[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17823-17832]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 4205, FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL 
             DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees on 
H.R. 4205.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Clerk will report the 
motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Conyers moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4205 be 
     instructed to agree to the provisions contained in title XV 
     of the Senate amendment.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) 
each will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader of the 
House, to begin the debate on the motion to instruct on this most 
important vote on civil rights in this session of Congress.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Conyers 
motion, a motion that is in keeping with the best of our national 
traditions.
  First, let me say that I am very glad that we are finally at long 
last having this debate, a debate that allows us to express our 
feelings, our passion on one of our most important and greatest 
priorities.
  Yesterday, I stood outside of this marvelous building on the lawn 
just a few feet from our rotunda, and I listened to Judy Shepherd talk 
about the murder of her son Matthew. Judy Shepherd talked about the 
pain of losing a child to senseless violence and about the ugly, 
horrible crimes that are committed against people simply because of who 
they are.
  Matthew's mother called on our Congress to act. She called on all of 
us here to take a stand against hate, to renew a few simple principles 
into our laws, principles that say so much about who we are and what we 
believe.
  This bill is critical in so many ways. It gives law enforcement 
officers at all levels of government the tools they need to deal with 
horrible acts of hate-based violence.
  It sends a message to the world that crimes committed against people 
because of who they are, that these crimes are particularly evil, 
particularly offensive. It says that these crimes are committed, not 
just against individuals, not just against a single person, but against 
our very society, against America.
  These crimes strike fear into the hearts of others because they are 
meant to intimidate, to harass, to menace. When an angry man, a 
troubled man shot up a Jewish community center in Los Angeles, wounding 
teachers and students in a place that was supposed to be a sanctuary of 
protection, the man said that he had shot at these children because he 
wanted to send a message. He wanted to send a wake-up call to America 
to kill Jews.
  Today, with this bill, we reject that message in the most powerful, 
most forceful way that we can. Today, we as a society can say that we 
will do everything we can to protect people from these heinous acts, 
that we will not rest until America is free of this violence.
  This bill honors the victims of hate crimes, and it recalls their 
memory. It honors the memory of James Byrd who was dragged to death 
behind the pickup truck because the killers did not like the color of 
his skin. It honors Matthew Shepherd who was beaten with the butt of a 
gun and tied to a fence post and left to die in freezing weather 
because he was gay. It honors Ricky Byrdsong, a former basketball coach 
at my alma mater, Northwestern, who was gunned down on the street 
because he was black. It honors not only those victims, not just the 
high profile crimes, it honors all the people whose lives have been 
scarred by these acts, the victims who do not always make the 
headlines.
  The hate crimes that we do not hear about deserve our strong response 
today. So today, let us take a stand against violence. We are voting to 
dedicate our national resource, to bring the strongest laws that we 
have to bear against the most sinister thing that we know. The Conyers 
motion is the only motion that will strengthen our existing laws, that 
will strike a real blow against hate.
  Let me say this is a bipartisan effort. There is nothing partisan in 
this effort today. Republicans and Democrats are joining together. This 
issue transcends politics. It challenges us to look into ourselves, to 
search our humanity and pass a law that I guarantee my colleagues will 
go down in the history books.
  Virtually every major accomplishment that we pass ever in the history 
of this body has been bipartisan. This law, like the Civil Rights Act 
of 1965, will be a bipartisan blow against hate and violence.
  This is a great country. We are so wealthy. But our greatest moments 
are not when we produce material wealth. Our greatest moments are when 
we as a people manage in the face of horrible tragedy to rise up to 
come together to take a simple stand for basic decency.
  Give us this motion. Give us this law. Bring America up, rising up 
against hatred and against violence.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip of the House.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) for his leadership and others for their leadership on this. I 
commend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our leader, for his 
statement.
  This motion and this proposition received a strong bipartisan vote in 
the United States Senate. It is time that it received the same kind of 
bipartisan support in this House.
  Now, we understand that no act of Congress can ever outlaw bigoted 
thoughts. But we also understand that, when hateful thoughts turn into 
hateful deeds, the Congress must act and act decisively. That is why 
this legislation is so necessary.
  Today, even though the rate of most violent crimes is decreasing, the 
number of hate crimes is still alarmingly high. The FBI reported that, 
over the course of 1 year alone, in 1997, more than 8,000 hate crimes 
were reported in this country. We have just heard examples of them from 
our leader.
  We have seen houses of worship burn, small children attacked, men and 
women murdered, murdered for their religion, murdered because of their 
ethnicity, murdered because of their gender, murdered for a whole host 
of reasons. For every act we hear about, every assault that is 
reported, there are many that pass unnoticed.
  In fact, in my congressional district, just this last week, I learned 
of a man who was beaten so severely in an attack that he lost seven of 
his teeth and was hospitalized as a result of the beating. The reason 
was the fact that he was gay.
  But despite their frequency and the fact that these crimes are 
intended to terrorize millions of Americans, too many in the law 
enforcement field lack the legal authority it takes to investigate and 
to prosecute them. That is why this legislation is important. That is 
what this legislation does. It corrects that inadequacy.

[[Page 17824]]

