[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 25601-25605]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              HATE CRIMES

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I believe the pending amendment is the hate 
crimes amendment to the national Defense authorization bill. I rise 
today to once again discuss the need to enact hate crimes legislation. 
For the fifth consecutive Congress, I have introduced this legislation 
with my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy.
  The Senate knows well the substance of what we have debated. We have 
done it in every Congress of my tenure. A majority of Senators have 
repeatedly supported this legislation. Two years ago, under a 
Republican-controlled Senate, we overwhelmingly passed hate crimes 
legislation on the National Defense Authorization Act by a vote of 65 
to 33. In 2000, the Senate voted 57 to 42 in favor of the bill. In 
2002, we had 54 votes.
  Hate crimes legislation, in my view, is the most important civil 
rights issue before this Congress. The House has already passed this 
legislation. They have done so and we will do so, I hope, because 
America needs it.
  America is one of the most diverse societies on the planet, and I can 
think of no other country in world history that has achieved the same 
degree of diversity as the United States of America. Our diversity is, 
in part, our Nation's heritage. It is part of our political and social 
fabric. It is a source of our strength, and it should be protected from 
those who try to systematically victimize whole classes of individuals 
based on their beliefs, their practices, or their race.
  The bedrock of our civil rights laws is founded on our collective 
belief that minorities should be protected from discrimination. But the 
civil rights struggle is far from over. Every election brings a new 
chapter in our efforts to get it better.
  As we fight the war on terrorism abroad, we must not forget that we 
continue to have injustices on our home shores. Americans continue to 
be harassed, victimized, and denied equal opportunities simply because 
of their race, religion, color, disabilities, or sexual orientation.
  As a nation that serves as a beacon of freedom and liberty throughout 
the world, we simply cannot tolerate violence against our own citizens 
simply because of their differences. We cannot fight terror abroad and 
accept terror at home.
  For the last 7 years, I have entered into the Congressional Record a 
hate crime almost every day. I have entered hundreds upon hundreds of 
individual hate crimes into the Record to demonstrate the need for this 
legislation. Many of these crimes are extremely brutal, some even 
resulting in the death of the victim. I do this to raise awareness. I 
do it to demonstrate the severity of these attacks and to show the 
frequency of these violent crimes. I also do it to remember these often 
nameless victims and to give a human face to these senseless acts of 
violence.
  Let me tell my colleagues about the horror of these attacks. 
Opponents of this measure will say every crime should be treated 
equally. But those who perpetrate crimes out of bias, against sexual 
orientation, are unusually and especially savage. One rarely, if ever, 
reads about a hate crime resulting from a single bullet or errant 
punch. Hate crime victims will be beaten dozens of times with an iron 
crowbar, they will be stabbed over and over, or they will be stomped to 
death. These prolonged, vicious beatings are more akin to punishment 
and torture and manifest themselves in ways that are most evil.
  This year, Senator Kennedy and I have decided to rename our 
legislation the Matthew Shepard Act. We do so with the permission of 
his mother. We do so to put a human face on the issue of hate crimes 
legislation. In addition, we did it in remembrance of a young hate 
crime victim who has left an indelible mark upon our Nation's 
conscience. His name is Matthew Shepard.
  Judy Shepard, Matthew's mother, is a dear friend of mine. Judy 
experienced a parent's single worst tragedy: the loss of her child. But 
instead of retreating into her own pain for solace, Judy has brought to 
national attention the need for hate crimes legislation. She is our 
Nation's strongest advocate for this issue.

[[Page 25602]]

