interstate commerce,
or to enforce equal protection of the laws. Section 249(a)(1)
is not by its terms limited to the exercise of such a power,
and it is not at all clear that sufficient factual or legal
grounds exist to uphold this provision of H.R. 1592.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the administration and
oppose this legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to conclude our debate by
yielding our remaining time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Dr. King reminded us that on some
questions, cowards will ask us, is it safe? What will happen to me if I
do this? The answer is, what will happen to them if we don't do it? And
on some questions, expediency will ask, is it politic? Will I get
reelected? And then vanity asks, is it popular?
Today, let's do that which is neither safe nor politic nor popular.
Let's do it because it's right.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Hate Crimes
Prevention Act.
This bipartisan legislation will give state and local law enforcement
the tools and resources they need to prevent and prosecute violent hate
crimes.
In the not so distant past, violence motivated by hatred or
discrimination towards a minority was sanctioned by our government. As
we struggled to right the inequities present in our society, many used
targeted violence against individual African Americans as a tactic to
scare African Americans in general and discourage the Civil Rights
Movement overall.
This type of targeted violence against a minority--violence
specifically intended to intimidate and repress all members of that
minority--was particularly reprehensible and damaging to society as a
whole. Congress recognized that these particularly heinous actions
warranted stronger criminal penalties, which were codified in Federal
hate crimes law in 1968.
Unfortunately, almost 20 years later bias-based violence continues,
and while the groups and individuals victimized have changed, the
damage remains the same. In 1998, Matthew Sheppard was viciously
murdered because of his sexual orientation. In January 2000, a 16-year-
old high school female student was brutally attacked by a group of
teenagers because the student was holding hands with another girl--a
common practice in her native country in Africa. Just last October,
Michael Sandy was beaten then chased into traffic and killed because he
was gay.
Under current law, the attackers in each of these cases could not be
prosecuted for a hate crime for two reasons. First, in order for it to
constitute a federal hate crime, a victim must be engaged in a
federally protected activity such as voting. Second, the current hate
crime law does not consider sexual orientation a protected class.
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act addresses both these gaps in current
law by expanding the definition of a hate crime to cover all violent
crimes motivated by race, color, religion, national origin, gender,
sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. It also expands the
instances in which federal authorities can prosecute or assist local
authorities in prosecuting hate crimes.
Importantly, the bill before the House includes specific language
stating that nothing in the bill can be interpreted to prohibit
``expressive conduct'' protected by the First Amendment. In doing so,
we have ensured that this legislation in no way impinges on one's
constitutional right to freedom of speech or religious expression.
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act enjoys the strong support of law
enforcement, and has
[[Page H4445]]
been endorsed by International Association of Chief of Police, the
National Sheriffs' Association, the National District Attorneys
Association, as well as 31 state Attorneys General.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important
legislation. In doing so we are sending a clear message that hate
crimes have no place in America.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Local
Law Enforcement Hate Crime Prevention Act, H.R. 1592. This legislation
seeks to address the pernicious effects that hate crimes have on our
society.
Bigotry, bias, and ignorance have existed since the dawn of time.
Yet, in a country founded on the principles of freedom, equality and
liberty for all, we must do all we can to stop individuals from
committing crimes based solely on prejudice.
According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, there were 7,163 hate
crimes committed in 2005 and we can be sure that number is low for
crimes that are underreported. Hate crimes are very real. And each hate
crime spreads fear and violence among an entire community. It's long
past time for Congress to pass this important legislation to help
prosecute those who would commit these heinous acts.
To paraphrase Martin Luther King, the laws we pass may not change the
heart; but they can restrain the heartless.
As an original cosponsor of this legislation, I believe it is the
fundamental role of government to protect its citizens. Therefore, it
is necessary and proper for the federal government to work in
conjunction with local law enforcement officials to robustly prosecute
crimes motivated by bigotry.
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act expands our
Nation's existing hate crimes laws to ensure that certain violent
crimes committed against an individual because of race, religion,
national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or
disability are prosecuted. As this bill states, bias and bigotry
related crime ``savages the community sharing the traits that caused
the victim to be selected'' for the crime, Additionally, this
legislation expands the hate crime statute by dropping the requirement
that the victim had been engaged in six specifically defined federally
protected activities, such as voting.
H.R. 1592 also creates a grant program for the federal government to
assist state and local law enforcement agencies in investigating and
prosecuting hate crimes. State and local law enforcement prosecute the
overwhelming majority of hate crimes. However, investigating and
prosecuting these acts takes more time and resources than many local
and state agencies may possess. Thus, H.R. 1592 authorizes the federal
government to provide tools and resources that are needed by local law
enforcement.
This legislation is supported by the National Sheriffs Association,
National District Attorneys Association, International Association of
Chiefs of Police, International Brotherhood of Police Officers,
National Coalition of Public Safety Officers, Anti-Defamation League,
American Jewish Committee, Consortium of Developmental Disabilities
Councils, Human Rights Campaign, NAACP, National Victim Center, United
States Conference of Mayors, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force,
American Association on Mental Retardation, and more than 200 other law
enforcement, religious, civil rights, and civic organizations.
By making our Nation's hate crimes statutes more comprehensive, we
will take a needed step in favor of tolerance and against prejudice and
hate-based crime in all its forms. This legislation sends a strong
message that hate-based crime cannot be tolerated and will be
vigorously prosecuted.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of every Congress,
every member of this august body takes an oath to ``defend and protect
the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and
domestic.'' It is an oath that I am proud that the majority of the
citizens of the 13th Congressional District of Michigan have honored me
with their vote for more than 12 years. One of the most important
duties that I have as a Member of the United States House of
Representatives is to protect and defend its citizens, which is
precisely what H.R. 1592, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, introduced by
my fellow Michigander and Detroiter, one of the founders of the
Congressional Black Caucus, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, Jr.