  We cannot outlaw hatred, Mr. Speaker. We have a moral responsibility 
to stand up for those who could be its victims.
  So I urge each and every one of my colleagues today to support the 
Conyers motion, and let us give this the bipartisan support that it 
deserves, the bipartisan support that it received in the other body.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in respectful opposition to the motion to 
instruct conferees. I think it is important to remember at this 
juncture that this provision is attached to the Defense authorization 
bill, and this is the Kennedy hate crimes legislation. It was not part 
of the House package. It was not considered in the House. I say that 
because I know that we do that in this body, where something is 
considered in the Senate, it is considered in the conference; but it 
certainly is something that has not been considered and debated in this 
body. I think that makes a difference as we consider this motion to 
instruct.
  Let me first look at what this Kennedy amendment in the Defense 
authorization bill provides. It is the hate crimes amendment. It is 
what the motion to instruct binds this body to support in the 
conference. It, first of all, expands the protected groups to include 
gender, sexual orientation, or disability.
  Now, what is important to remember is that we already have a Federal 
crime. There is a Federal crime to interfere with anyone's exercise of 
a federally protected activity. This could be voting, this could be 
traveling, interstate commerce, exercising any number of federally 
protected rights.
  It is a Federal crime if those rights are interfered with because of 
race, because of color, because of religion or ethnicity. So that is 
the current state of the law. The Kennedy amendment would expand those 
protected rights to include other categories, as I mentioned, gender, 
sexual orientation, and disability.
  The second point that needs to be made about the Kennedy amendment is 
that it makes it a Federal hate crime, and it creates the Federal hate 
crime and expands it without the requirement of a federally protected 
activity. This is a significant difference from the current law. What 
we need to remember is that this is a significant, substantial 
expansion of Federal jurisdiction over crime in our country.
  It is not always wrong to expand Federal jurisdiction. As has been 
pointed out, we have done that from time to time in this body. But 
whenever we expand Federal jurisdiction, we should ask some basic 
questions. First of all, is this expansion constitutional? That is the 
responsibility we have. Secondly, if it is constitutional, is it 
necessary? Is there such a gap in the current law that this expansion 
is required? So we want to talk about those particular questions.
  But before I do, I want to address what the minority leader spoke 
about, how this conduct of targeting minority groups or special groups 
because of a certain characteristic is intolerable in our society; and 
I agree with that completely.
  In fact, when I was a United States Attorney, I had the 
responsibility that I did not ask for of prosecuting a hate group. That 
group was known as The Covenant, the Sword and the Arm of the Lord. It 
was in northern Arkansas. It was in my district.
  That group, led by James Ellison, had targeted homosexuals. It had 
targeted minorities from Jewish Americans to African Americans. They 
had blown up a Jewish synagogue in Missouri. They had killed a pawnshop 
owner in Texarkana, Arkansas, because they perceived that he was 
Jewish. It was clearly a hate group. It was a hate group that had 
violated the law.
  I prosecuted that group. At the same time I prosecuted them, they had 
targeted my family for assassination. So I know something about hate 
groups. I certainly have not been the victim of racial discrimination; 
I would never say that. But I know about hate groups.
  From that experience, I see how wrong they are for society. I see the 
poison they are for the new generation coming up. We should do 
everything in our society that is appropriate, that we can stand 
against this. We should speak out against it. We should express outrage 
by it and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.
  I would personally love to be a prosecutor that would go from 
jurisdiction to jurisdiction prosecuting hate groups and those that 
engage in hate crimes. I think we have to do that.
  So with that background, I want to say that targeting any group 
because of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or disability 
should not be tolerated in any civilized society. But it should most 
certainly not be tolerated in the freest country in the world, the 
United States of America.
  But then we come back to the first question, and that is, is this 
expansion of Federal jurisdiction constitutional?

                              {time}  1500

  We are all aware of the warnings that have been given by the United 
States Supreme Court. We recall the Lopez decision, which arose out of 
our expansion of Federal criminal jurisdiction to guns being found in 
school zones and we said that ought to be a Federal crime. The United 
States Supreme Court said, but even these modern-era precedents which 
have expanded Congressional power under the Commerce clause, confirm 
that that power is subject to outer limits.
  The court has warned that the scope of the interstate commerce power 
must be considered in the light of our dual system of government and 
may not be extended so as to embrace effects upon interstate commerce, 
and they continue to warn the Congress of the United States to be 
careful that we do not effectually obliterate the distinction between 
what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized 
government. That is a warning by the United States Supreme Court.
  They also said in another case, we are also familiar with, in United 
States v. Morrison, something I believe in, which is an expansion of 
the Violence Against Women Act, to create a civil cause of action for 
criminal conduct that was engaged in because of someone's gender, which 
allowed them to bring a civil lawsuit.
  The court struck that law down, as well, and said, ``The Constitution 
requires a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly 
local,'' obviously citing the Lopez case, ``and recognizing this fact, 
we preserve one of the few principles that has been consistent since 
the clause was adopted, the regulation and punishment of intrastate 
violence that is not directed at the instrumentalities, channels, or 
goods involved in interstate commerce has always been the province of 
the States.''
  So clearly, we have some warnings from the Supreme Court. Is it 
constitutional? They have raised some questions about it.
  The Washington Post, not exactly a conservative journal, 
editorialized and said, ``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.'' A constitutional 
warning by the Washington Post.
  So certainly there should be some questions about is this the right 
direction to go constitutionally. Secondly, even if we say that it is, 
is it necessary?
  I would point out, and I am pleased with this, that our Federal 
sentencing guidelines, based upon the direction given by the United 
States Congress, they have enhanced the penalties for hate crimes, but 
they have done it after the conviction when it is appropriate to 
consider the targeting of a minority group as a factor in increasing 
penalties.
  This is what the Federal sentencing guidelines says: ``If the finder 
of fact at trial, the court at sentencing, determines beyond a 
reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally selected

[[Page 17825]]