  For those of you who do not know Matthew Shepard's story, it is truly 
heartbreaking. Matthew was a 21-year-old college student at the 
University of Wyoming when he was attacked. Shortly after midnight on 
October 7, 1998, Matthew was kidnapped, beaten, pistol whipped, lashed 
to a lonely stretch of fence, and left to die alone.
  Almost 18 hours later, Matthew was found alive but unconscious. His 
injuries were deemed too severe for surgery, and Matthew died on 
October 12. Matthew was murdered by two men simply for who he was, 
because he was gay. To think that such virulent hatred of another 
person's sexual orientation drove another to commit such a heinous act 
is truly unthinkable. Sadly, this case is not isolated.
  One may ask why Senator Kennedy and I have offered this legislation 
again on the Defense authorization bill. As I have said in the past, 
the military is not immune to the scourge of hate crimes in our 
country. In 1992, Navy seaman Allen Schindler was brutally murdered by 
his shipmate Terry Helvey in Okinawa, Japan. Schindler was beaten and 
stomped to death simply because he was gay. His attack was so vicious 
that almost every organ in his body was destroyed. His own mother could 
not have identified him but for the remains of a tattoo on his arm.
  In another tragic case, PFC Barry Winchell was beaten by another army 
private with a baseball bat. He was beaten with such force and his 
injuries were so severe that he died shortly thereafter. He was only 
21, the same age as Matthew Shepard.
  To those who say we don't need a Federal hate crimes bill, I say they 
are wrong. This is a national problem that deserves national attention. 
Our hate crimes legislation would strengthen the ability of the 
Federal, State, and local governments to investigate and prosecute hate 
crimes based on race, ethnic background, religion, gender, sexual 
orientation, disability, and gender identity.
  Furthermore, it would strengthen State and local efforts by enabling 
Justice to assist them in the investigation and prosecution of hate 
crimes and assist in funding of these prosecutions.
  The legislation would also allow the Federal Government to step in, 
if needed, but only after the Department has certified that a Federal 
prosecution is necessary. If this can be done locally or at the State 
level, it should be, but hate crimes should be prosecuted.
  Current law does not provide any authority for Federal involvement in 
these types of hate crimes, even when State or local law enforcement is 
inadequate because relevant law is nonexistent or resources are 
insufficient. Without this legislation, the tools for battling hate 
crimes at the Federal level will remain limited.
  I have also heard it argued that we shouldn't punish a hate crime any 
differently than any other crime. I believe that is flat wrong. Hate 
crimes tear at the very fabric of our Nation. They seek to intimidate 
entire groups of Americans and, as such, divide our people. Hate crimes 
do more than harm one victim; they terrorize an entire society. They 
send an ominous message of hate and intolerance to all Americans. Those 
crimes must be punished proportionately.
  As to the constitutionality of hate crimes statutes, which is 
questioned by some, it shouldn't be. The Supreme Court has already 
responded to their legitimacy. Motive has always been a factor in 
determining whether a crime has in fact occurred.
  Mr. President, when you and I went to law school, took a class in 
crimes, one of the first things we learned you have to do to establish 
the commission of a crime is intent and motive, and speech is one of 
those legitimate areas of inquiry. This was made very clear by Chief 
Justice William Rehnquist, not exactly a liberal, who wrote the 
majority opinion in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, where the Supreme Court 
unanimously upheld the constitutionality of a Wisconsin hate crimes 
statute. Statutes which provide for an enhanced sentence, where the 
defendant is intentionally selected because of his race, his religion, 
color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry, 
does not violate the first amendment, the Court found.
  Rehnquist wrote in Mitchell:

       The first amendment does not prohibit the evidentiary use 
     of speech to establish the elements of a crime or to prove 
     motive or intent.

  In fact, you can't have a crime unless you prove motive and intent, 
and speech is one of the legitimate areas of inquiry.
  Lastly, I have heard concerns from my religious brothers and sisters 
who fear passage of hate crimes legislation will have a chilling effect 
on our Nation's churches and pulpits. This is unfounded. I find it 
disconcerting that many ministers of religion, for whom I have the 
utmost respect, would preach such messages from the radio, from 
television, and from sacred church pulpits. A hate crime does not 
criminalize thoughts, moral views, and religious beliefs. What it does 
say is we cannot go out and do violence to our fellow Americans simply 
because we find another's mere existence offends our beliefs. You have 
to act. Thought and speech are insufficient to prove a hate crime, and 
it is disingenuous and fallacious to say otherwise.
  And I would say, as an aside, that if I believed what they charge, I 
would not be here in support of this amendment in Congress after 
Congress. I know the law, however, and I know what is being said about 
this amendment is simply wrong.
  I accuse no one, but what I find of great comfort is a story from the 
New Testament on this issue, and I think it is applicable. It is a 
story from the Book of John, and I will share it with you, because I 
think it teaches us all how we should behave toward one another, 
sinners all, in the public square. It reads as follows, from Chapter 8:

       And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and 
     all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught 
     them.
       And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman 
     taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
       They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in 
     adultery, in the very act.
       Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be 
     stoned: but what sayest thou?
       This they said, tempting him, that they might have to 
     accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote 
     on the ground, as though he heard them not.
       So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, 
     and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him 
     first cast a stone at her.
       And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
       And they which heard it, being convicted by their own 
     conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, 
     even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman 
     standing in the midst.
       When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the 
     woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine 
     accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
       She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do 
     I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

  That occurred in the public square. Jesus risked his life to save her 
life. He didn't excuse it nor did he condemn her. He saved her life and 
risked his own. I don't believe Federal law should do any less than 
that, and I believe it is high time for us to do what many States, most 
of the States in America have done, and that is add the category of 
sexual orientation to our Federal statutes.
  No churchman, no preacher, no adherent of religious faith need fear 
this, but they ought to follow that and understand that what we are not 
trying to do here is to somehow inhibit the free exercise of religion. 
We are trying to protect people, American people, from the most brutal 
kinds of terrorist acts on our own shores.
  Finally, there is a memorial in Casper, WY, sculpted by Chris 
Navarro, dedicated to the memory of Matthew Shepard. It is named the 
Ring of Peace. The circular design of the ring symbolizes both the 
individual and the ideals of social unity. The bell, supported by a 
ring, stands for liberty, and the ring for the promise of tomorrow. 
White doves flying out of the bell are a symbol of peace. They are 
flying as a unified group and their wings symbolize hope and freedom.
  At the base of the sculpture there is a simple poem that reads:

       If you believe in hope, and the need for peace, step up and 
     ring the bell, for it will sing, for a promise of tomorrow.

  With that, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues, as many as have done 
so in

[[Page 25603]]

