[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 70 (Thursday, April 22, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2140-S2150]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
COVID-19 HATE CRIMES ACT--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 937, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 937) to facilitate the expedited review of
COVID-19 hate crimes, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Schumer (for Hirono/Collins) amendment No. 1445, of a
perfecting nature.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Amendment Nos. 1456, 1425, and 1458 to Amendment No. 1445
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order be executed with respect to the reporting of the three amendments
under the consent agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendments by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cruz] proposes an amendment
numbered 1456 to amendment No. 1445.
The amendment is, as follows
[Purpose: To prohibit Federal funding for any institution of higher
education that discriminates against Asian Americans in recruitment,
applicant review, or admissions]
At the end, add the following:
SEC. 6. PROHIBITION OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR INSTITUTIONS OF
HIGHER EDUCATION THAT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST
ASIAN AMERICANS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no institution
of higher education (as defined in section 102 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002)) may receive any
Federal funding if the institution has a policy in place or
engages in a practice that discriminates against Asian
Americans in recruitment, applicant review, or admissions.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. Lee,
proposes an amendment numbered 1425 to amendment No. 1445.
The amendment is, as follows
[Purpose: To require a report on State restrictions on religious
exercise during the COVID-19 pandemic]
Strike section 3 and insert the following:
SEC. 3. REPORT ON RELIGIOUS RESTRICTIONS DURING THE COVID-19
PANDEMIC.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to
Congress a report on the restrictions on religious exercise
imposed by States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and
any other territory or possession of the United States during
the COVID-19 pandemic.
(b) Contents.--The report required to be submitted under
subsection (a) shall include--
(1) an analysis of whether the same restrictions applied to
religious institutions also applied equally to secular
organizations or businesses; and
(2) an analysis of whether each imposed restriction
complies with the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United
States in Tandon v. Newsom, No. 20A151, 539 U.S. ___ (2021).
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Tennessee [Mrs. Blackburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 1458 to amendment No. 1445.
(Purpose: To improve the bill.)
(The amendment is printed in the Record of April 21, 2021, under
``Text of Amendments.'')
Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Earth Day
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, today is Earth Day, our planet's largest
annual civic event. More than 1 billion people in 192 nations are
expected to participate in activities to draw attention to the urgency
of the climate crisis and environmental degradation. From the South
Side of Chicago to South America and South Asia, ordinary citizens--
schoolchildren, scientists, environmental activists, business and
government leaders, and others--are calling for help for our ailing
planet.
This year, the most important Earth Day gathering is just 16 blocks
from where we meet. At the White House today, President Biden is
hosting a 2-day virtual summit of leaders from 40 Nations--leaders from
the highest emitting countries, China, India, Russia, as well as
leaders from countries that suffer the worst consequences, such as
Bangladesh and Kenya. The leaders are coming together, after a year of
staggering pandemic hardship and climate-related crises, to renew their
commitment to save our planet from irreversible climate catastrophe.
With this Earth Day Leaders Summit, President Biden is sending the
world a clear message: The United States is back and is ready to be a
leader again in combating climate change. The White House Leaders
Summit is meant to encourage countries to make strong commitments under
the Paris Agreement to prevent the global average temperature from
rising more than 1.5 degree Celsius above preindustrial levels. This
sounds technical and dry and wonky, but here is what it means. At 1\1/
2\ degrees Celsius of warming, much of the world will likely see sea
level rise that swallows coastlines, leaves millions of homes
underwater, and produces recordbreaking droughts, floods, and other
climate catastrophes. Hundreds of millions of people will be pushed
into poverty because of this, and climate-related famine and conflicts
would trigger a global refugee crisis worse than anything we have ever
seen. That is the future if we do nothing. That is something we must
avoid, and the United States needs to show leadership.
President Biden does that today with this meeting. One of his first
official acts as President, on his first full day in office, was
starting the process of recommitting the United States to join every
nation in the world in the Paris Agreement. If you will remember, the
previous President decided that America would step away from that.
At the White House Leaders Summit, the President will announce a new
goal: to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50 percent by
the year 2030. The Biden administration's leadership stands in sharp
contrast to what we have seen over the last 4 years. We saw a President
withdraw from the Paris Agreement, ridicule science at every
opportunity, deny the existence of a growing climate threat, and even
censor the remarks of government scientists that might suggest
otherwise.
Fortunately, the disengagement by the previous administration didn't
prevent the American people, scientists, real business leaders and
entrepreneurs, and cities and States from ignoring President Trump and
moving ahead.
There is no substitute, though, for leadership at the top. The
American Jobs Plan, which President Biden plans to pass, and I hope
there is support, is a plan to secure America's global economic
leadership, strengthen America's working families, and build the
infrastructure of the future we can count on. The American Jobs Plan,
of course, will rebuild America's crumbling rail lines, roads, bridges,
ports, and water systems; strengthen America's power grid; and invest
in 5G broadband internet for every community in America. The previous
President promised it but didn't deliver. This President wants to
deliver, with our help.
I have heard those on the floor who then criticize that part of the
American Jobs Plan, which goes further. President Biden also wants to
invest in green energy, wind, solar, and other renewable energy
projects. To hear that described by some of his Republican critics, it
is just pure socialism. Socialism? It is a realistic response to the
21st challenge of climate change. The American Jobs Plan includes
billions of dollars to retrain any workers who are dislocated if they
work in the fossil fuel industry and to find better, well-paying jobs
with a future in clean energy and other fields. Just this week, the
president of the United Mine Workers of America--a sixth generation
[[Page S2141]]
West Virginia coal miner--announced that his union was going to support
President Biden's American Jobs Plan in exchange for training his coal
miners in how they can be effective and also have good jobs in a
cleaner energy future. That union understands clean energy. Most
Americans do. I hope Senators on both sides of the aisle will.
American business gets it. I have introduced two bills that would
bring efficiency and innovation of the marketplace and the financial
clout of the Federal Government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
create a more sustainable economy that works for the people and the
planet. My bills are called the America's Clean Future Fund Act and the
Climate Change Resiliency Fund for America Act.
We talked about investing in American infrastructure so we can tackle
climate change and create renewable energy jobs and the industries of
the future. But I want to make it clear that our highest priority is to
create those jobs right here in America. I hope my colleagues will work
with us and won't filibuster the President's efforts to move our
economy forward in a dramatic way.
We can't afford denial, defeatism. We can't afford people who say it
is too late to do anything about climate disaster. We owe it to our
children, grandchildren, and future generations to do everything in our
power to save this planet from what is obviously coming our way.
Safe, effective vaccines have brought us so far in fighting this
pandemic. We have developed in a short period of time under this
President not only the vaccines but also their delivery and
administration to the people of our country at a rate no one ever
expected. The research that led to this was good scientific research.
Two of the leading vaccines were developed using something called
messenger RNA--mRNA--and it worked. The basic science that led to the
discovery of mRNA was largely funded by American taxpayers--government
programs--and applied by the private industry with great success. And
now, because of our investment in science and belief in science,
people's lives are being saved in the United States and around the
world. Imagine solutions we can find if we harness the power of public
partnerships together with science and citizen engagement to address
climate change.
The first Earth Day was 51 years ago. It was proposed by a Senator
from Wisconsin named Gaylord Nelson. It brought 20 million Americans
together at the time, put preservation of our planet on the national
agenda, and ushered in a decade of remarkable environmental progress.
That decade saw the creation of some of our most important protections
of clean air, land, and water.
Ten years later, Gaylord Nelson looked back on that first Earth Day
and the decade that followed. His words bear repeating today, And this
is what he said: ``So long as the human species inhabits the Earth,
proper management of its resources will be the most fundamental issue
we face. Our very survival will depend upon whether or not we are able
to preserve, protect, and defend our environment. We are not free to
decide about whether or not our environment matters. It does matter.