This bill protects all Americans from bias-motivated violence; it
provides funds so that local authorities can tackle the tough challenge
of hate crimes, and it protects the First Amendment to the
Constitution. It does not criminalize speech or thoughts; it does not
give some people ``special rights,'' and it is not anti-Christian.
As a child and as a proud Christian, the least common denominator of
all of the lessons that I learned from my parents and minister is about
God's ethic of love. Along that, I learned from the practices of my
parents and my minister my divine responsibility to love our neighbors
as ourselves. Indeed, it is out of my love that all of my brothers and
sisters, and the activism that Jesus Christ illustrated through loving
His enemies, through His compassion for the poor, the down trodden, and
those who seek justice, that I became an activist, a state legislator
and now a Member of Congress. It is that thirst for justice for all
human beings that drives all that I do, guided by unerring and infinite
wisdom and faith in God.
Despite the teachings of my parents and that of countless clergy--of
all religions--around our Nation, there are some who perpetrate crime
with hatred and bigotry in their heart. Who can forget that, during the
civil rights era, the murders of the courageous Medgar Evers? Who can
forget the killing of civil rights workers James Chaney, Michael
Schwerner, and Andrew Goodman for merely registering African Americans
to vote? Who can forget the murder of native Detroiter Viola Liuzzo,
who was gunned down as she drove civil rights workers to voting booths?
All of these crimes, motivated by some bias, were ultimately prosecuted
under Federal laws because, at the time, local authorities were either
unable or unwilling to prosecute these crimes. These crimes could only
be prosecuted because all of these individuals were participating in
activities protected by the Federal Government--helping individuals
vote or register to vote, for example. Only in limited, specific
instances does this law even apply.
I vote in support of H.R. 1592 because H.R. 1592 sends a powerful
message that all crime motivated by hatred and bias will not be
tolerated in our society. I have voted for this bill at every
opportunity when it came before the U.S. Congress. This legislation
strengthens Federal law by providing local authorities with more money
to prosecute hate crime and by expanding the jurisdiction to crimes
motivated by bias against the victims actual or perceived sexual
orientation, gender, or disability.
Unfortunately, opponents of this bill are shamelessly advancing false
claims about the bill's impact on religion, particularly the freedom of
clergy to preach about their beliefs, and that the bill legalizes
certain sexual acts. Both of these claims are patently false. If you
are a minister, this bill does not restrict any sermon, homily, speech
or lesson unless that minister plans to start urging people to go out
and commit violent crimes against others. During floor debate on the
bill, Chairman Conyers reiterated the fact that the bill would not
legalize any one of a plethora of sexual acts or activity, most of
which are already illegal in most states.
Again this bill in no way, shape or fashion restricts free speech.
Indeed, it clearly states, and has been supported by a Republican-
dominated, conservative Supreme Court, that it in fact protects the
First Amendment. Language is protected under this bill. Actions are
criminalized. Preaching against homosexuality, against disabled people,
against women--the categories that this bill protects--is allowed as it
has always been, under the protections of the First Amendment. Under
this bill, it would be criminal to incite violence by willfully causing
``bodily injury based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion,
national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or
disability of the victim or is a violation of the state, local, or
tribal hate crime laws.''
Since 1991, over 100,000 hate crimes have occurred in our nation.
Hate crimes devastate the communities, counties, cities and states in
which they occur. These crimes of bigotry and hatred against an
identifiable minority--based on race, color, ethnic origin,
gender, disability or sexual orientation--not only hurts the individual
affected, but demoralizes and dehumanizes whole groups of people. As
the civil rights era clearly illustrated, these crimes are committed
solely to intimidate and trample upon the human rights of others.
This as the immediate effect of crushing the investment of companies
in that locality, of tourists visiting that state, of individuals
wanting to relocate to that region. This is measurable in real dollars
and cents. The Federal Government cannot stand by to allow these
heinous, horrible offenses to be committed. I did not stand for this
when I was an activist fighting for human rights in the City of
Detroit, Michigan; I will not stand for it as a Member of Congress with
an opportunity to make a change and make a difference.
Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel once said
that ``indifference is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits
the aggressor--never his victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she
is forgotten. The political prisoner in his cell, the hungry children,
the homeless refugees--not to respond to their plight, not to relieve
their solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them from
human memory. And in denying their humanity, we betray our own.
Indifference, then, is not only a sin, it is a punishment.''
In the past decade, our country has had men murdered merely because
they were gay, disabled, or African American. These were all hard-
working, tax-paying, law-abiding American citizens, killed because of
these differences. As we move onward through this
[[Page H4446]]
new millennium, as we continue to change course, confront crises, and
continue the legacy, I will do so with the continued guidance and love
of an infinite God, with extraordinary hope, with profound faith, and
with the knowledge that in caring for the least of our brothers and
sisters, we care for ourselves. We cannot afford to be indifferent.
As we celebrate two centuries of the end of the African slave trade,
it is my hope that today will be the beginning of the end of the
decades of mindless hatred, bigotry, and discrimination against all
God's children. All Americans have an investment in a stable, violence-
free government, and that is exactly what this bill provides.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1592, the
Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This bill lends a voice to those who have
no voice.
As a nation, we have been endowed to preserve the truth that all men
and women are created equal under God and as Members of Congress, we
must fight to preserve this truth as long as we continue to live in a
democracy.
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act does not in any way infringe on the
First Amendment rights of Americans. On the contrary, the bill only
covers violent criminal actions. Nothing in this legislation would
prohibit any form of lawful expression of one's religious beliefs.