the past, to vote in favor of this amendment. We cannot be complacent 
or tolerate such acts of hatred. We all need to step up and vote for 
legislation that promises all Americans a better tomorrow.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I hope our friends and colleagues had a 
good opportunity to listen to the excellent, extraordinary, compelling 
presentation my friend from Oregon has made on this issue. I have had 
the good opportunity to work with him for a good number of years. I 
always find that when he speaks on this issue, as he does on other 
issues of war and peace, he is able to get to the heart and the soul of 
these matters. Today, he has described the moral requirements presented 
to us on the issue of hate crimes, and he has done that in a very 
thoughtful and sensitive way, besides explaining in a very detailed way 
not only the underlying legislation but the compelling reasons for it 
at this time. One can say that, on this legislation, now is the time, 
to repeat those wonderful words of Dr. King; that now is the time for 
action.
  Senator Smith has reminded us why this legislation is so important 
now on the Defense authorization bill. We cannot let another day, 
really hours, go by without this legislation. It reminds us of not only 
the moral compulsion but also why it is necessary to put this as an 
amendment onto the Defense authorization bill. As we are facing 
terrorism abroad, we also want to deal with terrorism here at home; and 
as we are looking at the values those serving abroad are fighting for 
against the terrorist elements abroad, it is important to reaffirm them 
and make them consistent with our best instincts. I commend the Senator 
for his presentation on this issue.
  We are hopeful, Senator Smith and I, we will have the chance to 
actually vote on this measure. As he has pointed out, this is not a new 
issue or question for this body. This is one of those issues we have 
had a chance to debate, debate, debate, and debate. The House of 
Representatives has taken a very clear and compelling stand. We have 
voted, the majority of the membership of this body, Democrat and 
Republican, in Republican Senates and Democratic Senates, to take 
action on this proposal. We don't need a great amount of time to deal 
with this issue, but it is appropriate that we lay out this case for 
it, and I welcome the chance to make some comments on it today. I am 
hopeful we will have the opportunity to proceed to it.
  I was in the Senate when we passed the first hate crimes legislation 
in 1968, after the death of Dr. King.
  We started off with strong legislation. It was cut back and cut back, 
so now we find that basically it is ineffective in dealing with hate 
crimes for a number of the reasons the Senator has outlined, because of 
the kinds of restrictions that have been placed on it. Again we are 
reminded of the need for this legislation. With the passage of this 
legislation, we will be, hopefully, a safer and more secure nation.
  Legislation has real implications when it is effective. I believe 
this legislation is effective. I can remember years ago, when we had 
the series of church burnings in the southern part of our Nation, we 
passed here at that time--it was Lauch Faircloth and myself--additional 
responsibility for investigation and working with the prosecution by 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation in these circumstances and enhanced 
support for local law enforcement and State law enforcement in the 
prosecution of these church burnings. We saw a dramatic alteration and 
change in the pattern of church burnings.
  My Governor now, Deval Patrick, was the head of the division in the 
Justice Department during this period of time, when I had a chance to 
meet him. We find when we take action, when we are serious, we are 
saying to the American people we are going to fight hate crimes and 
violence with both hands instead of one hand tied behind our backs, as 
we are doing now with the restrictions we have, using all our crime-
fighting ability, we will be a more fair and safer land. That is what 
this legislation is about.
  I am going to take a few minutes to remind the Senate about why this 
is a particular issue in the military. It is also outside the military, 
but I will just mention some of the incidents. The Senator from Oregon 
mentioned some, but I wish to take a few moments to elaborate on this 
question.
  At a time when our ideals are under attack by terrorists in other 
lands, it is more important than ever to demonstrate that we practice 
what we preach, and that we are doing all we can to root out the 
bigotry and prejudice in our own country that leads to violence here at 
home.
  Crimes motivated by hate because of the victim's race, religion, 
ethnic background, sexual orientation, disability, or gender are not 
confined to the geographical boundaries of our great Nation. The 
current conflicts in the Middle East and Northern Ireland, the ethnic 
cleansing campaigns in Bosnia and Rwanda, or the Holocaust itself 
demonstrate that violence motivated by hate is a world-wide danger, and 
we have a special responsibility to combat it here at home.
  This amendment will strengthen the Defense Authorization Act by 
protecting those who volunteer to serve in the military. The vast 
majority of our soldiers serve with honor and distinction. These men 
and women put their lives on the line to ensure our freedom and for 
that, we are truly grateful.
  Sadly, our military bases are not immune from the violence that comes 
from hatred--and even though members of the military put their lives on 
the line for us every day--they have not been immune from hate-
motivated violence. Just last month, the FBI arrested members of the 
82nd Airborne Division in Fayetteville, NC, and charged them with 
selling stolen military property to an agent they believed was a white 
supremacist. The pair allegedly sold drugs and bulletproof vests, and 
were also reportedly interested in selling an Army Humvee and weapons. 
Officials said the two men had been seen at a white supremacist rally. 
One of them had a page on the Web with photos of him posing with 
military weapons, statements about his Nazi heroes, and racist rants 
from his network of friends.
  In December 2006, a Coast Guard procurement officer was given a bad 
conduct discharge and sentenced to a year in a military brig for 
posting Ku Klux Klan recruitment fliers on a white supremacist web 
site, illegally possessing weapons and explosive powder and grenade 
parts, lying to investigators, and other charges.
  In December 1995, two paratroopers in a skinhead gang at Fort Bragg 
gunned down a black couple in a random, racially motivated double 
murder that shocked the Nation and led to a major investigation of 
extremism in the military. The killers were eventually sentenced to 
life in prison, and 19 other members of their division were 
dishonorably discharged for neo-Nazi gang activities.
  As Senator Smith points out, in 1992, Allen Schindler, a sailor in 
the Navy was viciously murdered by two fellow sailors because of his 
sexual orientation. Seven years later, PFC Barry Winchell, an infantry 
soldier in the Army, was brutally slain for being perceived as gay. 
These incidents prompted the military to implement guidelines to 
prevent this type of violence, but there is more that we can do. We 
have to send a message that these crimes won't be tolerated against any 
member of society.
  These examples clearly demonstrate the relevance of this amendment to 
the military. We can't tolerate hate-motivated violence and must do all 
we can to protect our men and women in uniform.
  A disturbing trend has also been discovered in the military. Last 
year, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported that members of hate 
groups have been entering into the military. As recruiters struggle to 
fulfill their quotas, they are being forced to accept recruits who