any victim or any property as the object of the offense of conviction 
because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national 
origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any 
person, the penalty should be increased by three levels.'' And, as we 
all know, that is a significant increase in the amount of time that 
they would be incarcerated.
  So the current state of the law is that the targeting of these 
special groups is a significant Federal factor in enhancing punishment. 
That is right. That is appropriate. But that is a different scheme than 
making a special Federal statute that would give special protection to 
certain groups.
  The second thing I would point out, is it necessary, is what are the 
States doing in the current prosecutorial scheme?
  The minority leader mentioned the cries of the mother of Matthew 
Shepard, calling that this is not to be tolerated in our society and 
how we should honor the victims of violence. And we should honor them. 
But in Matthew Shepard's case, a homosexual college student, as my 
colleagues know, that was murdered in Laramie, Wyoming, it was a State 
court prosecution in which one the defendants pled guilty and got two 
consecutive life sentences. They might create a Federal hate crimes 
statute that they will not get any more than that. And the other could 
be facing the death penalty when it is tried in October.
  Another one, the murder of James Byrd, a horrendous crime in Texas 
targeting an African American, it was a State prosecution in which the 
jury gave death by injection rather than life in prison. And so, it was 
the ultimate punishment that was meted out in this case under a State 
prosecution.
  In Alabama there was a slaying of Billy Jack Gaither, who was beaten 
to death and then burned by kerosene-soaked tires. The men who murdered 
a homosexual over unwanted advances, that perpetrator will avoid the 
death penalty only because the family requested that the death penalty 
be waived. That was a State prosecution.
  I could go on and on in which State prosecutions have been successful 
not in 40 years, not in 50 years, but in the maximum penalty in these 
particular cases.
  True, and I am delighted, that in many of those instances Federal 
resources have been devoted to make sure that they were able to obtain 
the conviction of the perpetrator.
  Finally, I would point out the testimony of a judge who testified in 
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on this particular bill. In this 
case it was Judge Richard Arcara who testified in opposition to the 
hate crimes legislation; and he stated, ``The issue is not whether we 
are for or against the prosecution of hate crimes. All decent, right-
thinking people abhor hate crimes. The real issue before you is whether 
the acts of violence covered by the proposed statute, which are already 
criminal offenses under State law and which may already be Federal 
crimes as well, are not being adequately prosecuted and punished at the 
present time.''
  In other words, why is a new Federal statute needed?
  And so again the question, is it constitutional; and secondly, if it 
is, is it necessary under the present circumstances?
  The reason I bring these questions up is that my colleagues might 
conclude ultimately after we debate this that the answer is yes, yes 
and we need to do this, but is the appropriate time to consider it in a 
conference report which is not being considered by the House?
  In fact, we are instructing the conferees to go to this particular 
Kennedy proposal when in fact there is also the Hatch proposal. Senator 
Hatch offered a proposal that was adopted as well and it addresses hate 
crimes, but it does it in this way: it creates more funding for the 
States and their prosecution of hate crimes, so it gives more resources 
and grants to the States.
  The second thing it does, in a very thoughtful way, is that it 
creates a study to examine the efficacy of the current law. Do we 
really need it? Is it necessary? And this is another approach.
  So I would say, let us do not bind our conferees that they have to go 
a particular direction. There are other options that should be 
considered.
  So, my fellow colleagues, I believe that there are some important 
questions that say let us do not adopt this binding motion to instruct 
our conferees.
  Finally, I think there is an issue of fairness that troubles some 
people. Should certain groups in America when it comes to crimes of 
violence be entitled to greater resources in investigation and 
different laws in the prosecution than other groups? This is 
fundamental. It is difficult because we all know that there is a 
problem in our society when we target minority groups or groups that 
are targeted because of disability or any other reason. They should be 
punished to the full extent of the law, and we need to send a signal to 
our society that it is not tolerable. But there are ways to send that 
signal rather than considering a massive expansion of Federal 
jurisdiction.
  My colleagues, these are serious issues and I do not believe the 
right place to approach it would be in the conference. We need to come 
back and sort through each of these, as the Supreme Court has directed.
  So I would ask my colleagues to oppose the motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) mentioned the 
Laramie, Wyoming tragedy with Matthew Shepard.
  Yesterday, here on the Hill, the police chief of Laramie, Wyoming, 
joined us in support of our hate crimes prevention act. He met with us 
yesterday.
  I might point out that the National Sheriffs Association supports 
this motion to instruct and the International Association of Chiefs of 
Police supports this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman form Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton), the ranking member from the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conyers motion.
  Our Nation has seen far too many cases of violent criminal acts 
related to prejudice, bigotry, and intolerance. Recently, the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation has reported a significant number of cases 
involving violence directed against a member of a religious, ethnic, 
disabled, race-based, or gender-specific association. Statistics show 
that nearly 8,000 such acts of violence have occurred annually since 
1994.
  Society cannot and should not tolerate the cowardly, mean-spirited, 
and hateful acts that we call hate crimes. Indeed, such hate-based acts 
have a deeper impact on society other than crimes. They are injurious 
to the community and are often committed by offenders affiliated with 
large, extended groups operating across State lines.
  From my own observation, having been with numerous people who have, 
unfortunately, sustained physical disability, I have witnessed the ugly 
face of discrimination. I personally know the pain resulting from 
malicious acts and bigotry as it relates to disabilities. I wish to 
stress this point.
  As a former State prosecuting attorney, I do not view this proposal 
lightly. Although the ability to prosecute crimes against individuals 
exists today, the Senate bill would provide prosecutors with more tools 
with which to fight crimes in which bias, prejudice, and discrimination 
are motivating factors.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Conyers motion to instruct.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted now to yield 2\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking subcommittee 
member that has handled this subject matter.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in favor of the advisory motion to the 
conferees on the Defense authorization bill, but I do so with some 
reservations.

[[Page 17826]]

  I am in full support of legislation to punish hate crimes. Those 
crimes terrorize our community and they are different from other 
crimes, and they should be prosecuted vigorously and punished more 
severely.
  However, as we enact hate crime legislation, we have to be careful to 
do so without impugning First Amendment freedoms and at the risk of 
skewing ordinary criminal penalties.
  Hate crime provisions adopted by the Senate in its Defense 
authorization bill appear to allow evidence of mere membership in an 
organization and mere beliefs to be introduced in prosecutions for 
activities described in those provisions. We should have an amendment 
to prohibit the use of such evidence because allowing introduction of 
mere membership in an organization may be highly prejudicial and 
inflammatory to the jury.
  Recent reviews of death penalty cases have revealed that many 
defendants who are factually innocent are convicted anyway. Telling a 
jury that a defendant belongs to an unpopular organization only 
increases the chance that the jury will decide the case based on 
emotion rather than the evidence. Evidence of motivation behind the 
crime ought to include something in addition to mere membership in an 
organization or beliefs.
  In addition to the constitutional, Mr. Speaker, the provisions of the 
bill apparently allow a person guilty of what would ordinarily be 
simple assault and battery to receive a 10-year sentence if they can 
prove the appropriate motivation.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct conferees is aimed at a Defense 
authorization bill that will be considered not by the Committee on the 
Judiciary, which ordinarily considers constitutional and criminal law 
implications in a bill, if we had considered the provisions in the 
Committee on the Judiciary, we could have considered the appropriate 
amendments to deal with the admission of evidence and could have 
ensured that the provisions were more proportional for the crime 
committed.
  To address these issues, I have sent a letter to the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Crime asking that he immediately schedule a hearing on 
hate crime legislation so that we can consider these issues in an 
intelligent and thorough manner.
  This is a very important piece of legislation. We need hate crime 
legislation, but it has to be done right.
  I will be voting for the amendment, with those reservations.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), a distinguished member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion. 
This provision would strengthen a Federal hate crimes statute that has 
been on the books for over 30 years. The 1968 law already covers hate 
crimes committed on the basis of race, religion, color, or national 
origin. This provision would add coverage for victims targeted for 
violence by virtue of their sexual orientation, gender, or disability.
  We hear from opponents that every crime is a hate crime; that every 
act of violence is an act of hate, but since the founding of our 
country our judiciary system has weighed the element of intent in 
evaluating the severity of crime.
  The thing that distinguishes hate crimes from other crimes is that 
hate crimes are intended to terrorize both the crime victim and the 
entire community that each victim represents. Wyoming is a long way 
from Wisconsin. Yet in the days and months that followed the murder of 
Matthew Shepard, I looked into many fear-filled faces and tear-filled 
eyes in my own community. These crimes do strike terror throughout the 
Nation.
  Yesterday, I met Commander David O'Malley. He was the investigator in 
Laramie, Wyoming, and he came to Washington to support our passage of 
this motion. He said two things: one is that in starting out the 
investigation he really did not believe that hate crimes existed but, 
boy, did he learn during the course of his investigation that these are 
specific crimes, and he urged us to pass this motion.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime of 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, hate crimes are just plain wrong. They are crimes 
against an individual committed by somebody principally or solely 
because of race, religion, sexual orientation. They are committed not 
against the individual so much as against a class of people, and they 
tear at the very fabric of our society because they do that.
  I cannot think of a more heinous crime that deserves any greater 
punishment than a crime committed for that reason. That is why for a 
long time I have been a supporter of hate crimes legislation that is 
now before us in this fashion today and why I strongly urge my 
colleagues to support this effort to instruct conferees in the only way 
that we can achieve this goal of putting into law a Federal provision 
that is overdue and needed in this case.
  I can say not only about the Matthew Shepards of the world but I can 
say about cases in my own State, a young woman named Jody Bailey just 
last year, 20 years old, an African American shot to death simply 
because of her race, because she was dating a white person, bullets 
pumped into her car and she was killed for that reason alone. A young 
girl 6 years old, Ashley Mance, killed because a skinhead thought it 
was her race and it was not against her but against her race that he 
shot her.
  We had another case in my home State involving several teenage men 
who killed a man brutally simply because he made a pass at them. That 
is wrong. That is not right, and the Federal law needs to be 
guaranteeing that somebody is prosecuted and given extra punishment on 
top of the underlying crime and the underlying punishment if one 
commits a crime principally for that reason; just as we have laws that 
say if someone commits a crime with a gun they get extra punishment on 
top of their underlying sentence for the underlying crime because it 
was committed with a gun.
  I support both. I think they are reasonable messages and necessary 
messages to be sent out there. Unfortunately, even though most States 
have hate crimes laws there are a few that do not, and in those States 
that do not have hate crime laws that enhance these punishments for 
crimes solely or principally because of race or religion or sexual 
orientation or gender or disability, I believe in those States that do 
not have them or in those States where they are there and some law 
enforcement officer for whatever reason chooses not to prosecute, 
Federal prosecutors should have that authority; and that is what this 
provision gives them.
  That is what the Kennedy provision, the Conyers provision gives them, 
one I support strongly.
  It also is true that this legislation provides money, a grant 
program, to help assist those law enforcement communities that do have 
their own hate crimes laws to enforce them. There should be a clear and 
unequivocal message sent to anybody out there remotely contemplating a 
crime because they hate somebody because of their race, their religion, 
their sexual orientation. If they commit such a crime, they are going 
to get punished for a very, very long time; and there is a special 
place for them in the Federal prisons if the States do not do it.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the legislation before us and the 
motion to instruct conferees, and I encourage all of my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), himself a prosecutor and member of 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from Arkansas