This legislation brings our current hate crimes laws into the 21st
century by expanding the current provision to cover all violent crimes
motivated by race, color, religion, or national origin when the
defendant causes bodily injury, or attempts to cause bodily injury
through use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device.
Additionally, the bill will also allow the Federal Government to
provide crucial Federal resources to State and local agencies to equip
local officers with the tools they need to prosecute hate crimes. This
resolution ensures that the Federal prosecution of hate crimes is
limited to cases that implicate the greatest Federal interest and
present the greatest need for Federal intervention.
This bill will protect people like Billy Ray Johnson of Linden, TX, a
mentally-challenged African-American man who suffered severe brain
damage after being maliciously attacked by four white men who hurled
racial expletives at him. This law would properly prosecute the
individuals, ensure that justice is allowed to run its course, and is
seen by Mr. Johnson's family.
In conclusion Mr. Speaker, hate in any form is neither a Democratic
nor an American value and I do not subscribe to it.
We must love our neighbors and moreover we must protect them from
crimes committed against them due to their self-expression.
We must be vehemently opposed to prejudice in all forms. I strongly
support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to vote in favor
of this important bill.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
1592, The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.
In 2003 the FBI announced that there were more than 9,000 reported
hate crime victims in these United States. This means that on average
25 people per day were victims of violence fueled by the toxic fumes of
hate. If you are not outraged by this figure then you haven't been
paying attention. As a former prosecutor in Cuyohoga County, OH, I know
that these numbers are shocking for a number of reasons.
In a country as blessed as we are, and with the resources that we
have, we still have an absurdly high crime rate. Violence is taken to
be the norm. Local news in most big cities begins with a report on who
was shot. Then, we have a country which regularly puts out a report on
the human rights records of other countries around the world. Is a hate
crime not a human rights issue? It has been long established
constitutional doctrine that individuals should not be treated
differently based on their race, color, creed, nationality, gender or
sexual orientation.
This Act allows the Justice Department to grant local jurisdictions
up to $100,000 to help prosecute hate crimes. It also provides moneys
for preventative programs to stem the growing tide of hate crimes
committed by minors. In the Bible, verse 5:43 in the Gospel of Matthew,
it says ``Love thy neighbor.'' That is what this bill is about.
The time is now to pass this legislation. We honor our founders,
ancestors, and the people who built this great Nation by ensuring that
going forward, Americans from every walk of life can walk down our
streets in peace.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of hate crime
prevention.
Our laws should reflect the reality that hate crimes are
fundamentally different from ordinary crimes. Hate crimes cause entire
communities to live in fear of being attacked simply because of who
they are. Hate crimes are meant to send a message and terrorize an
entire group of people, not just an individual victim.
Hate crimes are a national issue and should be dealt with at the
national level. In 2005, more than 7,000 hate crimes were reported to
the FBI. Even this high number is certainly lower than the actual
numbers of crimes committed all across America, as many go unreported
and the FBI does not receive information from all law enforcement
agencies.
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R.
1592) recognizes the need for a federal response and allocates the
necessary resources to investigate and prosecute hate crimes when local
officials are unable or unwilling to investigate incidents of hate
crime. Local authorities, however, would maintain their autonomy and
primary authority for these investigations. Federal intervention would
be the last resort.
The bill also removes existing barriers that prohibit the FBI and the
Department of Justice from fully assisting local law enforcement
agencies in addressing hate crimes. This is vital because local
governments often lack the resources necessary to properly conduct
expensive hate crimes investigations and prosecutions. For example, the
investigation of the Matthew Shepard murder in Wyoming cost over
$150,000 and resulted in lay-offs at the local Sheriff's department.
Congress has a moral and constitutional obligation to offer the full
protection of our Nation's laws to all individuals. This vital
legislation expands existing hate crime protections to those who are
targeted because of their gender, disability, or sexual orientation.
These groups have been frequent targets of hate crimes. According to
the FBI, 14 percent of reported hate crimes are motivated by sexual-
orientation bias.
I fully support this bill. But I feel compelled to also note that it
fails to address the growing number of hate crimes being committed
against homeless individuals. The National Coalition for the Homeless
has documented 614 hate crimes against homeless individuals since 1999,
including 189 deaths. Some of these crimes against society's most
vulnerable have been caught on tape, giving us a glimpse into the
violence and fear of violence that many homeless people experience on a
daily basis. I hope that this body will work to bring the issue of hate
crimes against homeless individuals to light and move toward
protections that recognize the value of all of our neighbors, including
those lacking shelter.
Hate crimes impact all of us and it is our collective responsibility
to actively confront the terror they cause. I urge all of my colleagues
to support this important bill.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the Local Law
Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, H.R. 1592, which will provide
needed assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies and make
changes to Federal law to facilitate the investigation and prosecution
of violent, bias-motivated crimes against people for no other reason
than their perceived or actual race, religion, national origin, sexual
orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.
Hate crimes are alarmingly prevalent and threaten the full
participation of all Americans in our democratic society. While State
and local governments will maintain principal responsibility, an
expanded Federal role in investigating and prosecuting serious forms of
hate crimes is critical in targeting and preventing hate crime in our
Nation. The measure importantly applies only to bias-motivated violent
crimes and does not impinge free speech in any way. In fact, it
explicitly states: ``Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by
this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct
protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the
free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the
Constitution.''
H.R. 1592 is supported by virtually every major law enforcement
organization in the country. I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting H.R. 1592.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to
express my opposition to H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate
Crimes Prevention Act.
This measure represents an unprecedented departure from the deeply
rooted American principle of equal justice under law.
Justice should be blind. It should be equal for all Americans, and it
should be rendered in a criminal justice system that does not take such
issues as race, gender, and religion into consideration.
