[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11156-11189]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT OF 2007

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 364 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 364

       Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     1592) to provide Federal assistance to States, local 
     jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, 
     and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary 
     now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 1592 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I ask unanimous 
consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise 
and extend their remarks on House Resolution 364.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 364 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes 
Prevention Act of 2007, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour 
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
bill, except those arising under clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule 
provides that the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
modified by the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report, shall 
be considered as adopted, and the bill, as amended, shall be considered 
as read. The rule waives all points of order against the bill, as 
amended.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and of the 
underlying legislation. H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate 
Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, is a bipartisan piece of legislation 
that has already passed the House multiple times with Members from both 
sides supporting it.
  In the 109th Congress, this legislation passed as an amendment to the 
Child Safety Act by a vote of 223-199. And in both the 108th and 106th 
Congresses, hate crimes legislation passed with bipartisan support.
  With such a demonstrated history of strong bipartisan support, it 
should come as no surprise that this bill has also garnered the support 
of 171 cosponsors, Republicans as well as Democrats.
  I would like to take note for my colleagues that H.R. 1592 has the 
support of more than 210 civil rights, education, religious and civic 
organizations. Equally as important, it has the support and endorsement 
of the law enforcement community, including the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Sheriffs Association.
  Mr. Speaker, it makes sense that this bill has attracted such a wide 
range of support. Hate crimes are a serious problem everywhere. They 
continue to plague our society, and they happen in every State and in 
every community.
  The Federal Bureau of Investigation has documented over 113,000 hate 
crimes since 1991. In 2005 alone, nearly 7,200 crimes were identified 
by the FBI as hate crimes. But despite this marked occurrence of 
violent hate crimes, current law limits the ability of the Federal 
Government to provide assistance to States and localities to prosecute 
and investigate these crimes. It is long past time that Congress 
address these shortcomings.
  Mr. Speaker, some will claim that this law is not needed. Others will 
claim that it adversely affects free speech. I strongly, very strongly 
disagree with both these claims.
  First, while we have made progress toward equality in many facets of 
our society, hate crimes continue to spread in cities and towns across 
the country. The main reason why we have been unable to aggressively 
pursue and prosecute hate crimes is because law enforcement agencies in 
our States and towns lack the tools and resources.
  I'd like to point out that this legislation has been endorsed by 31 
Attorney Generals from all across the country, the very people who can 
attest to how critical this legislation is to stemming hate crime 
violence and to prosecuting and punishing the perpetrators of violent 
hate crimes.
  Secondly, with respect to whether this legislation will have a 
negative impact on free speech, simply put, it will not. H.R. 1592 does 
not punish or prohibit in any way first amendment rights. It does not 
affect name-calling, verbal abuse, hateful expression or hate-filled 
speech. It only addresses violent criminal acts. In fact, there is a 
first amendment free expression and free exercise provision explicitly 
included in this bill.

[[Page 11157]]