[[Page 17827]]

(Mr. Hutchinson), asked, Is this legislation necessary? And he points 
to the murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming who died for no other 
reason other than he was gay, and to James Byrd in Texas who died for 
no reason than because he was black, and I would add Joseph Ileto of 
California who died for no other than reason other than he was Asian. 
Is there a need? I submit there is a clear need.
  When such actions take place in other countries, when individuals are 
persecuted because of their identity, whether it be racial or 
religious, our law, the United States law, recognizes this is no 
ordinary crime and grants them a remedy. We entitle them to petition 
for asylum. Why would we do less to protect our own citizens from the 
very same crimes?
  Is there a need? Yes, there is a need. Some have said we should not 
pass this law because hate crimes are a local matter. Well, I agree, 
and I know that the authors of this legislation, this motion, also 
agree. The vast majority of those crimes are investigated and 
prosecuted at the State and local level. In this measure, if it is 
enacted, it will continue that same status quo. All this legislation 
will do is to ensure, when local authorities request assistance, or are 
unable or unwilling to act, Federal law enforcement agencies will have 
the ability to come to their aid. That is why the sheriffs of this 
country and the chiefs of police in this country support this 
legislation.
  Support the motion.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella), a leader in the Violence Against Women Act.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) for yielding. I thank him for offering what is an important 
motion to instruct the conferees in the DOD bill.
  This, of course, was a separate bill to begin with. We do not have 
time to try to pass a separate bill. It is critically important that 
this Congress indicate their belief that hate crimes will not be 
tolerated and we will use all of the resources available to make sure 
that that is the case.
  Hate crimes are different from other crimes. For example, just think 
of the situation of Matthew Shepard, Tony Orr, Timothy Beauchamp, James 
Byrd, the Jewish Day Care Center in Los Angeles. They affect not only 
the victim but an entire community.
  The House Committee on the Judiciary held hearings back in August. 
The need has been there. We are all Americans. We cannot tolerate 
bigotry or hate in any way at all, and it is very important that we do 
pass this motion to instruct the conferees and show that we are 
Americans and we do care about each other.
  So I ask this body to support it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
this motion. We have waited much too long to strengthen hate crime 
laws. This motion will expand the definition to include crimes 
motivated by gender, sexual orientation, and disability among the list 
of crimes considered as hate crimes. If criminals are motivated by 
bias, then prosecutors should have the ability to seek a higher 
penalty.
  I feel strongly about this because earlier this year over 50 women 
were beaten, surrounded, robbed, stripped in Central Park in my 
district. There is one thing all these victims had in common. They were 
from different countries, different ages, different races and religions 
but all of them were women. The mob went after these victims simply 
because they were women.
  Hate crimes create a climate of fear that keep a particular class of 
people from participating fully in society. As Americans, we cannot let 
this stand. This motion also includes my bill, the Hate Crimes 
Statistics Improvement Act, that requires the FBI to gather statistics 
about gender-based hate crimes as well.
  This is an incredibly important motion. We must all support it. It is 
important.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Indianapolis, Indiana (Ms. Carson).
  Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) on his motion to instruct the conferees on H.R. 4205, urging 
us to adopt the Senate provisions on hate crimes, and I would certainly 
like to applaud those who have spoken in this effort prior to the time 
that I have been here.
  Unfortunately, because leadership has had a strange hold on hate 
crimes legislation preventing its advancement in the House, I am 
questioning what it is that we are waiting for. I spoke at a vigil down 
the street at the Senate Park a couple of months ago on behalf of the 
family of Arthur Warren, AKA Jr., J.R., who was beaten by two 17-year-
olds who had confessed to that first degree murder but a trial has not 
yet begun. Arthur was 26 years old. He was gay. He was beaten and ran 
over twice, several times, with an automobile and then taken across 
town and dumped out in the street.
  This motion to instruct conferees is a vital effort, and if there is 
anything that this Congress should do prior to the adjournment, it 
would be to adopt the motion to instruct conferees of the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct 
conferees. The American people have waited far too long for the passage 
of comprehensive hate crimes legislation, and we have an important 
opportunity today to show our support for this initiative. Each day we 
hear stories of hate groups actively recruiting members in our 
communities, often masking their hatred with religion. These groups 
incite the enmity and violence which tear at the very fabric of our 
society. The good news is that some States, like New York, have finally 
responded decisively to the destructive forces of hate-based violence. 
The bad news is that Congress has consistently squandered the 
opportunities we have had to address this phenomenon, dragging our feet 
while senseless hatred destroys communities throughout the country.
  It is past time to hear the cries and appeals of the victims of hate 
crimes and their families. We need to pass a Federal hate crimes law 
and give law enforcement officers the tools they need to fight these 
crimes. We need to pass comprehensive gun safety legislation, to keep 
dangerous firearms out of the hands of people who will perpetrate hate-
based violence. We need to invest in the education of our children to 
teach them by example to embrace the diversity of our society. We need 
to find a way within constitutional bounds to diminish the damaging 
effects of hate speech in our communities; and we need to do it now, 
before one more person among us has to mourn the loss of a loved one to 
a senseless hate crime. Inaction in the face of this tragic, dangerous 
trend is indefensible.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to jump into this particular point in the 
debate. It is just amazing how much we agree upon. We are expressing 
outrage about hate crimes, and I tried to express that same outrage 
when I was a Federal prosecutor. I certainly have tried to express it 
in the United States Congress. I know that those in the State 
legislature and here in our national body we all are looking for ways 
to express our outrage of this. I think we are doing it fairly 
effectively. This debate is a means of doing that.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. Speaker, there is really broad agreement, when we say it is 
intolerable in our society for someone just because they are African 
American or just because they are Jewish that they be targeted or just 
because of their sexual orientation. It is abhorrent in our society 
that they be targeted because of those characteristics, so we need to 
stand against this at every possible opportunity.