Apart from politics, it is fundamental to survival. We disregard the
needs of our ecosystem at our mortal peril.'' That was the lesson of
Earth Day, and it should never be forgotten.
S. 937
Madam President, this morning, we are going to take up the COVID-19
Hate Crimes Act that Senator Hirono and Senator Duckworth bring before
us.
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have, unfortunately,
witnessed an appalling rise in hate incidents targeting the Asian
American and Pacific Islander community. The numbers are shocking.
Between March 2020 and February 2021, the Stop AAPI Hate Initiative
documented nearly 3,800 hate incidents in the United States, and a
recent analysis by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism found
that while hate crimes in 16 of America's largest cities decreased
overall by 7 percent in the year 2020, those targeting Asian Americans
increased by nearly 150 percent.
Our friends and neighbors in the AAPI community are facing an urgent,
imminent threat. It is time to do something about it. That is why I am
proud to support the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act. This will provide State
and local law enforcement with guidance and tools to track and address
hate crimes and hate incidents.
I am grateful for the bipartisan support, which Senator Collins and
others have brought to this bill to strengthen it. These efforts
include Senator Blumenthal's and Senator Moran's NO HATE Act, critical
legislation that will improve hate crime reporting and expand
assistance and resources for victims of hate crimes.
There is so much more we can do and should do to address the broader
issue of domestic terrorism, identified by the Director of the FBI as
one of the gravest threats to security in our country. That is why I
introduced the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act earlier this year, and
I will continue with my efforts to send that legislation to the
President's desk.
But today, we have an opportunity to come together--Democrats and
Republicans, Americans--and support our friends, our siblings, and our
fellow Americans in the AAPI community. Millions of Americans count on
us to do that. Let's show them that we can.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to follow our
distinguished Judiciary Committee chairman and whip, Senator Durbin,
who has fought so hard for the principles and values that are embodied
in the Jabara-Heyer NO HATE Act, which is part of the legislation. It
is, indeed, bipartisan, and, hopefully, we will pass it today.
The fact is that this August marks two excruciatingly sad
anniversaries. It will be 4 years since Heather Heyer was killed when a
White nationalist drove his car into a crowd of peaceful protesters,
and it will be 5 years since Khalid Jabara was shot and killed on his
own front porch by his neighbor, an avowed and virulent racist.
The temptation is to get lost in the numbers and statistics about
hate crimes. Make no mistake, these statistics are horrifying,
especially the surge in hate crimes directed against Asian Americans
and Pacific Islanders.
The FBI reported just over 7,300 hate crimes in 2019. The Department
of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that there was an
average of 198,000 hate crime victimizations in 2017. Hate crimes are
vastly underreported. One of the objectives of the Jabara-Heyer NO HATE
Act is to spur greater reporting so we know the horrifying dimensions
and magnitude of this problem and we can better fashion solutions to
fight them.
But what is most important to remember about each of these 198,000
incidents is that they involve real people, real communities, lives
torn apart, communities torn asunder. In the most heartbreaking cases,
they involve real lives that are lost forever, real families who will
never see their loved ones again.
The NO HATE Act that the Senate is considering today is named for two
of those people: Heather Heyer and Khalid Jabara. For just a few
moments, I would like to spend this time on the Senate floor honoring
them and their families. We are here because of them.
Heather Heyer was counterprotesting the Unite the Right rally in
Charlottesville, VA, on August 12, 2019, when she was murdered by a
White supremacist who purposefully ran his car into a crowd of
protesters, also injuring 19 other people.
Heather is remembered as a young woman with a big heart. She devoted
her life to the fight for justice and equality. The foundation named in
her honor notes that ``Heather was a young woman deeply involved in
taking a stand against injustice when she didn't have to do so,'' who
``spoke passionately'' about what she believed in. She was just 32
years old when she was murdered.
Khalid Jabara was shot on the steps of his own home, his family's
home in Tulsa, OK, by a neighbor who had been harassing the Jabara
family for months. That family had come to America to flee civil war
and religious persecution in Lebanon, only to be terrorized here by
their racist, murderous next door neighbor.
Khalid is remembered for his sense of humor and unfailing devotion to
his family.
[[Page S2142]]
He cared for our entire family, our friends, and people he
didn't even know. He created every Jabara family joke and
filled their lives with love and laughter.
Jabara was 37 years old when he was murdered.
Today's vote honors the memory of those two individuals and the
thousands of other individuals who have been victims of similar hate
crimes--un-American, abhorrent, unacceptable. Today, we make a
statement that we will not accept those kinds of hate crimes in
America.
I am grateful to the entire Jabara family and to Susan Bro, Heather's
mother, for their unfailing devotion to ending hate and their
courageous advocacy in support of the NO HATE Act. I also want to thank
my partner in this legislation, Senator Moran of Kansas. We would not
be here today without his support and bipartisan cooperation on this
bill.
There will always be hateful people who want to lash out violently at
the world. They will lash out at Muslims, at Jews, at African
Americans, at Asian Americans, at Pacific Islanders. But America is
above it. America is better than they are. And we owe Heather Heyer,
Khalid Jabara, and every other victim of hate crimes--from the Orlando
nightclub massacre to the shooting in El Paso--the kind of action we
are taking today.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Bipartisanship
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today we are wrapping up consideration of
the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act. Next week the majority leader has
indicated the Senate will take up the Drinking Water and Wastewater
Infrastructure Act of 2021. These are both bipartisan pieces of
legislation.
The COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act was an initially partisan bill that has
now been improved by input from Republicans and I expect will receive
strong bipartisan support on final passage.
The Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act has been 100
percent bipartisan from the very beginning. Senators Duckworth and
Capito developed this legislation, along with Democratic Senators
Carper and Cardin and Republican Senators Lummis and Cramer. The
legislation went through regular committee consideration and was
reported out of the Environment and Public Works Committee to the full
Senate with a unanimous vote. It is a model of how we should work here
in the Senate.
Mr. President, after a very partisan start to this Congress, with
Democrats and the President steamrolling through a massive, partisan
COVID bill packed with non-COVID-related priorities, it is encouraging
to see the Senate working the way it should: Senators from both parties
talking, negotiating, coming together to work out legislation that both
parties can support.
It is particularly encouraging to see the Drinking Water and
Wastewater bill--a bipartisan effort from start to finish and a too-
rare example of legislation that went through the committee process,
which should be our goal for most bills in the Senate. I hope this
trend will continue.
Democrats want the Senate to take up infrastructure legislation in
the near future--a goal that Republicans support. What we don't support
is Democrats' threat to shove through another massive, partisan bill--
this time on infrastructure--using reconciliation rules to ensure
Republicans don't have a voice in the legislation.
The Senate was designed to promote moderation and consensus. It was
intended to be a check on the more partisan--or as the Founders would
put it, factious--House of Representatives. The Senate fulfills its
constitutional role best when it engages in serious, bipartisan
consideration and negotiation and ensures that Members of both parties
are heard. This is the framework we should adopt for infrastructure.
I am encouraged by President Biden's decision to meet with
Republicans to discuss infrastructure legislation. Republicans have now
met with the President at least twice, and more meetings are expected.
I anticipate meeting with the President and other Senators soon to
discuss broadband infrastructure priorities. I hope we can reach
bipartisan agreement on priorities in this area, including closing the
digital divide by increasing broadband access in rural America and
removing obstacles to digital infrastructure deployment. I know it can
be done.
When I served as chairman of the Commerce Committee, for example, we
passed bipartisan legislation that reduced the redtape associated with
building broadband networks. I introduced bipartisan legislation to
accelerate 5G infrastructure deployment. There was a lot of bipartisan
agreement to be found on infrastructure in general.
Congress has a history of bipartisan collaboration on infrastructure
legislation. Our last major infrastructure bill, the FAST Act, went
through regular order and several committees, including the one I led
at the time, and was supported by both Democrats and Republicans, and
it was a remarkably successful bill.