It makes no sense to me that crimes committed against one citizen
should be punished any more or any less than crimes committed against
another, which is what this bill will do.
Violent crimes that are not aimed at a certain class of people, like
those committed recently at Virginia Tech, are just as reprehensible as
those that are committed for other reasons.
Yet this bill would likely treat the senseless, random violence at
Virginia Tech less harshly than other, less ``random'' crimes.
Even worse, the bill asks local law enforcement to infer if a crime
was committed ``because of'' bias toward a protected group. This
[[Page H4447]]
essentially means that one's ``thoughts'' or ``feelings'' might be
evidence of hate, and can be considered when determining whether a
crime was indeed a ``hate'' crime.
Let me say that again. The bill would ask law enforcement to consider
one's potential ``thoughts'' as evidence of ``hate.''
Mr. Speaker, this is the dangerous, likely unconstitutional threat
that has caused great concern to so many residents of Ohio's 4th
Congressional District.
Upon consideration of this bill in the Judiciary Committee, Mr.
Speaker, I sent you a letter, co-signed by many of my Republican
colleagues on the committee. The letter expressed concern about H.R.
1592's ``thought crime'' provisions and their potential to categorize
individuals who share spiritual or gospel messages as hate criminals.
In the letter, we noted that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors
passed Resolution 060356, which castigated Cardinal William Levada and
the Catholic Church for opposing the adoption of children by
homosexuals. The resolution, perhaps prophetically, describes the
Church's policy using such words as ``hateful,'' ``discriminatory,''
``insulting,'' and ``callous.''
It is easy to see how this type of inflammatory anti-religious
assertion emanating from a governmental body is disconcerting to those
who espouse deep religious beliefs.
This so-called hate crimes bill not only discards the fundamental
American legal principle of equal justice, it also lays the groundwork
to criminalize individuals and groups that might not share the liberal
values of places like San Francisco.
It is rather ironic that on this, the National Day of Prayer--a day
where Americans gather to celebrate our religious heritage--liberal
members of this House are uniting to pass a bill that could deem their
prayerful voices as ``hateful.''
I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1592, the
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. I would like
to thank the chief sponsor of this legislation, Congressman Conyers,
for his work and dedication in bringing this bipartisan bill to the
floor for debate.
H.R. 1592 will strengthen existing Federal hate crimes laws in two
meaningful ways. First, the bill removes the requirement that victims
of violent bias-motivated crimes be engaged in a federally protected
activity, such as voting, when the crime is committed. Federal entities
would then be able to provide technical and grant support for the hate
crimes investigations of State and local law enforcement agencies.
Second, the bill provides for a more comprehensive definition of hate
crimes to include those motivated by gender, disability, sexual
orientation, or gender identity.
In 2005, the FBI documented 7,163 hate crimes directed against
institutions and individuals because of their race, religion, sexual
orientation, national origin, or disability. These statistics were
gathered from 12,417 law enforcement agencies across the country. Yet
it is not the frequency or number of crimes alone that distinguish
these acts of violence from other crimes.
We know that hate crimes are more than individual assaults--they send
shock waves and fear throughout a whole community and segments of our
diverse population. Hate violence is also a message crime and the
messages are clear: ``know your place'' and ``your kind is not welcome
here.'' Hate crimes clearly pose a serious threat to our Nation's
security and the very values upon which our country were founded.
As an original cosponsor of H.R. 1592, I urge my colleagues to vote
in support of final passage.
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1592,
the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. Violent
crimes committed against anyone because of their race, religion,
national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or
disability should not be taken lightly. H.R. 1592 would make this kind
of violent crime a Federal offense and authorizes Federal grants to
assist state and local law enforcement agencies in prosecuting violent
hate crimes.
I believe that it is necessary for the Federal Government to secure
the lives of all people and bring justice to individuals who have been
victims of a violent hate crime. By allowing the Federal Government
jurisdiction in certain, limited cases of violent hate crime, this bill
provides much-needed support to local law enforcement agencies. This
piece of legislation is particularly important at a time when the
number of hate groups has grown over the past years. The Southern
Poverty Law Center reported that the number of hate groups has seen a
40 percent increase since 2000 and attributed much of this growth to
the immigration issue.
Hate crimes that are motivated by bigotry and bias against minority
populations affect entire families and communities. We must stand to
protect our communities from hateful actions. I urge my colleagues to
vote in support of H.R. 1592.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, while I was unavoidably absent from the
floor today to attend the funeral of a close personal friend and great
Georgian, C.W. Matthews, I want to express my strong opposition to H.R.
1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. Had
I been present during the actual vote, I would have voted ``no'' to
H.R. 1592 because I believe all crimes should be prosecuted equally
without special rights based on gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual
orientation. All criminal acts are committed with the intention of
harming or depriving another individual, and trying to elevate crimes
against certain individuals would be an arbitrary way to punish. I
absolutely believe that those who commit crimes against anyone should
be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Furthermore, I would have
voted ``yes'' in strong support of the motion to recommit which would
have amended the legislation to protect seniors and veterans.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1592, the
Local law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act and to oppose attempts
to weaken the bill by removing certain groups from its protection.
Mr. Speaker, no one knows better than a member of the African-
American community in this country that hate crimes exist and have been
an ugly part of this country's history. And we also know that in the
face of all of the apologies offered and passed for slavery and
lynching, if we cannot pass this bill today they are but empty words on
a piece of worthless paper.
It is time for us to demand through this vote that this country draw
the line with a zero-tolerance policy for crimes based on any
characteristic of the victim.
This critically needed legislation will provide local police and
sheriff's departments with vital Federal resources to address hate
crimes; which are crimes against either persons or property where the
offender intentionally selects the victim because of their actual or
perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender,
disability, or sexual orientation.