  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1592 solely applies to bias motivated violent 
crimes. It does not infringe upon freedom of speech. It can only be 
applied to violent crimes that result in death or bodily injury where 
the motivation was based on the bias against a person's perceived race, 
religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or 
disability.
  I want to remind all of my colleagues that behind all of the 
statistics of hate crimes, there are real people, people who were 
targeted for violence and who suffered violent attacks simply because 
of who they are.
  Let me tell you a story of Lisa Craig, a 35-year-old mother of two 
from my own State of Massachusetts. In 2003, Craig was assaulted on the 
street by three teenage girls and kicked in the head multiple times, 
causing her brain to bleed, and requiring 200 stitches in her head. 
Craig's partner and her two daughters witnessed the attack by these 
teenagers who, earlier in the evening, had been shouting anti-gay 
epithets at the couple.
  Lisa Craig's case is just one of thousands, but it demonstrates the 
bloody results of hate crimes. We need to prevent hate crimes like the 
one suffered by Lisa Craig from ever occurring again, and we need to 
give our State and local law enforcement officers and court officials 
the ability to prosecute and punish the perpetrators of such violent 
acts for what they are, hate crimes. Passing H.R. 1592 will enable our 
police, our prosecutors, our judges and our courts to do just that.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this closed rule and the 
underlying bill, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
  Mr. Speaker, no one supports violent acts of crimes committed out of 
hatred toward a person based on personal characteristic whether that is 
ethnicity, gender, religion, weight, height, age, eye color, 
profession, socioeconomic background, or political beliefs. If someone 
commits a crime, they should be punished for that crime. Period.
  Instead, today, the Democrat majority has chosen to end equality 
under the law and to bring legislation to the House floor that creates 
special categories of people. Specifically, this bill allows Federal 
assistance to be given to State and local law enforcement to 
investigate and prosecute felonies that are believed to be motivated by 
prejudice based on actual or perceived race, color, religion, national 
origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
  This bill also makes certain crimes a felony in cases where the 
perpetrator was believed to be motivated by bias and there has been a 
history of such bias-motivated violence.
  Separate treatment is afforded for crimes based on hate against 
protected classes of citizens under this bill, as opposed to crimes 
against victims that are not in a protected category. As we learned 
decades ago, separate is not equal.
  The Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act is a bad bill and 
should not be brought to the floor, but especially under the closed 
process that does not allow for any changes or improvements to the 
underlying bill.
  Eighteen thoughtful amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee 
yesterday, and sadly, not one of these amendments was allowed to be 
considered by the full House of Representatives. I am disappointed the 
Democrat majority again has missed an opportunity to live up to their 
commitment of allowing input under an open process.
  Mr. Speaker, how many special categories of people should this bill 
create? Have all characteristics for which there has been a history of 
bias-motivated violence been included in this bill? Should more 
categories be added and should some be excluded from this bill?
  Under this closed rule, these questions will not be answered today by 
Members of the House through the amendment process.
  Yesterday, Mr. Forbes of Virginia offered an amendment to this bill 
that would expand the list of protected categories of individuals to 
include members of the Armed Forces. If you believe the government 
should afford special treatment to crimes committed against special 
groups of citizens, then why not our military men and women? Why aren't 
those who volunteer to protect our country's freedom not afforded this 
protected status?
  Mr. Gohmert of Texas offered an amendment that would add law 
enforcement officers to the list. There have been several instances 
where gang members and would-be gang members have targeted and killed 
law enforcement officers because of their hatred towards them for 
choosing to go to work each day to protect our communities. Is 
committing a crime against law enforcement officers simply because 
their job is to uphold our laws a crime not deserving of special 
assistance to investigate and prosecute that crime?
  Crimes have been committed against senior citizens, and an amendment 
was offered to include them under the hate crimes legislation, but that 
amendment, too, was not allowed under this closed rule today.
  The question remains, if the Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention 
Act creates special protection, then whom should it create special 
protection for? Because this bill is being brought up under a closed 
rule, Members of the House and the people they represent will not have 
an opportunity to voice their opinion on this question through the 
amendment process.
  Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this closed rule, which not only gags the 
minority party, but gags all Members of the House, who will be denied 
the right to offer improvements to this legislation. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the gag order rule and the underlying bill that 
creates special categories of citizens and ends equality under the law.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter signed by 
31 State attorneys general, including the Republican attorney general 
of the State of Washington, in strong support of the underlying 
legislation.

                                                   April 16, 2007.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, The Capitol, Washington, DC
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, The Capitol, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
       We, the undersigned Attorneys General, are writing to 
     express our strong support of Congressional efforts towards 
     the immediate passage of federal hate crimes legislation. As 
     the chief legal officers in our respective jurisdictions, 
     State Attorneys General are on the front lines in the fight 
     to protect our citizens' civil rights. Although state and 
     local governments continue to have the primary responsibility 
     for enforcing criminal law, we believe that federal 
     assistance is critical in fighting the invidious effects of 
     hate crimes.
       This much needed legislation would remove unnecessary 
     jurisdictional barriers to permit the U.S. Department of 
     Justice to prosecute violent acts motivated by bias and hate 
     and complement existing federal law by providing new 
     authority for crimes where the victim is intentionally 
     selected because of his or her gender, gender identity, 
     sexual orientation, or disability. Under current law, the 
     Justice Department can only prosecute crimes motivated by the 
     victim's race, religion, or national origin when that person 
     is engaged in a federally protected activity, such as voting. 
     Legislative proposals, such as the Local Law Enforcement Hate 
     Crime Prevention Act of 2007 (LLEHCPA) and others, however, 
     would permit federal prosecution of hate crimes irrespective 
     of whether they were committed while the victim was engaged 
     in protected activity.
       Removing this outmoded jurisdictional barrier to federal 
     prosecution of hate crimes