Not long thereafter, our committee spearheaded enactment of the
largest reauthorization of the FAA since the early 1980s, including
critical programs to improve airport infrastructure.
Last Congress, the Environment and Public Works Committee here in the
Senate developed bipartisan infrastructure legislation.
There is no reason that we shouldn't reach bipartisan agreement on
another substantial piece of infrastructure legislation. Senator Capito
and other Republicans will be releasing a Republican proposal today
that will reflect a lot of the bipartisan infrastructure priorities. I
hope that after she releases this proposal, Democrats and Republicans
will be able to sit down and engage in serious negotiation on our two
plans.
Our Founders established a democratic republic instead of a pure
democracy because they wanted to balance majority rule with protection
for minority rights. They knew that majorities could be tyrants, so
they wove protection for minority rights into our system of government.
The Senate was one of those protections. That is why we should be
preserving rules like the filibuster, which ensures that the minority
party and the many Americans it represents have a voice in legislation.
It is always important that the minority party's voice be heard and
the Senate engage in bipartisan negotiation and discussion, but it
should be especially obvious that in a 50-50 Senate, any major
legislation should be bipartisan. If one thing is for sure, it is that
a 50-50 Senate is not a mandate for one side to force through its
agenda unchecked.
It is absurd for Senate Democrats or House Democrats to pretend they
have a mandate for a partisan revolution. Yet much of the legislation
that they have been pushing since taking office appears to have been
drafted by Members of the extreme left wing of their party.
In his inauguration address, President Biden appeared to recognize
the bipartisan character of his mandate and his obligation to work with
Members of both parties and promote unity in the country.
Unfortunately, to date, his administration has not delivered on that
promise of bipartisan leadership. As I said, I am encouraged that it
appears he may be changing that when it comes to infrastructure. I hope
the Senate and House Democrats will follow his lead.
The ball is in Democrats' court. We can pass a substantial,
bipartisan infrastructure bill, or Democrats can continue down the
extremely partisan path that they have been pursuing. For the sake of
our country, Mr. President, I hope they will choose bipartisanship.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
S. 937
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues who worked diligently
to enhance the legislation that we are considering on the floor here
this morning. I commend them for the work they put into this effort.
I have an amendment that has been included in a vote we are going to
take here momentarily, a NO HATE amendment, and I would like to speak
for just a few minutes about this topic. I will limit my remarks to
speaking in support of the amendment's language, which simply seeks to
collect better data on hate crimes under existing statutes.
[[Page S2143]]
We know that crimes committed against specific groups increased in
recent years. Anti-Semitic attacks hit a record high in 2019. There are
gaps in our knowledge of how prevalent these crimes truly are.
The language included in this amendment, based upon the NO HATE Act
introduced by Senator Blumenthal, has bipartisan support in this
Chamber and for its companion in the House. It would establish
incentives for State and local law enforcement to submit credible and
complete hate crime reports, create grants for State-run crime
hotlines, require the Department of Justice to collect and analyze data
on hate crimes, and allow judges to require community service or
educational programs for individuals convicted under existing statutes.
I would also take a moment to express my gratitude to Senator Rick
Scott for working to help improve the text, and that improvement, in
fact, is also found in this agreement.
Kansans have personally been touched by incidents during my time in
the Senate.
In 2014, a neo-Nazi killed three at the Jewish Community Center of
Greater Kansas City and a Jewish retirement home, both in Overland
Park. In late 2016, the FBI thwarted a bomb plot against an apartment
complex housing Somali immigrants in Garden City, and the following
year, a man shot two Indian immigrants, killing one, at a restaurant in
Olathe, KS, after shouting, ``Get out of my country.''
These were high-profile, well-publicized incidents of hate. It is
important that the incidents that do not gain broad attention are
nevertheless recorded properly so that the Department of Justice can
properly analyze the data.
A bipartisan group of attorneys general for 35 States and
territories, including Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt, have
endorsed the NO HATE Act. It is also backed by Major Cities Chiefs
Associations and the National District Attorneys Association.
No statutes are expanded by this amendment, nor are there any
mandates. Instead, it will allow for State and local entities to
voluntarily seek grants to better provide data on specific crimes in
their jurisdictions and to give judges flexibility in sentencing
violent offenders.
I condemn the recent attacks on Asian Americans, and assaults on
minorities are an assault of our Nation's creed of ``e pluribus
unum''--out of many, one. That is what our country is--out of many,
one.
The crimes Senator Blumenthal and I seek more information on tear at
the fabric of our Nation. But out of many crimes, it is time we speak
as one to condemn the perpetrators and their ideology, to support the
communities that live in fear despite that all of us--all of us--are
made in God's own image.
Committed to unifying principles, our diversity is our country's
strength. We continue to strive to make a more perfect union. This
amendment is but a small step in that direction.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise because it is a historic day. It is
a historic day because the House is scheduled to pass H.R. 51, the
Washington, D.C. Admission Act. My original intent was to speak about
that, but before I do, I want to honor my colleagues who have worked
very hard on the hate crimes legislation that we will tackle later
today.
I want to thank Senators Hirono and Duckworth and Senator Collins for
working with them. I want to thank Senators Blumenthal and Moran and
all the Senators who have worked to get us at the threshold where we
will do something bipartisan that will send comfort to people around
the country who are worried about being targeted because of who they
are.
In honor of my colleagues who have worked hard, I just want to tell
you a story about Heather Heyer, the Virginian for whom the NO HATE Act
is partially named, who was killed when she was 32 in 2017 by a White
supremacist in Charlottesville.
I didn't know Heather--I know her mother Susan pretty well--but I
went to Heather's funeral. Let me tell you this amazing story about
Heather Heyer.
Heather was a waitress, and she saw an ad in the newspaper to apply
to be a paralegal at a local law firm specializing in bankruptcy. A
Charlottesville attorney, an African-American man, had a bankruptcy
firm. He needed a paralegal, put an ad in the paper, and got a lot of
applications. He got this application from Heather Heyer. The other
applicants had paralegal degrees. Heather Heyer was a waitress who
didn't have a paralegal degree, but something about the letter made him
think, well, I at least have to talk to this person.
He interviewed those with the paralegal degrees, and then he
interviewed Heather Heyer and was very struck with her personality but
said: Look, I am interviewing for people to be a paralegal. You don't
have background in this area. You are a waitress. Why do you think you
can do this job?
Heather said: Because I am a waitress, I listen to people all day
long, and I want to tell you about some of my customers--the elderly
widower who comes in every Tuesday for lunch, and I know his order, and
I know how to converse with him to lighten his mood.
She went on to describe some of the people in the restaurant she had
served for years. Then she looked at this attorney and said: You are a
bankruptcy lawyer. The people who come to you are hurting. They need to
be listened to. They are worried about losing everything. I think you
couldn't do better than to hire somebody who has made a specialist out
of listening to other people.
He said: Well, you may not have a degree, but you have answered that
in a wonderful way, and I am going to hire you.
He hired Heather. Heather ended up, as he described at her funeral
service, kind of becoming like the office den mother, manager, et
cetera, who was so good dealing with clients who were so very worried
when they came to see him.
One night after she had been working with him for a while, they
worked late and they left the office. As they left the office,
Heather's relatively new boyfriend was waiting outside. Heather
introduced him to her boss.
The next day, the attorney noticed that Heather wasn't her normal,
talkative self, that she wasn't in a very good mood.
At the end of the day, he said to her: Heather, is something wrong?
She said: Yes. I broke up with my boyfriend last night.
He said: Well, I just met him last night outside the office. He
seemed like a wonderful guy.
She said: Well, I thought he was a wonderful guy, but when he saw
that I was working for a Black man, he started to criticize me for
that, and I had no choice but to break up with him.
She is Heather Heyer. She is the woman whom we are honoring in
passing the NO HATE amendment as part of the hate crimes bill today,
and I appreciate my colleagues for including her in the NO HATE
amendment that will be part of this bill.