I fail to understand why anyone, including members of the clergy
would oppose this legislation. This form of hate for one human-being to
another should be repugnant to all of us and not be tolerated.
While current Federal law covers hate crimes it is very narrow in
scope and does not reach many cases where individuals motivated by hate
kill or injure others. H.R. 1592, would strengthen the Federal response
to hate crimes by giving the U.S. Justice Department power to
investigate and prosecute violence motivated by the victims race color,
religion national origin gender or sexual orientation, gender identity
of disability.
Sadly, the need for H.R., 1592 is underscored because this problem of
violence based on hate for a person of another race, ethnicity, gender
or persuasion is getting worse not better. Since 1991, the FBI has
received reports of more than 113,000 hate crimes. For the year 2005
(for which the most current data are available), the FBI received
reports from law enforcement agencies identifying 7,163 bias-motivated
criminal incidents.
It is time that this Congress send a message to the American people
that we will not tolerate hate crimes, that they must strengthen the
Federal response and prosecution of those who perpetrate them, that we
uphold the principles of equality and justice for all upon which this
country was founded and that we intend to practice what many of us
preach; which is brotherly love.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1592.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1592,
the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.
Simply put, the current patchwork of State laws alone does not fully
protect the rights of all Americans from violence based upon actual or
perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual
orientation, gender identity, or disability. I am frankly astounded
that current Federal laws are not more inclusive.
It is unconscionable that we are only now voting on this legislation
today. Almost 150 years after our country enshrined the freedom from
violence based upon race, with the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to
the United States Constitution, we still have not extended those same
protections to all of our citizens. Today, this body has the chance and
indeed the responsibility to rectify this injustice.
Hate knows no borders, so even though 38 states already provide some
of the protections that would be extended by Federal law if H.R. 1592
is enacted, only a Federal law can ensure equal protection under the
law for all Americans.
Remarkably, this legislation faces opposition. These opponents have
claimed that H.R. 1592 is somehow an attack on free speech or a
person's religious beliefs. H.R. 1592 does not criminalize freedom of
speech or religious
[[Page H4448]]
expression, but it does criminalize violence against a person based
upon their perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender,
sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. In fact, a long and
diverse list of religious organizations have spoken out in favor of
H.R. 1592, including groups representing Catholic, Protestant, Jewish,
Buddhist, Muslim and Sikh faiths.
No longer will this body be silent for the millions of Americans that
too often have no voice in the world.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to show my
support for H.R. 1592, The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention
Act of 2007.
Freedoms of speech, expression, and equal protection under the law
are the founding principles of this country. The Constitution
guarantees these rights to all Americans. I believe that it is our duty
to fight for the equal rights of all Americans, regardless of their
race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation,
gender identity, or disability.
I abhor all violent crimes. Attacks that are motivated by hate are
attacks on a whole class of people. Such hate crimes are intended to
instill fear in an entire community and are particularly heinous. We
must give law enforcement the proper tools to investigate and prosecute
crimes that are motivated by hate.
Laws punishing hate crimes are not intended to value one group over
another, but rather to acknowledge the historical bias against certain
minority groups and opinions so that all can enjoy the same legal
protections as the majority. Hate crime laws protect innocent people
and allow them to engage in everyday activity without fear.
I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this important
legislation. This bill helps to better define a hate crime and prevents
the erosion of civil liberties critical to our democracy.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Hate Crimes
Prevention Act. Our country values diversity, values individuality,
values different cultures and respects people for who they are. Hate
crimes are simply un-American.
In 2005, there were over 7,000 Federal hate crimes committed in this
country, but the current law does not cover most true hate crimes.
Late last year in New York, three men lured Michael J. Sandy to a
parking lot, beat him and chased him into traffic where he was struck
by a car. He died 5 days later, one day after his 29th birthday. Why
did these attackers target Michael J. Sandy? Because he was gay.
Today, Mr. Sandy's attackers can not be prosecuted under Federal law
for two reasons. First, in order to be a Federal hate crime, a victim
must be engaged in a federally protected activity such as voting.
Second, the current hate crime law does not consider sexual orientation
a protected class.
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act will sensibly expand the definition of
a Federal hate crime to cover all violent crimes motivated by race,
color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender
identity, or disability when the defendant causes bodily injury or
attempts to cause bodily injury through the use of a firearm or an
explosive device.
Thankfully, New York law has allowed this case to be prosecuted as a
hate crime, but it is time to update our Federal laws to protect our
citizens.
The bill will also give local law enforcement the help they need in
solving and prosecuting these despicable crimes. Some of these cases
can strain local resources, but under this legislation, law enforcement
can reach out and secure Federal resources to pursue these complex
cases.
Because the bill makes common sense reforms, the bill has enjoyed
wide bipartisan support. In fact, the bill is supported by 31 State
Attorneys General and over 280 national law enforcement, professional,
education, civil rights, religious, and civic organizations.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical
legislation.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong
support of H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention
Act, which would address the appalling crimes that continue to occur
today simply because of a person's race, religion, national origin,
ethnicity, gender, disability or sexual orientation.
I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 1592 because it is the
government's responsibility to defend the civil liberties of every
American and prosecute acts of aggression directed at a specific group
of individuals. Current federal law provides for enhanced sentencing
for hate crimes, however, the vast majority of these crimes are not
tried in federal court. This bill would make it a federal crime to
cause, or attempt to cause, bodily harm to another person through the
use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device because of the victim's
actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender or
sexual orientation. Opponents of this bill claim that it would chip
away at First Amendment rights. On the contrary, H.R. 1592 would
protect First Amendment speech and is only intended to prosecute acts
of violence.