[[Page 17828]]

  I think the debate, though, and really the sense of disagreement is 
whether we want to have a Federal concurrent jurisdiction for virtually 
all violent crime similar to the way we do it with our drug war.
  Right now, if anyone has any drug offense, it can be brought into 
State court or Federal court, it is totally concurrent jurisdiction. 
And basically you are going to have a review of all violent crime to 
see if it was motivated by one of these biases that is referred to that 
covers a special category. If it was a perceived special category, and 
that is always going to be reviewed and as the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott) appropriately made the expression of concern, that are we 
going to be examining everyone's thought. I think the gentleman says 
that we need to really look at this very carefully. He has some 
reservations about it.
  The reservations that the gentleman raised are reservations that some 
on this side have as well. And as the minority leader said, it is not a 
partisan issue. It is really a question here of approach, and the 
direction that we are going to go in our Federal law enforcement.
  And I just wanted to say that I agree with much of what is being said 
today, and the terribleness in our society of crimes against particular 
groups. I think it is just simply a matter of a different approach that 
I would take, and we need to look at this very, very carefully.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Conyers motion to instruct conferees on the Defense Department 
authorization bill to recede to the Senate position and retain the 
inclusion on the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, which is the 
Senate's version of H.R. 1028, the hate crimes legislation.
  Now, I notice some people believe that hate is not an issue when 
prosecuting a crime. They say our laws already punish the criminal act 
and that our laws are strong enough. I answer with the most recent 
figures from 1998 when 7,755 hate crimes were reported in the United 
States.
  According to the FBI, hate crimes are under reported, so the actual 
figure is much higher. And I say to my colleagues, penalties for 
committing a murder are increased if the murder happens during the 
commission of a crime. Murdering a police officer is considered first 
degree murder, even if there was not premeditation. Committing armed 
robbery carries a higher punishment than petty larceny.
  There are degrees to crime and committing a crime against somebody 
because of their race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, and 
ethnicity or other groups should warrant a different penalty. These 
crimes are designed to send a message. We do not like your kind, and 
here is what we are going to do about it.
  So why cannot we punish crimes motivated by hate differently than 
other crimes?
  I believe we must stand up as a Congress and as a country to pass 
hate crimes legislation to make our laws tougher for the people who 
will carry out these heinous acts.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), certainly his expertise as a State prosecutor 
is meaningful.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time 
to me and certainly appreciate the tenor of the debate, especially 
hearing the experiences of my friend, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) and his experiences as a Federal prosecutor.
  Before coming to this body, I began my legal career as a court-
appointed public defender, and one of the last cases I had the occasion 
to defend was a murder case. My client was an African American who was 
facing the death penalty. Shortly, thereafter I switched sides in a 
courtroom and began prosecuting criminal cases and handled some 16 
death penalty cases throughout the State of Missouri.
  I have heard these very powerful testimonials from all Members, 
including my colleague, the gentleman from Missouri, who spoke at the 
beginning in favor of Mr. Conyers' motion. I, too, have held the hands 
of family members who have been murdered, the mothers and wives as we 
waited for juries to return with their verdicts, and wondering whether 
or not the State's cases prevail and often they did.
  But I agree also with the gentlewoman from Wisconsin. My experience 
has shown that all murder cases are hate crimes, and what I think we 
are attempting to do today is really legislate by headline. The fact 
that the tragedy that occurred to the Matthew Shephard family, the 
killers of Matthew Shephard deserve, in my estimation, the death 
penalty not because of who he is or what sexual preference he had, but 
because the facts fit the case.
  The murder of James Byrd down in Texas that has been referred to, his 
killers, in my estimation, deserve justice throughout the death 
penalty, not because of who he was or the color of his skin, but 
because the facts fit the case.
  In the earlier debate, and I was listening to my colleague from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) in the debate with the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Graham), if there are prosecutors or police across this 
Nation that are not aggressively enforcing existing law, then we should 
focus there, and yet I believe that as the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) mentioned, we are attempting in essence to criminalize 
abhorrent but lawful thought, and I think that is a step too far, 
especially having been one who served in State courts in Missouri.
  I think, Mr. Speaker, when I reference the criminal justice system 
and conjure up the image of all of those cases that I had the 
opportunity to participate in, I think of the Goddess of Justice. There 
is a statue just across the street depicting the Goddess of Justice and 
she stands there with scales in one hand and blindfold across her eyes, 
and I think the thought and the symbolism is that decisions that are 
made in our courtroom should be made not based on prejudice or not 
elevating one group over another, but should be applied consistently, 
and because of that, then I ask for a no vote on Mr. Conyers' motion.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to 
congratulate the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hulshof) and, finally, 
finding someone to come, give him a little relief. He was looking 
awfully lonely. The relief falls a little short.
  First, the gentleman from Missouri said, we are criminalizing 
abhorrent thought, no not anything in here comes remotely close to 
criminalizing thought, nothing is criminal under this bill, unless you 
hit somebody, shot somebody, stabbed somebody, there is nothing in this 
bill that criminalizes thought, the right to burn crosses and engage in 
hate speech, first amendment protected, remains totally undiminished.
  Secondly, the gentleman said, I mentioned places where there are 
prosecutors and police who are not fully enforcing the law, fortunately 
a small minority against particular groups, and he says focus on them. 
Kill this bill and you cannot focus on them. That is what the bill 
does.
  This bill does not generalize a Federal criminal presence. It gives 
the Attorney General the right in a restricted set of circumstances to 
enter into prosecutions, and we envision the circumstance would be 
where a vulnerable group was being victimized and was not getting the 
protection. So without this legislation, we cannot do what the 
gentleman from Missouri says we should do, focus on those situations.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Conyers) for yielding me the time and thank him for offering this 
motion to instruct conferees.