Washington, D.C. Admission Act
Mr. President, our colleagues in the House today are acting on H.R.
51, and there is an equivalent bill, S. 51, the Washington, D.C.
Admission Act. As somebody who represents a State just a few miles from
DC, I didn't want to let this historic day pass without saying a word
about it.
The bill would, as everyone knows, make Washington, DC, the Nation's
51st State. I am proud to serve as an original cosponsor of the Senate
version, led by my colleague Senator Carper. The bill was introduced
earlier this year after many previous efforts with a record number of
cosponsors, and I am proud to say that statehood for DC is enjoying the
largest support in years.
The right to vote is the cornerstone of our American democratic
society. Through free and fair elections, ordinary citizens choose the
leaders and direction of our country; yet some 712,000 residents of the
Nation's Capital do not enjoy the right fully.
For too long, Virginia's neighbors in DC have been denied their civil
rights and have been subject to taxation without full representation in
Congress, which is a founding principle of our Nation.
Virginians love history. So, on May 29, 1765, Patrick Henry gave his
famous
[[Page S2144]]
speech before the Virginia House of Burgesses, encouraging the passage
of the five resolutions, commonly referred to as the Virginia Resolves,
to address the Stamp Act. The act that was passed the following day
included four of his resolves.
Everybody remembers that the Stamp Act of 1765 levied an unfair tax
on American Colonies on paper goods, newspapers, almanacs, pamphlets,
and legal documents. The Crown was worried about the content of those
documents, so it levied the tax.
In his first resolve, Henry declared that Virginians should be
entitled to ``all of the liberties, privileges, franchises, and
immunities'' that other British subjects enjoyed. He wanted for
Virginians the same rights enjoyed by people living in Britain,
thousands of miles away.
I can't help but notice the parallel. We stand in the District of
Columbia, the seat of our Nation's Federal Government. Not thousands of
miles away but just across the Potomac River or just over the border in
Maryland, hundreds of thousands of American citizens don't enjoy the
same ``liberties, privileges, franchises, and immunities'' as those in
Virginia, Maryland, or other States.
In his third resolve, Patrick Henry stated:
The taxation of the people by themselves, or by persons
chosen by themselves to represent them, who can only know
what taxes the people can bear, or the easiest method of
raising them, and must themselves be affected by every tax
laid on the people, is the only security against a burdensome
taxation, and the distinguishing characteristic of British
freedom, without which the ancient constitution cannot exist.
To date, DC pays more in Federal taxes per capita than any State. Its
residents pay more in Federal taxes per capita than any State and more
total Federal taxes than 22 States. Yet, for more than 200 years, the
people of Washington, DC, have been denied what Patrick Henry urged on
the Virginia House of Burgesses as a reason for American independence.
DC not only pays more per capital Federal taxes than any State, it is
also subject to a higher degree of congressional regulation of its
internal affairs than any other State. So it is both taxed and
overregulated without representation.
DC meets the two criteria that have always been the test of admission
of a new State into the Union: sufficient population and a demonstrated
desire by the population for statehood.
Congress used to establish minimal required populations for
statehood. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, for example, incorporated
territories into the United States in the upper Midwest and allowed
that they could become States once their populations exceeded 60,000.
While there is no such statutory minimum today, all would acknowledge
that DC, because it has a larger population than both Wyoming and
Vermont and is close to the populations of the two Dakotas, is
sufficiently sizable to be a State.
DC has also demonstrated its desire to be a State over and over again
by popular referendum. Most recently, in 2016, a statehood referendum
was supported by 86 percent of DC residents.
So DC meets the traditional test for statehood. Its people are both
taxed and regulated by a Congress that does not include representatives
who can advocate on their behalf.
Finally, I support adding a 51st star to the American flag because it
will show that we are still a thriving nation. We haven't added a State
in nearly 70 years. This is the longest period in American history
without adding a State. Adding DC as a State will show the world that
America is still a confident and growing nation with our best days
ahead of us, not a fixed, inward, and static nation with our best days
behind us.
With that, I stand here today to call on my colleagues in the Senate
to give full and fair consideration to H.R. 51, which will pass today,
and S. 51 and provide the more than 700,000 residents of our Nation's
Capital the full and equal citizenship that Patrick Henry demanded in
1775 and that the rest of the country enjoys today.
I yield the floor
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to speak for 5 minutes, as well as Senator Hirono and Senator
Cotton for 5 minutes each, prior to the order for 11:30 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
S. 937
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of Senate
amendment No. 1445 that Senator Hirono and I have introduced.
I want to begin by thanking my colleague from Hawaii for working with
me on this amendment and acknowledging her leadership. I also want to
thank Senators Grassley, Blumenthal, Moran, and Warnock for their
contributions as well.
Crimes motivated by bias against race, national origin, or other
characteristics simply cannot be tolerated. Our amendment both
denounces these acts and marshals additional resources toward
addressing and stopping these despicable crimes.
The amendment that the Senator from Hawaii and I are offering today
will improve the underlying bill in a number of key ways, while it will
affirm our steadfast commitment to stand with the Asian-American,
Pacific Islander community against all forms of violence and
harassment.
First, our amendment strongly condemns the hate crimes targeting the
AAPI community. In the past year, Stop AAPI Hate reported nearly 3,800
cases of anti-Asian discrimination. The Center for the Study of Hate
and Extremism found that the reporting of anti-Asian hate crimes
increased by 145 percent in 16 major cities even though hate crimes
declined in those cities overall.
Racially motivated discrimination and violence should never be
tolerated.
I want to thank Senator Grassley and Senator Warnock for their
contributions to this section of our amendment.
Second, the Hirono-Collins amendment directs the Attorney General to
assign a point person at the Department of Justice to expedite the
review of these hate crimes and requires the Attorney General to issue
guidance to State, local, and Tribal law enforcement partners about how
to address them. Our amendment would also improve data collection and
expand public awareness about hate crimes and ways to support victims.
With better information, we can help prevent these crimes before they
occur and assist law enforcement in bringing the perpetrators to
justice.
Third, our amendment incorporates the Jabara-Heyer NO HATE Act,
authored by Senators Blumenthal and Moran. This bipartisan bill, which
I have cosponsored, provides State and local governments and law
enforcement agencies with additional tools and resources to understand,
identify, and report hate crimes. It provides grants to State and local
governments for training and for using the FBI's national hate crimes
database to create reporting hotlines and to support community
engagement around prevention and services for victims. This is
important because far too many hate crimes go unreported, and without
data, it is difficult to investigate and prosecute them.
Again, let me thank the Senator from Hawaii for her leadership on
this amendment. I enjoyed working with her to strengthen and improve
the bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it. In doing so, we can
send an unmistakably strong signal that crimes targeting Asian
Americans and Pacific Islanders in our country will not be tolerated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, our Nation is in the midst of a historic
crime wave that is affecting Americans of every background and walk of
life. This surge in violence includes a shocking rise in hate crimes
against our fellow citizens of Asian descent. Last year, the total
number of hate crimes in America's largest cities dropped by 7 percent,
but they surged by nearly 150 percent against Asian Americans.
Often, these hate crimes target the elderly and the frail--people who
can't fight back against their vicious assailants.
Just last month, a 65-year-old Asian-American woman was knocked to
the ground and repeatedly kicked in broad daylight on the streets of
New York City while her attacker shouted anti-Asian slurs. We later
learned that her attacker was a convicted murderer who was out on
parole, thanks to criminal
[[Page S2145]]
leniency policies. Instead of being in prison, locked up, where he
belonged, he was brutalizing an innocent victim in broad daylight--yet
more proof that being weak on crime doesn't reduce crime; it only
invites more crime.
A civilized society can't ignore such attacks on our innocent
citizens. We have to protect them. We have to protect every citizen and
get tough on violent hate crimes.