The bill would also provide federal assistance to states and local
jurisdictions to prosecute hate crimes. Specifically, the measure would
authorize the Attorney General to make grants available to state and
local law enforcement agencies that have incurred extraordinary
expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate
crimes. Currently, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) collects
statistics on crimes based on race, religion, sexual orientation,
ethnicity, and disability. This legislation would require that the FBI
collect statistics on gender and gender identity-related bias crimes.
I applaud Chairman Conyers and members of the House Judiciary
Committee for their tireless efforts and leadership on this landmark
legislation. I would also like to single out the efforts of the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin, and the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. Frank, for their leadership on this issue. During my
tenure in the House of Representatives and as a father of three
children, I have been a consistent supporter of this measure and
believe it is a tragedy that terrible injustices continue to occur in
the 21st century. Our nation was founded on the principles of liberty
and justice for all and these hate crimes run counter to our national
conscience.
I believe Robert F. Kennedy spoke most eloquently on this issue while
commenting on the loss of Dr. Martin Luther King: ``What we need in the
United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not
hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence or
lawlessness; but love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another,
and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our
country * * *'' Today's legislation takes us one further step towards
the kind of nation Senator Kennedy and Dr. King worked for and I
encourage my colleagues to join me in voting for it.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1592, the
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Let me say from the
outset: I am strongly opposed to violent crimes committed against an
individual, regardless of the motivation of the person committing it.
That is why I support strong state and local prosecution measures to
curb violent crime and increase safety in our communities. In fact, I
am a principal supporter in Congress for increasing Federal funding for
state and local law enforcement officers to curb gang and drug crimes,
which often leads to violent crimes.
I have also spent considerable time in my district meeting with
groups who have experienced discrimination or have been targets of
violent behavior simply due to their race, religion or sexual
orientation. The concerns they have raised with me have weighed heavily
on my mind, and have caused me to reconsider my views on our
Constitution's Tenth Amendment.
In the past, I have not supported Federal hate crimes legislation
since it has traditionally been the responsibility of state and local
prosecutors rather than the Federal Government. States have the right
to apprehend and prosecute criminals under their own criminal codes,
which must be respected. They also have the right to enhance penalties
as they see fit, and many states have taken that step. My own state of
Nebraska enacted comprehensive hate crimes legislation in 1997.
The Nebraska legislation authorizes judges to impose harsher
penalties in criminal cases when a determination is made that the crime
was committed due to the victim's race, color, religion, ancestry,
national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability or
because of his or her association with persons who fit the specified
classifications. The enhanced penalties for hate crimes provided for in
the statute would be the next highest penalty classification above the
one statutorily imposed for the crime, with the death penalty as the
only exception. A broad variety of criminal charges could be enhanced,
including manslaughter, assault, terroristic threats, stalking,
kidnapping, false imprisonment, sexual assault of an adult or child,
arson, criminal mischief, and criminal trespass. Our state statutes
also provide victims with the authority to bring civil actions against
attackers.
The actions taken by Nebraska and so many other states are
appropriate because the states have the ability to expand their
criminal codes as each sees fit. At the same time, there is no Federal
nexus and thus no need for duplicative Federal legislation.
The Tenth Amendment is clear: ``The powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' At some
point, we have to stop federalizing every problem in the country, no
matter how large or small. When the states are addressing a problem
effectively, there is
[[Page H4449]]
no need for the Federal Government to add an extra layer of
bureaucracy. Crime and punishment, with few exceptions, are in the
purview of state legislative authority. I am unwilling to interfere
with that constitutional balance, no matter how worthy the underlying
subject matter might be. For these reasons, I must oppose H.R. 1592.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, in my view an act of violence
against one person is an act of violence against all of us Our actions
toward each other should--and our policies as a nation must--be based
on compassion and understanding of human experiences if we are to truly
have a nation of liberty and justice for all.
In other words, I think in our country all of us, regardless of our
race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, should be able to
live our lives free from violence, intimidation, and discrimination.
That is why I believe Congress must pass legislation to make it more
likely that people who are guilty of violent crimes based on bias are
properly prosecuted, convicted, and punished.
The result will not be to end hate--nor to make hate a crime--but to
establish that our government will not tolerate hate and bigotry that
manifests itself in violence against anyone.
Because I support that result, since first coming to Congress I have
cosponsored and voted for legislation similar to the measure now before
us.
And that is why I will vote for this bill today.
The bill will amend the Federal criminal code to prohibit willfully
causing bodily injury to any person because of the actual or perceived
race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation,
gender identity, or disability of that person.
It also will authorize the Department of Justice to provide
technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or other assistance to help local
law enforcement agencies investigate and prosecute acts that are both
crimes of violence under Federal law or a felony under State, local, or
Indian tribal law; and also are motivated by prejudice based on the
actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender,
sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim. And
to further assist State, local, and tribal officials with the expenses
related to hate crime cases, the bill would authorize the Attorney
General to establish a grant program to be administered by the Office
of Justice Programs that would have a particular focus on combating
hate crime committed by juvenile offenders.
The bill also will broaden Federal coverage of hate crimes under two
scenarios. First, under any circumstance, it will prohibit willfully
inflicting bodily injury to any person, attempted or otherwise, through
the use of fire, a firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, if such
conduct were motivated on the basis of actual or perceived race, color,
religion, or national origin of any person. Second, it will prohibit
the same conduct, if such conduct were motivated on the basis of the
victim's gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, in
addition to the four bases covered by the first scenario, in
circumstances involving specific jurisdictional ties to the
Constitution's interstate commerce clause.
Under either scenario, offenders could be sentenced to 10 years'
imprisonment and a fine, or for any term to life imprisonment if the
crime resulted in the victim's death, or involved murder, kidnapping,
attempted kidnapping, rape, or attempted rape.