[[Page 17829]]

  By doing so, under his leadership, he gives this body today a great 
opportunity, an opportunity to say that hate crimes have no place in 
our country. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) argued that 
there is no need for a Federal hate crimes legislation, because assault 
and murder are already crimes.
  However, the brutality of these hate crimes speaks to the reality 
that whether a person is targeted for violence, because of his or her 
sexual orientation, race or other group membership, the assailant 
intends to send a message to all members of that community. The message 
is, you are not welcome.
  The effort to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation is a 
different type of crime, and it demands a different kind of response. 
All Americans, all Americans have a right to feel safe in their 
communities.
  This bill counters this message of intimidation. This motion to 
instruct sends a strong statement that our society does not condone and 
will not tolerate hate-based crimes. Passage of this motion to instruct 
would not end hate-based violence, we know that, but it would allow the 
Federal Government to respond and take action.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to 
instruct. It is necessary, Mr. Speaker, because these tragic murders 
and the sufferings that were, for example, experienced by the Byrd 
family and the family of Matthew Shephard have experienced are not 
isolated incidences.
  According to the FBI, 87 incidences of hate crimes based on race, 
religion, national origin or sexual orientation took place in 1996 
alone. There is a need for this. I urge my colleagues to support the 
motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, in recent years we have mourned the deaths of Matthew 
Sheppard, a gay college student in Wyoming, and James Byrd, an African-
American man in Texas. These brutal killings are reminders of the 
violence and harassment that millions of Americans are subjected to 
simply because of their sexual orientation, race, religion, or other 
group membership.
  I had the privilege of introducing members of each of their families 
at the Democratic National Convention last month. There they spoke 
movingly of their slain loved ones and the impact that crimes motivated 
by hate have on families and communities.
  These tragic murders and the suffering that these two families have 
experienced are, unfortunately, not isolated incidents. According to 
statistics kept by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence programs, 29 
Americans were murdered in 1999 because they were gay or lesbian and 
there were more than 1,960 reports of anti-gay or lesbian incidents in 
the United States, including 704 assaults. And according to the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, in 1966 there were over 8700 reported 
incidents of hate crimes based on race, religion, national origin, or 
sexual orientation. Crimes based on hate are an assault on all of us, 
and we must take stronger measures to prevent and punish these 
offenses.
  Opponents of this measure have argued that this is an issue that 
should be left to the states. However, Congress has passed over 3000 
criminal statutes addressing harmful behaviors that affect the Nation's 
interests, including organized crime, terrorism, and civil rights, 
violations. Thirty-Five of these laws have been passed since the 
Republicans took control of Congress in 1995.
  Others have argued that there is no need for federal Hate Crimes 
legislation because assault and murder are already crimes. However, the 
brutality of these crimes speaks to the reality that when a person is 
targeted for violence because of their sexual orientation, race, or 
other group membership, the assailant intends to send a message to all 
members of that community. That message is you are not welcome.
  The effort to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation is a 
different type of crime, and it demands a different kind of response. 
All Americans have a right to feel safe in their community.
  The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2000 counters this 
message of intimidation with a strong statement that our society does 
not condone and will not tolerate hate-based violence. In addition, 
passage of this legislation will increase public education and 
awareness, increase the number of victims who come forward to report 
hate crimes, and increase reporting by local law enforcement to the FBI 
under the Hate Crimes Statistics Act.
  In addition to a bipartisan group of 192 House sponsors, this bill is 
supported by 175 civil rights, religious, civic and law enforcement 
organizations, including the National Sheriff's Association, the 
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Hispanic National Law 
Enforcement Association, the National Center for Women and Policing, 
and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives.
  Hate crimes take many forms and affect many different kinds of 
victims. As a Member of Congress who has the privilege of representing 
a district with a large number of gay and lesbian people, I find it 
interesting when I hear people talk about tolerance for gay and lesbian 
people because in our community the issue of tolerance was resolved 
long ago. We not only tolerate our gay and lesbian friends and 
neighbors, we take great pride in them and in the contribution that 
they make to our community in San Francisco, indeed to our great 
country.
  Murders and assaults that target African-Americans, Jewish-Americans, 
Hispanics, Gays and Lesbians, or any other group are the manifestation 
of enduring bigotry that is still all too prevalent in our society. 
Passage of this bill would not end all violence against these 
communities. But it would allow the Federal Government to respond and 
take action by investigating and punishing the perpetrators of crimes 
motivated by hate. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the deputy whip on the minority side.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Conyers) for yielding the 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees. 
Hate is hate. Hate is hate. It is based on race, on color, on religion, 
national origin or sexual orientation. No one, but no one is born 
hating. Little babies do not know hate.
  They do not know sexism. They do not know racism, but our society 
will change the little babies before they become adults. We teach 
people how to hate, to hate someone because of their color, because of 
their race, because of their religion, because of their sex or sexual 
orientation.
  As I said before, nobody, Mr. Speaker, is born hating, but too many 
people in our society grew up hating, and they get involved in hate 
crime against someone because of their religion, because of their 
color, because of their sex or sexual orientation. There is no room in 
our society to hate or be violent towards someone because of their 
race, their color, their national origin, their religion or sexual 
orientation.
  With this legislation, Mr. Speaker, we will send a strong and 
powerful message that we are one family, one people, one Nation. I urge 
all of my colleagues to support the motion to instruct conferees.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the 
allegation that this criminalizes thought. Here is the operative phrase 
which controls any new crime, whoever 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.
  Absent that phrase, there is no crime committed, so this only applies 
by its explicit language to actual injury or attempts to injure with a 
fire or firearm or an explosive or incendiary device.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, my response to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) would be that if the bias of an accused 
defendant is made relevant then would not the gentleman agree that any 
statements, any writings, any thoughts, any spray painted slurs, any of 
these constitutionally protected, although abhorrent statements, would 
then be part of the criminalization of the act?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, there has to be a prior 
physical criminal assault on someone else.