Unfortunately, in response to this terrible rise in anti-Asian hate
crimes, the Democrats initially introduced an extremely partisan bill
intended to score political points. This flawed piece of legislation
that the Senator from Hawaii originally sponsored contained provisions
tailor-made to muzzle free speech.
For example, the bill would have directed the Department of Justice
to tell Americans how they were supposed to talk about this virus. I
voted against proceeding to this bill, in part because of this crazy,
radical idea to impose a speech code on how Americans can talk about
this virus. Some say: How could you vote against it? Very simple. I
will never support a speech code imposed on the American people on how
they can exercise their First Amendment rights to talk about this
pandemic.
This whole idea is deeply concerning, especially because some in the
media and some of our Democratic friends believe that even pointing out
that the virus came from China is somehow inciting violence. That is as
foolish as it is dangerous. Calling this virus--which, yes, came from
Wuhan, China--the Wuhan virus is not racist, and it doesn't incite
violence. You may recall, after all, that last year, journalists from
such esteemed outlets as CNN, Reuters, the Washington Post, and the New
York Times all used the terms ``Chinese virus,'' ``Chinese
coronavirus,'' and ``Wuhan coronavirus.'' Were they inciting violence?
Were they racist? No, of course not. They were following the centuries-
old practice of referring to diseases by their geographic names.
It wasn't anti-Spanish to call the influenza outbreak of 1918 the
``Spanish flu'' even though it didn't even start in Spain. It was not
anti-Egyptian to use the term ``West Nile virus.'' What about the
variants of this virus from Brazil? from South Africa? from Great
Britain? We use those terms. Is that somehow going to have to be banned
from polite society's lexicon as well?
Second, I also want to point out that the Democrats' original bill,
supposedly about the violence against Asian Americans, never actually
used the term ``Asian American''--not once. Instead, it had some new,
manufactured, mysterious term called ``COVID-19 hate crimes,'' which
could have set a precedent for the even wider suppression of free
speech against citizens who have no animus toward Asians and who
haven't committed any crimes--citizens, for instance, who are concerned
about the spread of the coronavirus due to the surge of illegal
immigration at our border.
According to the mainstream media, if you so much as ask a question
about the unvaccinated and untested persons who are entering our
country at the border every day, you are somehow bigoted or nativist or
xenophobe. In the original version of the bill, the language ``COVID-19
hate crimes'' could have resulted in individuals opposed to illegal
immigration being reported for merely expressing an opinion.
Yet I am happy to report that this process, which had a bitter,
partisan beginning, will soon have a rather uplifting and unifying end.
Thanks to the diligent work of one of the hardest working Senators in
the U.S. Senate, the Senator from Maine, these offensive provisions of
the Democrats' original bill have been removed. The Senator from Maine
has helped turn what was a bitter, partisan piece of legislation into
something that now Members of both parties can hopefully support.
Thanks to her efforts, this legislation is specifically focused on the
crisis at hand and will improve the reporting of anti-Asian hate
crimes.
Soon, we will also vote on a series of amendments from some of my
fellow Senators to improve this legislation even further. I look
forward to voting for those amendments, for the substitute amendment,
and for the bill, as amended.
Today, this Chamber will take a step forward in fighting the rise of
anti-Asian violence. I hope that we continue to make progress so that
every victim gets justice and that further attacks are deterred
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, as the author of this bill, I totally
disagree with characterizing it as having had a bitter partisan
beginning, but my colleague is exercising his free speech right, so
there you go.
After 2 weeks of hard work and bipartisan collaboration, the U.S.
Senate is poised to take real action to confront the wave of anti-Asian
hate sweeping our country. Although we still have some damaging
amendments to defeat, I am confident that, in a few hours, the Senate
will pass the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act, as amended, with the substitute
Hirono-Collins amendment. By doing so, we will send a powerful message
of solidarity to the AAPI community that the Senate will not be a
bystander as anti-Asian violence surges in our country.
Over the past years, hate crimes targeting the AAPI have risen 150
percent, as noted. More than 3,800 incidents have been reported across
all 50 States and the District of Columbia. These statistics paint a
disturbing picture of what is happening in our country, but they only
quantify part of the problem. Why? Because hate crimes and other
incidents are notoriously underrepresented.
These attacks have not ceased in the 2 weeks since the Senate began
debating this bill. Last Sunday, an 80-year-old woman and her 79-year-
old husband, both of Korean descent, were taking an evening walk in a
local park near their home in Southern California. Suddenly, without
warning, an assailant approached the couple and punched them in their
faces. That same assailant is also suspected of threatening Sakura
Kokumai, a Japanese-American Olympic karate athlete, who, incidentally,
was born in Hawaii.
These unprovoked, random attacks and incidents are happening in
supermarkets, on our streets, in takeout restaurants--basically,
wherever we are. These disturbing and horrifying attacks are in many
ways a predictable and foreseeable consequence of the use of racist and
inflammatory language like ``Chinese virus'' or ``Kung flu'' to
describe the pandemic.
I have been heartened by the steps President Biden has taken to
denounce this language and confront this epidemic of hate. Under his
leadership, the executive branch is doing its part, and in a few short
hours, Congress will do ours by passing the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act.
This is not a controversial bill. It focuses Federal leadership to
investigate and report hate crimes and other incidents, and it provides
resources for our communities to come together to take a stand against
intolerance and hate.
Over the past 2 weeks, I have worked with Senators in both parties to
make changes that broaden support for this bill while retaining its
original purpose. In particular, I want to acknowledge and thank
Senator Collins for her good-faith efforts to amend this bill and build
support for it in the Republican caucus.
I also want to thank Senator Duckworth for her leadership on this
issue; Senators Blumenthal and Moran, whose NO HATE Act is now included
in our legislation; and Senators Warnock and Grassley, who contributed
important findings to this bill.
This moment would not have been possible without the determined
efforts of Leader Schumer and Chairman Durbin and the excellent work of
my friend and colleague in the House, Congresswoman Grace Meng.
I am grateful that the Senate will soon be taking action to confront
anti-Asian hate in our country, but ours is not the only community
suffering right now. Earlier this week, a jury in Minneapolis delivered
justice and accountability for the murder of George Floyd, but make no
mistake: One conviction cannot and will not erase the enduring legacy
of systemic racism and disparate policing in our country. It is my
sincere hope that we can channel and sustain the bipartisan work done
on this important piece of legislation into debating and passing the
George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, and I understand that bipartisan
talks are underway. We are in this together. We are in this together.
[[Page S2146]]
Senator Collins, I really appreciate your work on this bill. We would
not be here without your support.
I yield the floor.
Vote on Amendment No. 1456
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 4
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to
amendment No. 1456.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment No. 1456,
which I have introduced, along with Senator Kennedy from Louisiana.
Additional Cosponsor
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hagerty also be
added as a cosponsor to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, this amendment is straightforward. It
targets the ongoing discrimination that is being directed against Asian
Americans by colleges and universities across the country, including
preeminent institutions such as Yale and Harvard, which are denying
admission to qualified Asian-American applicants in favor of
underrepresented minority groups. The U.S. Department of Justice was
suing Yale for its discrimination against Asian Americans until the
Biden administration dismissed that lawsuit.
My amendment, simply put, would prohibit institutions of higher
education from receiving any Federal funding if they have a policy or
if they engage in discrimination against Asian Americans during the
recruitment review of applications or admissions.
I urge the adoption of the amendment.
I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Kennedy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in 2021, the year of our Lord 2021, we
have major universities in this country that are discriminating in
admissions against Asian Americans. Now, I know they think they know
how to discriminate in the right way, but discrimination is
discrimination.
At one of these universities in 2013, Harvard admitted that if it
admitted Asian Americans purely on the basis of academic achievement,
it would have doubled the number of Asian Americans. Now, this is
wrong; it is contemptible; it is odious. This amendment doesn't go
nearly far enough. It is a baby step, but at least it is a step.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Hawaii.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. Discrimination against Asian-American students or any
students on the basis of race is already prohibited by Federal law.