The bill addresses two deficiencies in current law that limit the
Federal Government's ability to work with State and local law
enforcement agencies and have led to acquittals in some cases in which
Federal jurisdiction has been asserted to backstop local efforts.
One is the fact that current Federal law provides no coverage for
violent hate crimes committed because of the victim's perceived sexual
orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. The other is that
current law requires proof that the crime was committed with the intent
to interfere with the victim's participation in one of six specifically
defined federally protected activities. The bill addresses both those
limitations and provides the Justice Department tools to effectively
act against bias-motivated violence by assisting States and local law
enforcement agencies and by pursuing Federal charges where appropriate.
This is the same approach Congress took in the Church Arson Prevention
Act of 1996.
It is important to note that even after enactment of this bill, State
and local authorities will deal with the overwhelming majority of hate
crimes--and the bill is drafted to ensure that the Federal prosecution
of hate crimes will be limited to cases that implicate the greatest
Federal interest and present the greatest need for Federal
intervention.
The bill is not intended to federalize all rapes, sexual assaults,
acts of domestic violence, or other gender-based crimes.
In fact, for a hate crime case to be prosecuted federally, the
Attorney General, or a high-ranking subordinate, would have to certify
that pertinent state or local officials (1) were unable or unwilling to
prosecute; (2) favored Federal prosecution; or (3) prosecuted, but the
investigation or trial's results did not satisfy the Federal interest
to combat hate crimes.
This certification requirement is intended to ensure that the Federal
Government will assert the new hate crimes jurisdiction in a principled
and properly limited fashion, consistent with procedures under the
current Federal hate crimes statute.
It should also be noted that the bill respects and protects First
Amendment rights. It will not bar or punish name-calling, verbal abuse
or expressions of hatred toward any person or group--it deals only with
violent criminal actions--and includes a provision explicitly stating
that conduct protected under the speech and religious freedom clauses
of the First Amendment is not subject to prosecution. In short, the
bill does not criminalize speech or advocacy, and its enactment will
not jeopardize anyone's right to associate, to denounce, to hold fast
to a religious belief, or to do anything else protected by the
Constitution's First Amendment.
Mr. Speaker, crimes motivated by bias are not as rare as many of us
would like to think. Since 1991 the FBI has received reports of more
than 113,000 hate crimes. In 2005, the latest year for which data are
available, the FBI received reports from law enforcement agencies
identifying 7,163 bias-motivated criminal incidents, with more than
half being racially-motivated and others reflecting religious bias
(17.1 percent), sexual orientation (14.2 percent) and ethnicity/
national origin bias (13.7 percent). And, unfortunately, Colorado is
not immune--in 2005 our state reported 59 crimes based on racial bias,
22 reflecting religious prejudice, 16 related to sexual orientation, 27
involving ethnic bias, and 1 involving a person's disability, and there
have been more since then.
These sobering statistics demonstrate that the legislation before us
is appropriate and necessary--especially because it is generally
understood that hate crimes are often not reported as such.
Accordingly, I support the bill and urge its passage.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1592,
the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.
As Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, I know
that Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders have faced a long history of
hate crimes, from the 1880 lynching of Chinese in Denver's Chinatown,
to the brutal killing of Vincent Chin in 1982, to post-September 11
violence against Arabs, Sikhs, and Muslims, including the murder of
Balbir Sigh Sodhi, and more recently, the killing of Cha Vang, a Hmong
individual, in Wisconsin just this year.
Hate crimes are under-reported and under-prosecuted. The Local Law
Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act provides the resources necessary
for all levels of government to investigate and prosecute hate crimes
based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, gender
identity, sexual orientation, and disability.
Hate crimes are unique in that they are motivated by hostility toward
an entire community, and are oftentimes rooted in a wider public
sentiment of discrimination, xenophobia, and intolerance. The passage
of this Act is a step in the right direction in promoting tolerance in
our intgrated society.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snyder). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 364, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Smith of Texas
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I do oppose it, in the current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Smith of Texas moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1592 to
the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report
the same back to the House promptly with the following
amendments:
Page 12, line 5, after ``orientation,'' insert ``status as
a senior citizen who has attained the age of 65 years, status
as a current or former member of the Armed Forces,''.
Mr. SMITH of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the motion to recommit
[[Page H4450]]
be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is
straightforward. It seeks to protect America's senior citizens and
those who serve in our Armed Forces.
My colleagues on the other side contend that a new law is needed to
cover crimes against persons based on race, gender, national origin,
sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. The motion to
recommit makes sure that seniors and our military personnel are added
to the list of protected groups.
We all care greatly about the safety and security of our senior
citizens. We all understand that they are particularly vulnerable to
crime. Criminals who prey on our senior citizens because they are
senior citizens should be vigorously prosecuted and punished.
The statistics paint a disturbing picture of violence against senior
citizens in our country. A recent Justice Department study found that
each year over the last 10 years, for every 1,000 persons over 65, four
are violently assaulted. This includes rape, sexual assault, robbery
and aggravated assaults. Approximately 65 percent of these crimes
against senior citizens are committed by strangers or casual
acquaintances. In my hometown, the San Antonio police report rising
crime against the elderly, with over 6,200 crimes just this last year.
We were all horrified by the recent videotaped robbery in New York
City committed against 101-year-old Rose Morat. Rose was leaving her
building to go to church when a robber, who pretended to help her
through the vestibule, turned and delivered three hard punches to her
face and grabbed her purse. He pushed her and her walker to the ground.
Rose suffered a broken cheekbone and was hospitalized. The robber got
away with $33 and her house keys. Police believe the same man robbed an
85-year-old woman shortly after beating Rose.
These are horrible crimes that strike fear into the hearts of
America's senior citizens and make them wonder whether they will be
victimized next.