[[Page 17830]]

Then when you get to the sentencing and you get to the decision about 
punishment, you can take into account motive. Yes, I would agree with 
the gentleman, you can take into account motive and motives that are 
sometimes constitutional when they are part of a crime can be punished.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if the ranking member is prepared to close, I will go 
ahead and finish as our final speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come back to this debate; and, again, in 
listening to some of the arguments that have been made, I noticed that 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) referred to the police chief 
in Laramie, Wyoming, who supports this legislation. In fact, the police 
chief of Laramie, Wyoming, was concerned about the burden on the State 
as to how much it costs in the prosecution. He needed financial help. 
It was not a matter that the case was not adequately investigated or 
prosecuted, because, again, a life sentence was meted out. It is the 
burden on the States because of these prosecutions in hate crimes.
  Again, this is a Department of Defense authorization bill. This is in 
conference on a Kennedy amendment that has not been considered in this 
body. The question is, when there is the Senator Hatch proposal that 
would provide grants to the States that would address the concern of 
the police chief of Laramie, Wyoming, perhaps that is the best way to 
go.
  What is missing in this debate is the answer to the two questions 
that I raised: Is it constitutional, and is it necessary? I listened to 
every speaker on this side, and I did not see a recitation of where the 
constitutional basis is and how we respond to the Supreme Court when 
they cautioned this body in saying that every crime cannot be a Federal 
crime. Again, quoting the Supreme Court: ``Indeed, we can think of no 
better example of the police power which the Founders denied the 
national government and reposed in the states than the suppression of 
violent crime and vindication of its victims.'' So I do not believe 
that has been answered. Where is the constitutional basis?
  The second question that I raised is, Is it necessary? Not one case 
has been cited by my friends from the other side of the aisle in which 
there was a hate crime in the States that was not investigated and not 
prosecuted. No case has been cited.
  Now, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) referred to a 
couple of cases in which there is a need because there was a hate 
crime. Well, the end of the story is that the States prosecuted, they 
got the life sentence, they got a death sentence. Every witness, every 
witness that was called in support of hate crimes legislation before 
the Senate committee or the House committee, were victims or family 
members of a victim of a hate crime. It has been vindicated with the 
maximum penalty of the prosecution under State law.
  So for this massive expansion of Federal jurisdiction, is it a 
constitutional basis? Is it necessary? I appreciate the frankness of 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on Crime. I was aware of the letter that the gentleman 
wrote to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Crime, in which he expressed concern from a 
constitutional standpoint about the issues that were debated by the 
gentleman from Missouri, about whether this is going to require 
evidence of membership, because you have to prove the motivation being 
a hate crime against a particular group. So the issue will be 
membership in organizations.
  There is a question that has been raised by civil libertarians about 
that, and also some other questions raised, and ultimately they asked 
for more hearings. In other words, let us proceed through. Now that we 
have the support of the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, surely 
we can consider this legislation, consider the amendment, consider what 
is the best approach, rather than requiring our conferees on a defense 
authorization bill, where they do not have the expertise of the 
Committee on the Judiciary to debate this issue. That is simply what I 
am asking my colleagues.
  We are in great agreement that this is intolerable, targeting 
particular groups in our society. We are in agreement on that. It is 
simply a question of what is the right approach. I believe the right 
approach is not directing our conferees to adopt a particular approach 
on the defense authorization bill. I ask my colleagues to oppose this 
motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of the Members that have 
participated in this debate, and particularly the floor manager, the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson). I think we have been 
exhaustive on this subject and have moved in a very important way.
  The reason this debate has been as long as it has is because we have 
had one motion to instruct, the Graham motion, which was turned away, 
and now we have mine, which I hope will be accepted.
  The reason is that it is unrefuted that many of the crimes with which 
we are concerned are never prosecuted. Sometimes it is because the 
State and local authorities do not have the resources, but other times 
it is because they do not have the will. But the bottom line is that 
these crimes often go unpunished. Today we are asking our colleagues to 
go on record as to whether or not they will support a Federal law to 
ensure that these crimes be prosecuted, but only when the State legal 
system breaks down. Many State officials have asked for Federal 
legislation so that they can get help from Federal authorities in 
handling these crimes because of the complexity of the cases and 
because many of the purveyors of hate operate across State lines.
  Many of us in the House have already been on record supporting 
Federal criminal laws that are based on discriminatory acts. My earlier 
bill of several years ago, the Church Arson Act, is just the most 
recent instance of what Members in this House have already voted for. 
This measure soon to come up, the hate crimes bill from the Senate, 
follows that same pattern.
  Mr. Speaker, with the equal protection promise of the reconstruction 
amendments in the 19th century, the Federal Government assumed the duty 
to ensure that all Americans are protected from violence aimed at them 
simply because of who they are or how they lead their lives. So this is 
not a usurpation of State authority. It is a backstop, and when the 
State system does not work, that is when this hate crimes law would 
kick in.
  Mr. Speaker, it is consistent with the rich civil rights tradition 
that goes all the way back to the 1930s when the late Dr. W.E.B. duBois 
and Ida B. Wells, an African American civil rights fighter before her 
time, supported the NAACP anti-lynching laws, which have now been 
extended through the Hate Crimes Act. We studied the 1938 Senate 
filibuster on anti-lynch laws which went down. It was defeated in the 
face of many of the same arguments that are being made today by 
opponents of this legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman will state his 
point of order.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that we would 
close, so I closed. It was my understanding that the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) was going to close on behalf of his position.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I was yielding 
pursuant to a request to yield. If it is the gentleman's insistence, 
though, that I do not do it, I withdraw it.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, if it is for a unanimous consent request 
for

[[Page 17831]]