[[Page 11158]]

     is critical to protecting our citizens' fundamental civil 
     rights. In 2005, the most recent figures available, the FBI 
     documented 7,163 crimes reported from 12,417 law enforcement 
     agencies across the country. Yet, it is not the frequency or 
     number of hate crimes, alone, that distinguish these acts of 
     violence from other crimes. Rather, our experiences as 
     prosecutors have shown us, that these crimes can have a 
     special impact on victims, their families, their communities 
     and, in some instances, the nation. Indeed, in Wisconsin v. 
     Mitchell, 508 U.S. 47 (1993), Chief Justice William Rehnquist 
     wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court in upholding the 
     constitutionality of enhanced penalties for crimes motivated 
     by bias or hate against a person because of race, religion, 
     color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or 
     ancestry. In so ruling, the Court recognized that ``bias-
     motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory 
     crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, 
     and incite community unrest.'' Hate crimes have lead to the 
     polarization of communities, increases in security needs at 
     schools and churches, declines in property values and the 
     creation of an overall atmosphere of fear and distrust. All 
     too often that climate has hindered the efforts of local law 
     enforcement and placed the lives of police officers and 
     civilians in jeopardy.
       As the chief legal and law enforcement officers of our 
     respective states, we are mindful that the overwhelming 
     majority of criminal cases should be brought by local police 
     and prosecutors at the state level. However, in those rare 
     situations in which local authorities are unable to act, 
     measures such as the LLEHCPA and others provide a backstop to 
     state and local law enforcement by allowing federal 
     involvement if it is necessary to provide a just result. 
     These measures would provide invaluable tools to federal law 
     enforcement to help state authorities in their fight against 
     hate crimes. Therefore, we strongly urge the passage of 
     important hate crimes legislation by the 110th Congress.
           Sincerely,
         Lisa Madigan, Attorney General of Illinois; Mark 
           Shurtleff, Attorney General of Utah; Terry Goddard, 
           Attorney General of Arizona; Dustin McDaniel, Attorney 
           General of Arkansas; Richard Blumenthal, Attorney 
           General of Connecticut; Linda Singer, Attorney General 
           of District of Columbia; Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney 
           General of Georgia; Mark J. Bennett, Attorney General 
           of Hawaii; Tom Miller, Attorney General of Iowa; 
           Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General of Kentucky; 
           Charles C. Foti, Jr., Attorney General of Louisiana; G. 
           Steven Rowe, Attorney General of Maine; Douglas 
           Gansler, Attorney General of Maryland.
         Martha Coakley, Attorney General of Massachusetts; Lori 
           Swanson, Attorney General of Minnesota; Jeremiah W. 
           Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri; Mike McGrath, 
           Attorney General of Montana; Catherine Cortez Masto, 
           Attorney General of Nevada; Gary King, Attorney General 
           of New Mexico; Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General of New 
           York; Marc Dann, Attorney General of Ohio; Hardy Myers, 
           Attorney General of Oregon; Patrick Lynch, Attorney 
           General of Rhode Island; William H. Sorrell, Attorney 
           General of Vermont; Vincent Frazier, Attorney General 
           of Virgin Islands; Rob McKenna, Attorney General of 
           Washington.