This motion to recommit also adds the category of current or former
members of the Armed Forces to the list of groups in this bill. We
honor our men and women of the military because of their patriotism,
their commitment to protecting our freedom and their service to our
country. In times of controversy surrounding the use of our military,
we have seen unfortunate acts by those who use their hostility towards
the military to further their political agenda.
With the rising debate over the Iraq war, we are seeing increasing
threats to Iraqi war veterans. Recently, a Syracuse woman pleaded
guilty to spitting in the face of a Fort Drum soldier at an airport.
Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to make it clear to everyone that we
honor our veterans and current members of our Armed Forces. Congress
can make the message clear that hate of our Armed Forces will be
punished at a heightened level, just like the other groups under this
act.
If Congress rejects this motion to recommit, who will explain to the
thousands of victims who are senior citizens or military victims that
their injuries are less important than those of others protected under
the hate crimes law? Are we really prepared to tell seniors and our men
and women in uniform across our country that crimes committed against
victims because of race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation,
gender identity or disability are, as a rule, more worthy of punishment
than those committed against seniors and military personnel?
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the distinguished gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Smith, would he yield for a unanimous consent request
that the bill be amended as follows: Page 12, line 5 after
``orientation'' insert ``status as a senior citizen who has attained
the age of 65 years; status as a current or former member of the armed
services.''
Would the gentleman yield for a unanimous consent request on that?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman does not yield.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith,
the proponent of the motion to recommit, yield for a unanimous consent
request that the motion be amended by striking the word ``promptly''
and inserting the word ``forthwith?''
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I also object to that request.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas does not yield for
that purpose.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I notice that the motion being offered by
the gentleman provides the bill be reported back to the House
``promptly'' rather than reported back ``forthwith.''
Is it true, as I believe to be the case, that the effect of the word
``promptly'' is that the House is not being asked to amend this bill,
but to send it off the Floor and back to the Judiciary Committee?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The adoption of a motion to recommit with
instructions to report back ``promptly'' sends the back bill back to
committee, whose eventual report, if any, would not be immediately
before the House.
Does the gentleman from Michigan seek time in opposition to the
motion to recommit?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I do.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Michigan yield for a
parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am not inclined to at this time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized
for 5 minutes in opposition to the motion to recommit.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the motion
to recommit, which would not operate as a simple amendment, but, listen
to me, would instead send the bill back to the Committee on the
Judiciary, in essence killing the bill for the remainder of the
Congress.
The categories of individuals included in the amendment, seniors and
members of the armed services, are entitled to protection under the
law, and in point of fact they have protection under the law at both
Federal and State levels. I note that it is already a Federal crime to
kill or attempt to kill any member of the armed services under 18
U.S.C. 1114.
We also have programs in the law to provide assistance to prosecutors
and law enforcement in the enforcement of crimes against elders, as
well as a variety of senior services that will help them in their
homes, safety and elder care.
The purpose of the bill is to protect classes of individuals who have
been and are the group-wide victims of systemic violence: hanging a man
because of his race, dragging someone to death because they are
disabled. These are crimes that are designed to target and intimidate
entire groups of individuals, and we all know it. That is why they are
labeled hate crimes and why this legislation is before us.
As much as any Member here, I believe we can and should do more to
protect other members of society. That is why our Committee on the
Judiciary approved a COPS bill yesterday, reauthorizing a program to
provide for 100,000 local police on the beat and other safety
officials. That is why I have in the past pushed for an Elder Justice
Act.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the
distinguished majority leader.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished chairman.
This motion, my colleagues, reeks with the stench of cynicism. Let me
tell you why. The distinguished chairman rose and asked for unanimous
consent to add the protections to members of our Armed Forces who are
either serving or have served, and he then asked to protect our senior
citizens. He
[[Page H4451]]
asked for unanimous consent to do that, and the gentleman from Texas
objected, so it was not added.
Then the chairman rose and asked that we substitute ``forthwith'' for
``promptly'' so their amendment could be immediately adopted, and the
gentleman from Texas objected.
How cynical can you be to offer an amendment, I tell my friend, which
in its own framework will kill the very proposition you are making? For
if this amendment prevails, what will happen is, the bill will be
killed and the protection of the Armed Forces that he seeks, the
protection of the seniors that he seeks, will be killed.
My friends on this side of the aisle, this is a political game. The
American public knows it is a political game. Let's reject this cynical
political game and pass this legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Isn't it true, Mr. Speaker, that under the
motion to recommit there is nothing that precludes the Judiciary
Committee from dealing with the bill when it goes back to the committee
and sending it back to the floor of the House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The adoption of a motion to recommit with
instructions to report back ``promptly'' sends the bill back to
committee, whose eventual report, if any, would not be immediately
before the House.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage of the bill.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 189,
nays 227, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 298]
YEAS--189
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Porter
Putnam
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--227
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Platts
Pomeroy
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--17
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Engel
Fattah
Gingrey
Graves
Hastert
Hunter
Johnson, E. B.
Lampson
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
Ortiz
Paul
Radanovich
Tancredo
Tanner
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining on the vote.
{time} 1338
Messrs. HOBSON, GARRETT of New Jersey and BUYER changed their vote
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Frank of Massachusetts). The question is
on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237,
nays 180, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 299]
YEAS--237
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Emanuel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Ferguson
Filner
Frank (MA)
[[Page H4452]]
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--180
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cramer
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gillmor
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--16
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Engel
Fattah
Gingrey
Graves
Hastert
Hunter
Johnson, E. B.
Lampson
McMorris Rodgers
Ortiz
Paul
Radanovich
Tancredo
Tanner
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2
minutes remain to vote.
{time} 1346
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on H.R. 1592
I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________