This amendment is a transparent and cynical attack on longstanding
admission policies that serve to increase diversity and provide
opportunity to students of color in our institutions of higher
learning. This amendment also threatens colleges and universities with
the loss of all Federal funding for pursuing or using policies that our
courts have upheld repeatedly.
I urge everyone to reject this amendment.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Additional Cosponsor
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a
cosponsor to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. CRUZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms.
Klobuchar) and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Utah (Mr. Lee).
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 48, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 162 Leg.]
YEAS--49
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS--48
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Klobuchar
Lee
Smith
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). On this vote, the yeas are 49,
the nays are 48.
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1456) was rejected.
Vote on Amendment No. 1425
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 4
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote in relation to
amendment No. 1425.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of Senator Lee's
amendment No. 1425.
Despite the protections of the First Amendment, over the course of
the pandemic, many States have placed heavy-handed restrictions that
have limited Americans' freedom to gather for worship, to meet in
smaller groups for religious purposes, or even to sing praise and
worship.
At first, many Americans accepted these restrictions. Our Nation was
grappling with the new and deadly virus, and the restrictions were only
supposed to be temporary. But as the weeks and months dragged on,
States lifted restrictions on restaurants, on casinos, on museums,
while keeping tight restrictions in place for synagogues, for churches,
for temples, for mosques, and other religious gatherings.
Senator Lee's amendment requires the Department of Justice to
investigate whether the government applied the same rules to religious
groups that were applied to similar nonreligious organizations and
businesses and whether those restrictions complied with the First
Amendment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lee's written
remarks on his amendment be inserted into the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.
Mr. CRUZ. I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if you believe the COVID-19 Hate Crimes
Act is a good piece of legislation--and, obviously, over 90 Senators
voted to move to proceed to this bill--then you can't vote for the Lee
amendment because the first thing he does before he puts out his own
idea of what we should consider instead is to strike key sections of
the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act that require the Attorney General to issue
guidance to establish online reporting of hate crime incidents, collect
data on hate crime incidents, and expand public education in campaigns.
The Lee amendment strikes that. He doesn't want us to do that.
He wants us to assign the Attorney General the responsibility, in the
next 180 days, to survey every COVID-19 restriction in every State in
the Union.
I urge a vote against the Lee amendment.
Vote on Amendment No. 1425
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
[[Page S2147]]
Mr. CRUZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms.
Klobuchar) and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Utah (Mr. Lee).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 48, as
follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 163 Leg.]
YEAS--49
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS--48
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Klobuchar
Lee
Smith
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). On this vote, the yeas are 49, the
nays are 48.
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1425) was rejected.
Vote on Amendment No. 1458
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 4
minutes of debate, equally divided prior to a vote in relation to
amendment No. 1458.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment No.
1458, which I introduced. It will narrow the scope of the tangled web
of regulatory guidance that the bill calls for and keep politics out of
the process of reporting and addressing hate crimes against Asian
Americans. It addresses crimes, not incidences.
I don't think it is out of line to introduce a little precision to
the process and make sure the Agency officials who will be responsible
for running this program know what they are supposed to be looking for
and what they are supposed to be doing with all that information.
I can guarantee my colleagues that support of this change will result
in a bill that will fulfill its purpose to protect victims and
potential victims of hate crimes, and it will stop their attackers.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to
oppose this amendment because it essentially shreds the bill. It
removes core provisions.
It would prevent the Department of Justice from tracking hate crime
incidents that don't rise to the level of criminal conduct. That
provision is contrary to policy of the International Association of
Chiefs of Police. It would eliminate a provision from the NO HATE Act
that I have advocated that funds creation of State-run hotlines so we
know more about these hate crimes.
It would eliminate a judge's ability to order that a person convicted
of hate crimes undertake educational classes and provide that kind of
remedy as a condition for supervised release.
In short, it eliminates some of the most important provisions of this
bill.
I strongly urge opposition to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms.
Klobuchar) and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Utah (Mr. Lee).
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 164 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS--51
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Klobuchar
Lee
Smith
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are
51.
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1458) was rejected.
Vote on Amendment No. 1445
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 1445
is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1445) was agreed to.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass, as amended
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I express my support for S. 937,
as amended by Senators Hirono and Collins.
Every single one of us is horrified to see our fellow Americans
attacked because of their race or ethnicity. We are united in our
opposition to this despicable violence and to seeing it investigated
and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I have introduced a
resolution to this effect and asked for a hearing to learn more about
Attorney General Garland's review of hate crimes committed against
Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.
It is good to see my Democratic friends acknowledge that
bipartisanship is still the way to solve problems in the Senate. We
have come together and, with a bipartisan amendment, improved this bill
and made it more useful. We have gone beyond merely looking at COVID-
related hate crimes to all hate crimes, and we have increased funding
for reporting hate crimes.
I would be remiss if I did not say that more bipartisanship could
have made the bill even better. I think a committee markup would have
been useful. I think if Democrats had allowed us to bring a Republican
amendment extending the Violence Against Women Act for a vote, that
would have been useful. Women are suffering from terrible violence
during this pandemic, and this was a missed opportunity.
Passing amendments by Senators Kennedy, Cruz, Lee, and Blackburn
[[Page S2148]]
would guarantee even more support for marginalized communities, by
ensuring Asian Americans are not discriminated against by institutions
of higher learning and that religious Americans are free to worship in
peace during the pandemic.
But I hope nonetheless that this is a moment where the Senate speaks
together about the importance of fighting hate crimes. We all believe
that, even though we have different ideas about the best way to do it.
This bill is the product of that collaboration. I will be voting for
it, and I hope my colleagues will do the same.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Senate's passage of this legislation
affirms our commitment to stand with the Asian-American and Pacific
Islander community against hate crimes. I urge a ``yes'' vote
I thank my colleague from Hawaii for working with me to improve the
Asian-Americans Hate Crimes Act. Crimes motivated by bias against race,
national origin, and other characteristics cannot be tolerated.
The Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism found that reporting of
anti-Asian hate crimes increased by 145 percent in 16 major cities,
even though hate crimes declined in those cities overall.
The amendment we adopted today and the bill we are about to pass
denounces those acts and marshals additional resources toward stopping
these despicable crimes. The bill directs the Department of Justice to
expedite its review of hate crimes and to issue guidance that will both
help prevent them from occurring and improve their reporting.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, in just a few moments, the Senate will
take a strong stand against anti-Asian hate in our country.
Passing the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act sends a clear and unmistakable
message of solidarity to the AAPI community, and this moment would not
be possible without the collective efforts of so many people,
including, of course, my Republican colleagues--one person in
particular who just spoke before me.
But I want to especially thank Majority Leader Schumer for making
this bill a priority for the Senate and working closely with us to
shepherd its passage.
I also want to thank my colleagues in the House, especially
Congresswoman Grace Meng for being the dogged advocate for our
community during this process, as well as Members of the Congressional
Asian Pacific American Caucus, led by Congresswoman Judy Chu.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague from Maine and my colleague from
Hawaii, as well as my colleague from Illinois, and so many others who
have led on this issue.
In a moment, the Senate will vote on final passage of the anti-Asian
hate crimes bill.
This long overdue bill sends two messages to our Asian-American
friends: We will not tolerate bigotry against you; and to those
perpetrating anti-Asian bigotry, we will pursue you to the fullest
extent of the law.
We cannot--we cannot--allow this recent tide of bigotry, intolerance,
and prejudice against Asian Americans go unchecked. A bedrock value of
our multicultural society is that an attack on any one group is an
attack on all of us.