  Let me also say, Mr. Speaker, that I stand by this rule. We are 
talking about life and death issues here. We are talking about people's 
civil rights. And, unfortunately, I think it is clear that there are 
some on the other side of the aisle who oppose the expansion of civil 
rights protections for threatened groups living in the United States, 
and I believe they are flat wrong. But this gives the Members, every 
Member of the House, the opportunity to vote up or down on whether or 
not they believe that we should expand protections. I think this is an 
appropriate rule, and I strongly support the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), a member of the 
Rules Committee.
  Ms. CASTOR. I thank my distinguished colleague from the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Hate Crimes Prevention 
Act. In doing so, I join with the majority of Americans and law 
enforcement agencies who understand that violent acts fueled by bigotry 
and hatred of a particular group simply because of who they are has no 
place in America.
  H.R. 1592, and this rule, strengthens and broadens protections for 
our neighbors for attacks based on disability, gender, and sexual 
orientation. This bill provides local law enforcement with tools needed 
to partner with our Federal law enforcement agencies to investigate and 
prosecute these hateful acts.
  Why is it needed? Well, unfortunately, in my area of Florida, bigoted 
crimes are on the rise. This week police arrested and charged two 
Pinellas County teenagers after they spray-painted anti-Semitic and 
racial slurs on nine portable classrooms at a local high school.
  Last month, a Polk County man was stabbed to death for being gay.
  Also last month, the Islamic Education Center of Florida in Tampa was 
set on fire, and thousands of my neighbors were left without a place to 
hold religious services.
  Last year, two men in neighboring Polk County were jailed on hate 
crime charges after they threw beer bottles at a club owner in Tampa, 
who happened to be speaking Arabic, and threatened to kill him.
  According to my local State attorney general's offices, 334 hate 
crimes were reported in Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties in 2004, up 
from 275 in 2003. Fifty-two of those hate crimes were motivated by 
sexual orientation in 2004.
  Nationwide, victims of hate crimes have reported an average of 
191,000 hate crime incidents since the year 2000.
  This bill says that we as Americans do not stand for violent acts 
upon our neighbors based upon who they are; we will not tolerate 
terrorism against any group of people; and we will provide our local 
law enforcement agencies with the tools needed to prosecute you when 
you use violence to spread fear and hate.
  Members, I urge you to pass this important bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), a 
member of the Judiciary Committee, but more importantly, a former 
attorney general for the State of California.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in 
opposition to this rule.
  Let's understand what this is. This is a closed rule suggesting that 
this is a perfect bill. This is anything but a perfect bill. People 
ought to understand that we are denied the opportunity to present a 
single amendment on this floor, and let me explain to my colleagues the 
single amendment I wish to bring to the floor.
  This bill defines hate crimes to include a number of different 
subjects. One of them is a crime committed against someone where the 
hate was motivated by hatred for their sexual orientation. ``Sexual 
orientation'' appears as an undefined term in the bill.
  I offered a simple amendment to define sexual orientation as it is 
noted in the U.S. Code, the only specific reference to a definition in 
the U.S. Code, which is a note that is a footnote in the statute which 
directs the Sentencing Commission to take into consideration hate 
motivation when they want to enhance penalties. There is no statutory 
definition of it, however, with respect to the crime itself. And that 
note refers to sexual orientation simply as consensual homosexual or 
heterosexual conduct.
  Now, why would they not allow us to have that simple amendment, which 
when we discussed it in committee, I was told that is what they meant 
the bill to be? The chairman of the committee said to me it sounded 
like a reasonable amendment because that's exactly what they intended 
it to be. So why don't we have the opportunity to offer this amendment 
on the floor? I do not know.
  And why would I be concerned about a failure for us to define this 
term? Because if you use the term ``sexual orientation'' and use the 
definition found in the dictionary of those two words, it means any 
orientation of sexual conduct. Now, why would I be concerned, being a 
former attorney general of the State of California and having served in 
this Congress now for seven terms representing my State? Because I 
recall some 20 years ago when a debate ensued in my then-existing 
district in Palos Verdes, California, where the local chapter of 
NAMBLA, which is the North American Man/Boy Love Association, NAMBLA, 
and the dispute was

[[Page 11159]]

that they wanted to have their local chapter meetings at the local 
library. Some of you may have seen their banners in certain parades 
that take place in San Francisco, where NAMBLA, instead of hiding, 
proudly proclaims their position of ``sexual orientation.'' They argue, 
for instance, that we are denying children their right to have sexual 
expression with adults and that somehow we are hampering their 
development.
  I am not making this up, my colleagues. This is a fact. And under a 
nondefined term of ``sexual orientation,'' that very well may be 
included.
  I could give you other examples, but that is a current example. And 
in order to make sure that that kind of activity is not enshrined in 
the law and given special protection, I asked for this simple 
amendment. And when I was in debate in the committee, I was told by the 
chairman that it made ample sense and we ought to work to do that.
  So then I go before the distinguished Committee on Rules, make this 
presentation, have no argument against it, and yet am denied the simple 
opportunity to offer that.
  So the question is why? If you don't want to extend this definition, 
if you don't want to have this free play out there in the legal 
atmosphere, why do you deny me the opportunity to present this simple 
amendment? Is there a hidden agenda here? Is there something we don't 
know? Are we flying under false flags here? What are we doing?
  This is more, my colleagues, than just a dispute between the majority 
versus the minority on the Rules Committee. This is more than just 
hampering the minority. This is a question of simple definition which 
goes to a crucial question in our society today.
  So my concern, my colleagues, is not fanciful. It is not made up. It 
is not something that may happen in the future. This is based on an 
experience that I have seen for 20-plus years in my home State. And yet 
when I asked to have this considered, I was told that it made eminent 
sense, we basically hear a great silence. A great silence.
  Now, we can have games here in the House of Representatives, majority 
versus minority, but when it affects the lives of our constituents, 
when it affects in a very real way a serious social question in our 
society, it seems to me we ought to rise above this kind of nonsense, 
and we ought to at least give the Members the opportunity to consider 
it.
  Maybe the Members don't agree with me. Maybe the Members think we 
ought to expand this definition. But at least we ought to have the 
chance to debate it.