[[Page 25604]]

may be extremists, putting our soldiers at higher risk of hate 
motivated violence. This can't be tolerated. We must stem the tide of 
hatred and bigotry by sending a loud and clear message that hate crimes 
will be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
  Since the September 11 attacks, we have seen a shameful increase in 
the number of hate crimes committed against Muslims, Sikhs, and 
Americans of Middle Eastern descent. Congress has done much to respond 
to the vicious attacks of September 11. We have authorized the use of 
force against terrorists and those who harbor them in other lands. We 
have enacted legislation to provide aid to victims and their families, 
to strengthen airport security, to improve the security of our borders, 
to strengthen our defenses against bioterrorism, and to give law 
enforcement and intelligence officials enhanced powers to investigate 
and prevent terrorism.
  Protecting the security of our homeland is a high priority, and there 
is more that we should do to strengthen our defenses against hate that 
comes from abroad. There is no reason why Congress should not act to 
strengthen our defenses against hate that occurs here at home.
  Hate crimes are a form of domestic terrorism. They send the poisonous 
message that some Americans deserve to be victimized solely because of 
who they are. Like other acts of terrorism, hate crimes have an impact 
far greater than the impact on the individual victims. They are crimes 
against entire communities, against the whole Nation, and against the 
fundamental ideals on which America was founded. They are a violation 
of all our country stands for.
  Since the September 11 attacks, the Nation has been united in our 
effort to root out the cells of hatred around the world. We should not 
turn a blind eye to acts of hatred and terrorism here at home.
  Attorney General Ashcroft put it well when he said:

       Just as the United States will pursue, prosecute, and 
     punish terrorists who attack America out of hatred for what 
     we believe, we will pursue, prosecute and punish those who 
     attack law-abiding Americans out of hatred for who they are. 
     Hatred is the enemy of justice, regardless of its source.