By passing this bill, we tell our law enforcement agencies to
prioritize anti-Asian violence and wield the sword to detect, deter,
and prosecute hate crimes of all varieties. We send a clear message, a
unified message, that hate has no place in America. And so, by passing
this bill, we recommit ourselves to the most American of creeds, ``e
pluribus unum,'' out of many one.
I urge a unanimous ``yes'' vote on this legislation, and I ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms.
Klobuchar) and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), and
the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).
The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 1, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 165 Leg.]
YEAS--94
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Lankford
Leahy
Lujan
Lummis
Manchin
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--1
Hawley
NOT VOTING--5
Blackburn
Klobuchar
Lee
Paul
Smith
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Van Hollen). On this vote, the yeas are
94, the nays are 1.
The 60-vote threshold having been achieved, the bill, as amended, is
passed.
The bill (S. 937), as amended, was passed, as follows:
S. 937
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 ``COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Following the spread of COVID-19 in 2020, there has
been a dramatic increase in hate crimes and violence against
Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders.
(2) According to a recent report, there were nearly 3,800
reported cases of anti-Asian discrimination and incidents
related to COVID-19 between March 19, 2020, and February 28,
2021, in all 50 States and the District of Columbia.
(3) During this time frame, race has been cited as the
primary reason for discrimination, making up over 90 percent
of incidents, and the United States condemns and denounces
any and all anti-Asian and Pacific Islander sentiment in any
form.
(4) Roughly 36 percent of these incidents took place at a
business and more than 2,000,000 Asian-American businesses
have contributed to the diverse fabric of American life.
(5) More than 1,900,000 Asian-American and Pacific Islander
older adults, particularly those older adults who are recent
immigrants or have limited English proficiency, may face even
greater challenges in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic,
including discrimination, economic insecurity, and language
isolation.
(6) In the midst of this alarming surge in anti-Asian hate
crimes and incidents, a shooter murdered the following 8
people in the Atlanta, Georgia region, 7 of whom were women
and 6 of whom were women of Asian descent:
(A) Xiaojie Tan.
(B) Daoyou Feng.
(C) Delaina Ashley Yaun Gonzalez.
(D) Paul Andre Michels.
(E) Soon Chung Park.
(F) Hyun Jung Grant.
(G) Suncha Kim.
(H) Yong Ae Yue.
(7) The people of the United States will always remember
the victims of these shootings and stand in solidarity with
those affected by this senseless tragedy and incidents of
hate that have affected the Asian and Pacific Islander
communities.
SEC. 3. REVIEW OF HATE CRIMES.
(a) In General.--Not later than 7 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall designate
an officer or employee of the Department of Justice whose
responsibility during the applicable period shall be to
facilitate the expedited review of hate crimes (as described
in section 249 of title 18, United States Code) and reports
of any such crime to Federal, State, local, or Tribal law
enforcement agencies.
[[Page S2149]]
(b) Applicable Period Defined.--In this section, the term
``applicable period'' means the period beginning on the date
on which the officer or employee is designated under
subsection (a), and ending on the date that is 1 year after
the date on which the emergency period described in
subparagraph (B) of section 1135(g)(1) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-5(g)(1)) ends, except that the Attorney
General may extend such period as appropriate.
SEC. 4. GUIDANCE.
(a) Guidance for Law Enforcement Agencies.--The Attorney
General shall issue guidance for State, local, and Tribal law
enforcement agencies, pursuant to this Act and other
applicable law, on how to--
(1) establish online reporting of hate crimes or incidents,
and to have online reporting that is equally effective for
people with disabilities as for people without disabilities
available in multiple languages as determined by the Attorney
General;
(2) collect data disaggregated by the protected
characteristics described in section 249 of title 18, United
States Code; and
(3) expand public education campaigns aimed at raising
awareness of hate crimes and reaching victims, that are
equally effective for people with disabilities as for people
without disabilities.
(b) Guidance Relating to COVID-19 Pandemic.--The Attorney
General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in
coordination with the COVID-19 Health Equity Task Force and
community-based organizations, shall issue guidance aimed at
raising awareness of hate crimes during the COVID-19
pandemic.
SEC. 5. JABARA-HEYER NO HATE ACT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Khalid
Jabara and Heather Heyer National Opposition to Hate,
Assault, and Threats to Equality Act of 2021'' or the
``Jabara-Heyer NO HATE Act''.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The incidence of violence known as hate crimes, or
crimes motivated by bias, poses a serious national problem.
(2) According to data obtained by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the incidence of such violence increased in
2019, the most recent year for which data is available.
(3) In 1990, Congress enacted the Hate Crime Statistics Act
(Public Law 101-275; 28 U.S.C. 534 note) to provide the
Federal Government, law enforcement agencies, and the public
with data regarding the incidence of hate crime. The Hate
Crime Statistics Act and the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd,
Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (division E of Public Law 111-
84; 123 Stat. 2835) have enabled Federal authorities to
understand and, where appropriate, investigate and prosecute
hate crimes.
(4) A more complete understanding of the national problem
posed by hate crime is in the public interest and supports
the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence
referenced in section 249(b)(1)(C) of title 18, United States
Code.
(5) However, a complete understanding of the national
problem posed by hate crimes is hindered by incomplete data
from Federal, State, and local jurisdictions through the
Uniform Crime Reports program authorized under section 534 of
title 28, United States Code, and administered by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation.
(6) Multiple factors contribute to the provision of
inaccurate and incomplete data regarding the incidence of
hate crime through the Uniform Crime Reports program. A
significant contributing factor is the quality and quantity
of training that State and local law enforcement agencies
receive on the identification and reporting of suspected
bias-motivated crimes.
(7) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently
serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant
Federal financial assistance to States and local
jurisdictions.
(8) Federal financial assistance with regard to 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.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Hate crime.--The term ``hate crime'' means an act
described in section 245, 247, or 249 of title 18, United
States Code, or in section 901 of the Civil Rights Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 3631).
(2) Priority agency.--The term ``priority agency'' means--
(A) a law enforcement agency of a unit of local government
that serves a population of not less than 100,000, as
computed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
(B) a law enforcement agency of a unit of local government
that--
(i) serves a population of not less than 50,000 and less
than 100,000, as computed by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation; and
(ii) has reported no hate crimes through the Uniform Crime
Reports program in each of the 3 most recent calendar years
for which such data is available.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given the
term in section 901 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10251).
(4) Uniform crime reports.--The term ``Uniform Crime
Reports'' means the reports authorized under section 534 of
title 28, United States Code, and administered by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation that compile nationwide criminal
statistics for use--
(A) in law enforcement administration, operation, and
management; and
(B) to assess the nature and type of crime in the United
States.
(5) Unit of local government.--The term ``unit of local
government'' has the meaning given the term in section 901 of
title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 (34 U.S.C. 10251).
(d) Reporting of Hate Crimes.--
(1) Implementation grants.--
(A) In general.--The Attorney General may make grants to
States and units of local government to assist the State or
unit of local government in implementing the National
Incident-Based Reporting System, including to train employees
in identifying and classifying hate crimes in the National
Incident-Based Reporting System.
(B) Priority.--In making grants under subparagraph (A), the
Attorney General shall give priority to States and units of
local government that develop and implement the programs and
activities described in subsection (f)(2)(A).
(2) Reporting.--
(A) Compliance.--
(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), in each
fiscal year beginning after the date that is 3 years after
the date on which a State or unit of local government first
receives a grant under paragraph (1), the State or unit of
local government shall provide to the Attorney General,
through the Uniform Crime Reporting system, information
pertaining to hate crimes committed in that jurisdiction
during the preceding fiscal year.
(ii) Extensions; waiver.--The Attorney General--
(I) may provide a 120-day extension to a State or unit of
local government that is making good faith efforts to comply
with clause (i); and
(II) shall waive the requirements of clause (i) if
compliance with that subparagraph by a State or unit of local
government would be unconstitutional under the constitution
of the State or of the State in which the unit of local
government is located, respectively.