submitting a statement, there is certainly no objection.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  First, the gentleman made a very important point, and I do have a 
unanimous consent request. I am sorry that the gentleman from Arkansas 
wants to narrow the debate and not allow us to yield. But I would ask 
unanimous consent for this Congress to do the right thing and to 
support the motion to instruct by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) so that we can have a Federal backstop to stop the killing and 
to stop the hate.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, this measure continues 
the great struggle for equal justice of all Americans that started in 
the 1930s with the anti-lynch laws. It has been refined, it has been 
expanded, it has had a constitutional basis that has been very deeply 
rooted, and I urge and thank all of the Members who will support this 
motion to instruct.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conyers motion to 
instruct conferees on the Defense Authorization bill. This motion would 
direct conferees to agree to the federal hate crimes provision 
contained in the Senate version of this bill. This provision preserves 
the principle of federalism while recognizing the national imperative 
to prevent violent crimes motivated by prejudice.
  The Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) would provide new protections 
for individuals who are victims of violent crimes solely because of who 
they are. Specifically, it would strengthen the existing definition of 
a federal hate crime to include crimes motivated by the victim's 
gender, sexual orientation, or disability. I believe that this 
legislation would increase public education and awareness of these 
crimes, encourage more victims to come forward and seek justice, and 
perhaps most importantly, demonstrate the federal government's clear 
resolve to prosecute these crimes to the fullest extent of the law.
  Some of my colleagues have argued that federal hate crimes 
legislation is unnecessary. In making this argument, they cite the case 
of Matthew Shepard, a college student brutally murdered in Laramie, 
Wyoming. They state that justice has already been served; Matthew 
Shepard's killer has already been sentenced to life in prison without 
parole. What they don't tell you is that because Matthew Shepard's 
murder is not considered a federal hate crime, Laramie law enforcement 
officials had to furlough five officials to help cover the cost of 
prosecuting this crime. Under HCPA, by contrast, Matthew Shepard's 
grieving family would have had the benefit of additional resources 
under federal law, easing the burden on local law enforcement 
officials.
  Mr. Speaker, by voting in favor of this motion to instruct conferees, 
we have the opportunity to provide all Americans with additional 
protection from violent crimes. The vast majority of hate crimes will 
still be prosecuted in state court. The federal Hate Crimes Prevention 
Act provides important protections to victims of violence, protections 
that supplement, not supplant, those available to victims in state 
courts. I urge my colleagues to support the Conyers motion.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to stand with so many 
of my colleagues to urge support for comprehensive hate crimes 
legislation. I would also like to thank Mr. Conyers for his outstanding 
leadership in this area. His unwavering support and dedication to 
advancing civil rights has been a beacon for us all.
  I hope my granddaughters Isabel and Eve never know of violence 
motivated by bigotry and hate. Today we have the opportunity to 
strengthen our hate crimes prevention law by expanding the definition 
of a ``hate crime'' to include sexual orientation, as well as gender 
and disability. These crimes tear at the fabric of our society and 
insidiously erode our principles of tolerance and diversity. Before 
this Congress adjourns for the year, we must send a loud message that 
the safety of all people is paramount and anyone who commits a crime 
based on bigotry and hate will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of 
the law.
  I don't want to be the one to explain to Ricky Byrdsong's widow that 
he did not deserve protection because he was killed walking outside of 
his house rather than while he was engaged in a ``federally protected 
activity.'' And I don't want to be the person who has to explain to the 
family of Matthew Shepard why this Congress was unable to pass tougher 
laws that punish people who commit crimes based on sexual orientation. 
The Byrdsong and Shepard families are not alone. For every high 
profile, heinous hate crime that makes it to the forefront of our 
national consciousness, hundreds and thousands of nameless victims and 
families have been targeted simply because of their gender, sexual 
orientation and disability.
  Since 1991, 60,000 hate crimes have been reported to the FBI and in 
1998 alone, there were close to 8,000 hate crimes reported, almost one 
every hour. Many argue that hate crimes cannot be separated from other 
crimes. This is just untrue. Hate crimes are violence targeted at 
individuals simply because of who they are. Perpetrators are motivated 
by hate and their actions are intended to strike fear into an entire 
group of people. We know that individuals are targeted because of their 
sexuality, disability, and gender just as often as because of their 
race, religion, and national origin, and our hate crimes prevention 
legislation must be expanded to protect them too.
  What is the lesson we are teaching our children and what legacy will 
I leave my granddaughters if we don't pass laws that protect all of our 
citizens? If we fail, we will be turning our backs on our citizens. 
Should we succeed, we will be sending a clear message to all that we 
will not tolerate bigotry and hate. We have a choice, Let us choose 
wisely.
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, we are committed to defending this country 
against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We must ask the question, 
who or what is our enemy? What is the greatest threat to our democracy? 
Mr. Speaker, our domestic enemies are hatred and intolerance. And hate 
manifests itself in many ways. Hate can provoke terrorists to commit 
unconscionable acts against innocent victims. Hate can provoke rogue 
leaders to persecute and intimidate members of an ethnic or religious 
group. And hate can provoke fearful and desperate people to terrorize 
whole communities by committing hate crimes.
  We must take action. We must protect our country against terrorist 
acts, we must protect ethnicities from genocide, and we must protect 
vulnerable communities from hate crimes. When a person terrorizes 
another, that person is guilty of a crime. When a person terrorizes a 
community, that person is guilty of a hate crime. Whether the community 
is a religious one, an ethnic one, or one of sexual orientation, it 
deserves protection.
  The nation was shocked at the murders of Matthew Shepard and James 
Byrd, Jr., as well as the vile and senseless nature of the attitudes 
which prompted these crimes. Many more hate crimes occur throughout the 
country that do not receive the level of publicity of the Shepard and 
Byrd murders. We must work together to eliminate the underlying 
prejudices which kindle the hatred inherent in these crimes. We must 
also give our prosecutors the laws and resources they need to properly 
bring justice to the victims. Let me say again, hate crimes do not just 
victimize a person, they also terrorize a community. That is why they 
deserve recognition in the law for what they are--crimes that victimize 
a community.
  We must also be cognizant of protecting all vulnerable groups. 
Gender, sexual orientation, and disability should be included along 
with race, color, religion, and national origin as human 
characteristics which are subject to hate crimes and attacks and should 
receive the same federal protections.
  I ask that you support Congressman Conyers' motion to instruct 
conferees to include the Hate Crimes Act in the Defense Authorization 
bill.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today to oppose 
Representative Conyers' motion to instruct which purports to include 
the Kennedy hate crime language in H.R. 4205.
  So-called ``hate crimes'' legislation is discriminatory on its face. 
In a nutshell, such legislation treats crimes against certain classes 
of persons more severely than those same crimes if they were committed 
against another class of persons. This is clearly not ``equal justice 
under the law.''
  All crimes are crimes of hate. Whenever a person harms another, there 
is hate. Should we enact federal legislation to punish hate directed 
towards one person more severely than hate directed against another, 
merely because of the victim's classification? I do not believe so.
  Under our present laws, the killers of James Byrd and Matthew Shepard 
(crimes which would have fallen under the Kennedy hate crimes 
provision) were severely punished for their illegal and gruesome 
crimes. James Byrd's killer was sentenced to death, and Matthew 
Shepard's killer was sentenced to two life sentences without the 
possibility of parole. These and other heinous crimes are prosecuted, 
and the perpetrators punished; under existing laws. People who commit 
such crimes

[[Page 17832]]

are not going unpunished. Current federal and state laws are effective, 
and they are being used. There is no void here that new, ``hate'' 
legislation is needed to fill. Moreover, the effect of this 
legislation, were it to be enacted, might have the opposite effect to 
that intended by its proponents. By making the prosecutor's job more 
complex, and forcing prosecutors to prove additional elements of a 
``hate'' offense, and not defining adequately the terms in these laws, 
such prosecutions would be rendered more difficult than prosecutions 
under current laws.
  However, this deficiency apparently won't slow down the political 
agenda at work here.
  Including this bill in the Defense Reauthorization bill would clearly 
be putting the value of one life over and above another. Let us not 
send that type of signal to our citizens. All life is valuable and 
should be protected, equally.
  Vote no on Representative John Conyers' motion to instruct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 192, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 471]

                               YEAS--232

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--192

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Campbell
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Franks (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Klink
     Lazio
     Reynolds
     Vento

                              {time}  1631

  Mr. BLILEY changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. CLYBURN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was not present for 
rollcall vote No. 471 because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________