  Now more than ever, we need to act against hate crimes and send a 
strong message here and around the world that we will not tolerate 
crimes fueled by hate.
  Hate is hate regardless of what nation it originates in. We can send 
a strong message about the need to eradicate hate crimes throughout the 
world by passing this hate crimes amendment to the Defense Department 
authorization bill. The hate crimes amendment we are offering today 
condemns the poisonous message that some human beings deserve to be 
victimized solely because of their race, religion, or sexual 
orientation and must not be ignored. This action is long overdue. When 
the Senate approves this amendment, we will send a message about 
freedom and equality that will resonate around the world.
  According to FBI statistics, nearly 25 people are victimized each and 
every day because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic 
background, or disability. Some argue that hate crimes are actually 
decreasing because the total number of hate crimes in 2005 was slightly 
lower than in 2004. But the FBI data reflects only a fraction of hate 
crimes, because so many of these crimes routinely go unreported. The 
Southern Poverty Law Center estimates the total number of hate crimes 
per year is close to 50,000. Every hate crime is one too many. We need 
to strengthen the ability of Federal, State and local governments to 
prevent, investigate and prosecute these vicious and senseless crimes.
  The existing Federal hate crime statute was passed in 1968, a few 
weeks after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It was an 
important step forward at the time, but it is now a generation out of 
date. The absence of effective legislation has undoubtedly resulted in 
the failure to solve many hate-motivated crimes. The recent action of 
the Justice Department in reopening forty civil-rights-era murders 
demonstrates the need for adequate laws. Many of the victims in these 
cases have been denied justice for decades, and for some, justice will 
never come.
  Our bill corrects two major deficiencies in current law. Excessive 
restrictions require proof that victims were attacked because they were 
engaged in certain ``federally protected activities.'' And the scope of 
the law is limited, covering hate crimes based on race, religion, or 
ethnic background alone.
  The federally protected activity requirement is outdated, unwise and 
unnecessary, particularly when we consider the unjust outcomes of this 
requirement. Hate crimes now occur in a variety of circumstances, and 
citizens are often targeted during routine activities that should be 
protected.
  For example, in June 2003, six Latino teenagers went to a family 
restaurant on Long Island. They knew one another from their involvement 
in community activities and had come together to celebrate one of their 
birthdays. As they entered the restaurant, three men who were leaving 
the bar assaulted them, pummeling one boy and severing a tendon in his 
hand with a sharp weapon. During the attack, the men yelled racial 
slurs and one identified himself as a skinhead.
  Two of the men were tried under the current Federal hate crimes law 
and were acquitted. The jurors said the Government failed to prove that 
the attack took place because the victims weren't engaged in a 
federally protected activity--using the restaurant did not qualify 
under current law. That case is only one example of the inadequate 
protection under the current status quo. Our bill will eliminate the 
federally protected activity requirement. Under this bill, the 
defendants who left the courtroom as free men would almost certainly 
have left in handcuffs through a different door.
  The bill also recognizes that some hate crimes are committed against 
people because of their sexual orientation, their gender, their gender 
identity, or their disability. It is up to Congress to make sure that 
tough Federal penalties apply to those who commit these types of hate 
crimes as well. Passing this bill will send a loud and clear message. 
All hate crimes will face Federal prosecution. Action is long overdue. 
There are too many stories and too many victims.
  In October 2002, two deaf girls in Somerville, MA, one of whom was in 
a wheelchair from cerebral palsy, were harassed and sexually assaulted 
by four suspected gang members in a local park. Although the alleged 
perpetrators were charged in the incident, the assaults could not be 
charged as hate crimes because there is no Federal protection for a 
hate crime against a disabled person.
  In 1999, four women in Yosemite National Park were attacked by a man 
who admitted to having fantasized about killing women for most of his 
life. The current law did not apply to this horrific crime, because 
enjoyment of a Federal park is not a Federally protected right.
  Current law must also be strengthened to deter horrific mass 
shootings where women are singled out as victims because of their 
gender.
  Crimes against individuals based on sexual orientation or gender 
identity also cause immense pain and suffering. In 1993, Brandon Teena 
was raped and beaten in Humboldt, NE, by two male friends. The local 
sheriff refused to arrest the offenders, and they later shot and 
stabbed Brandon to death.
  In 2001, Fred C. Martinez, Jr., a Navajo, openly gay, transgender 
youth, was murdered while walking home from a party in Cortez, CO. The 
killer, Shaun Murphy, had traveled from New Mexico to Colorado with a 
friend in order to sell illegal drugs. He met Fred at a carnival that 
night, and the next morning, while driving, he saw Fred walking down 
the street. Shaun and his friend offered Fred a ride and dropped him 
off close to home. Shortly thereafter, Shaun attacked Fred and beat him 
to death with a large rock. His body was discovered several days later. 
The attackers bragged about this vicious crime, describing the victim 
with vulgar epithets.

[[Page 25605]]

  The killer could not be charged with a hate crime, because no State 
or Federal law protecting gender identity existed. He received a 40 
year sentence under a plea agreement, and will be eligible for parole 
in 25 years. His victim did not live long enough to see his 20th 
birthday.
  These examples graphically illustrate the senseless brutality our 
fellow citizens face simply for being who they are. They also highlight 
the importance of passing this legislation.
  The vast majority of us in Congress have recognized the need for this 
legislation since it was first introduced--nearly 10 years ago. With 
the support of 31 cosponsors, Senator Smith and I urge your support of 
this bipartisan bill.
  The House has come through on their side and passed the bill. Now it 
is time for the Senate to do the same. This year, we can get it done. 
We came close twice before. In 2000 and 2002, a majority of Senators 
voted to pass this legislation. In 2004, we had 65 votes for the bill 
and it was adopted as part of the Defense authorization bill. But--that 
time--it was stripped out in conference.
  This year, we have an opportunity to pass it in both the Senate and 
the House, and enact it into law. We can't afford to lose this 
opportunity. We must do all we can to end these senseless crimes.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The assistant majority leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________