(B) Failure to comply.--If a State or unit of local
government that receives a grant under paragraph (1) fails to
substantially comply with subparagraph (A) of this paragraph,
the State or unit of local government shall repay the grant
in full, plus reasonable interest and penalty charges
allowable by law or established by the Attorney General.
(e) Grants for State-run Hate Crime Hotlines.--
(1) Grants authorized.--
(A) In general.--The Attorney General shall make grants to
States to create State-run hate crime reporting hotlines.
(B) Grant period.--A grant made under subparagraph (A)
shall be for a period of not more than 5 years.
(2) Hotline requirements.--A State shall ensure, with
respect to a hotline funded by a grant under paragraph (1),
that--
(A) the hotline directs individuals to--
(i) law enforcement if appropriate; and
(ii) local support services;
(B) any personally identifiable information that an
individual provides to an agency of the State through the
hotline is not directly or indirectly disclosed, without the
consent of the individual, to--
(i) any other agency of that State;
(ii) any other State;
(iii) the Federal Government; or
(iv) any other person or entity;
(C) the staff members who operate the hotline are trained
to be knowledgeable about--
(i) applicable Federal, State, and local hate crime laws;
and
(ii) local law enforcement resources and applicable local
support services; and
(D) the hotline is accessible to--
(i) individuals with limited English proficiency, where
appropriate; and
(ii) individuals with disabilities.
(3) Best practices.--The Attorney General shall issue
guidance to States on best practices for implementing the
requirements of paragraph (2).
(f) Information Collection by States and Units of Local
Government.--
(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Covered agency.--The term ``covered agency'' means--
(i) a State law enforcement agency; and
(ii) a priority agency.
(B) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means--
(i) a State; or
(ii) a unit of local government that has a priority agency.
(2) Grants.--
(A) In general.--The Attorney General may make grants to
eligible entities to assist covered agencies within the
jurisdiction of the eligible entity in conducting law
enforcement activities or crime reduction programs to
prevent, address, or otherwise respond to hate crime,
particularly as those activities or programs relate to
reporting hate crimes through the Uniform Crime Reports
program, including--
(i) adopting a policy on identifying, investigating, and
reporting hate crimes;
(ii) developing a standardized system of collecting,
analyzing, and reporting the incidence of hate crime;
(iii) establishing a unit specialized in identifying,
investigating, and reporting hate crimes;
(iv) engaging in community relations functions related to
hate crime prevention and education such as--
(I) establishing a liaison with formal community-based
organizations or leaders; and
[[Page S2150]]
(II) conducting public meetings or educational forums on
the impact of hate crimes, services available to hate crime
victims, and the relevant Federal, State, and local laws
pertaining to hate crimes; and
(v) providing hate crime trainings for agency personnel.
(B) Subgrants.--A State that receives a grant under
subparagraph (A) may award a subgrant to a unit of local
government within the State for the purposes under that
subparagraph, except that a unit of local government may
provide funding from such a subgrant to any law enforcement
agency of the unit of local government.
(3) Information required of states and units of local
government.--
(A) In general.--For each fiscal year in which a State or
unit of local government receives a grant or subgrant under
paragraph (2), the State or unit of local government shall--
(i) collect information from each law enforcement agency
that receives funding from the grant or subgrant summarizing
the law enforcement activities or crime reduction programs
conducted by the agency to prevent, address, or otherwise
respond to hate crime, particularly as those activities or
programs relate to reporting hate crimes through the Uniform
Crime Reports program; and
(ii) submit to the Attorney General a report containing the
information collected under clause (i).
(B) Semiannual law enforcement agency report.--
(i) In general.--In collecting the information required
under subparagraph (A)(i), a State or unit of local
government shall require each law enforcement agency that
receives funding from a grant or subgrant awarded to the
State or unit of local government under paragraph (2) to
submit a semiannual report to the State or unit of local
government that includes a summary of the law enforcement
activities or crime reduction programs conducted by the
agency during the reporting period to prevent, address, or
otherwise respond to hate crime, particularly as those
activities or programs relate to reporting hate crimes
through the Uniform Crime Reports program.
(ii) Contents.--In a report submitted under clause (i), a
law enforcement agency shall, at a minimum, disclose--
(I) whether the agency has adopted a policy on identifying,
investigating, and reporting hate crimes;
(II) whether the agency has developed a standardized system
of collecting, analyzing, and reporting the incidence of hate
crime;
(III) whether the agency has established a unit specialized
in identifying, investigating, and reporting hate crimes;
(IV) whether the agency engages in community relations
functions related to hate crime, such as--
(aa) establishing a liaison with formal community-based
organizations or leaders; and
(bb) conducting public meetings or educational forums on
the impact of hate crime, services available to hate crime
victims, and the relevant Federal, State, and local laws
pertaining to hate crime; and
(V) the number of hate crime trainings for agency
personnel, including the duration of the trainings, conducted
by the agency during the reporting period.
(4) Compliance and redirection of funds.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
beginning not later than 1 year after the date of this Act, a
State or unit of local government receiving a grant or
subgrant under paragraph (2) shall comply with paragraph (3).
(B) Extensions; waiver.--The Attorney General--
(i) may provide a 120-day extension to a State or unit of
local government that is making good faith efforts to collect
the information required under paragraph (3); and
(ii) shall waive the requirements of paragraph (3) for a
State or unit of local government if compliance with that
subsection by the State or unit of local government would be
unconstitutional under the constitution of the State or of
the State in which the unit of local government is located,
respectively.
(g) Requirements of the Attorney General.--
(1) Information collection and analysis; report.--In order
to improve the accuracy of data regarding the incidence of
hate crime provided through the Uniform Crime Reports
program, and promote a more complete understanding of the
national problem posed by hate crime, the Attorney General
shall--
(A) collect and analyze the information provided by States
and units of local government under subsection (f) for the
purpose of developing policies related to the provision of
accurate data obtained under the Hate Crime Statistics Act
(Public Law 101-275; 28 U.S.C. 534 note) by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation; and
(B) for each calendar year beginning after the date of
enactment of this Act, publish and submit to Congress a
report based on the information collected and analyzed under
subparagraph (A).
(2) Contents of report.--A report submitted under paragraph
(1) shall include--
(A) a qualitative analysis of the relationship between--
(i) the number of hate crimes reported by State law
enforcement agencies or other law enforcement agencies that
received funding from a grant or subgrant awarded under
paragraph (2) through the Uniform Crime Reports program; and
(ii) the nature and extent of law enforcement activities or
crime reduction programs conducted by those agencies to
prevent, address, or otherwise respond to hate crime; and
(B) a quantitative analysis of the number of State law
enforcement agencies and other law enforcement agencies that
received funding from a grant or subgrant awarded under
paragraph (2) that have--
(i) adopted a policy on identifying, investigating, and
reporting hate crimes;
(ii) developed a standardized system of collecting,
analyzing, and reporting the incidence of hate crime;
(iii) established a unit specialized in identifying,
investigating, and reporting hate crimes;
(iv) engaged in community relations functions related to
hate crime, such as--
(I) establishing a liaison with formal community-based
organizations or leaders; and
(II) conducting public meetings or educational forums on
the impact of hate crime, services available to hate crime
victims, and the relevant Federal, State, and local laws
pertaining to hate crime; and
(v) conducted hate crime trainings for agency personnel
during the reporting period, including--
(I) the total number of trainings conducted by each agency;
and
(II) the duration of the trainings described in subclause
(I).
(h) Alternative Sentencing.--Section 249 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(e) Supervised Release.--If a court includes, as a part
of a sentence of imprisonment imposed for a violation of
subsection (a), a requirement that the defendant be placed on
a term of supervised release after imprisonment under section
3583, the court may order, as an explicit condition of
supervised release, that the defendant undertake educational
classes or community service directly related to the
community harmed by the defendant's offense.''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
____________________