                              {time}  1045

  Last time I checked, we're not under a time clock here that requires 
us to leave. We could consider this.
  So I would ask my colleagues to please vote down this rule. Allow us 
to bring forward a rule that allows consideration of these and other 
amendments.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentlelady from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), I would like to give my colleagues a couple of 
examples of the kinds of crimes that we're talking about here.
  In Los Angeles, California, 2003, after seeing him hugging another 
man on the street, three men attacked Treve Broudy, who was 34 years 
old, with a baseball bat. The incident left Broudy in a coma. Broudy 
was also hospitalized for approximately 10 weeks after the attack, and 
has lost half of his vision and has experienced trouble hearing.
  In Charlottesville, Virginia, in 1997, James Kittredge was attacked 
by three young men he offered a ride to outside of a gay club in 
Charlottesville, Virginia. The men offered to take him to party, but 
instead they dragged Kittredge out of his car, where they beat him, 
smashing eight of his ribs and eye socket, urinated on him, put 
cigarettes out on him and locked him in his own trunk. He was found 
over a day later.
  I can go on and on and on with examples of these hate crimes, but 
this is what we are trying to prevent, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the Rules Committee for very 
diligent and thorough review. About 14 Members of Congress were able to 
present their case before the Rules Committee.
  I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, to reaffirm that this is about 
hate. There are already well-recognized doctrines and no disagreement 
that no matter who you are as an adult, sex with children is wrong. 
Many of us have enthusiastically supported Federal laws that already 
oppose that kind of abuse and violation.
  It is important to note that not only in the Rules Committee did 
Members have the opportunity to make the case as to the relevance of 
their amendments to this bill, but we sat for hours and hours in the 
Judiciary Committee going over amendment after amendment, amendments 
that were not about hate. They were, of course, certainly elements that 
one could raise, but they were protected in other aspects of the law. 
This bill pertains specifically to historical documented cases that, 
because of your disability or because of your race, because of your 
gender, because of your gender identity you have been abused.
  You have not seen the depth of degradation unless you've listened to 
people who have come to you in tears, who cannot, for any reason, tell 
you why they are who they are, but they say they are who they are, sort 
of a mix of words. And the pain of living as a human being who is 
rejected every day of their life, fearful that they may encounter 
brutality, that is the simplicity of this bill. That is why 31 Attorney 
Generals currently serving have said we need this. That is why they 
have asked the Federal Government simply to help us calm the 
communities, prosecute the cases, make sure that those who have a 
historical investment in themselves, who they are, can be protected; 
that a young Hispanic teenager does not have to be brutalized by 
skinheads. It is emotional, it is tearful, but it is true.
  And so when my colleagues talk about this rule, let me assure you 
that hours upon hours of attention to amendments have already been 
given, debated, presented. But what we have tried to do is to answer 
the pain, answer the violence, and yes, answer the call of 31 attorneys 
of the United States of America.
  Pass this rule so that we can debate the question of preventing hate.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, this is a critical piece of legislation, 
not from the good that it will do, but from the chilling and even 
killing effect it will have down the road on free speech.
  Now, I know that there are people that have said that this is an 
overreaction, much like people said in 1935 and 1936 that those nuts 
here on the floor that were concerned Social Security numbers, once 
created, might be used as identification numbers, and they were 
promised and assured that it would not happen. But some folks here 
could see down the road where it was going.
  Now, the rule on this is so grossly unfair. If you really want to 
deal with hate crimes, what about the hate crimes for the elderly? 
We've seen that recently. They're not part of this. No, that wasn't 
part of the agenda. You can have a 100-year-old woman beat up by some 
mean thug, but that doesn't count; we're not going to prosecute. She 
doesn't deserve protected status.
  Frankly, I had a hard time believing we were taking up this law 
immediately after the tragedy at Virginia Tech. We even had a Holocaust 
survivor that was randomly shot. I had an amendment proposed that was 
struck in committee, and the rule being proposed is a closed rule, no 
amendments, but that would address random violence. Because what we see 
is a Federal offense where a defense will be, you know what, I didn't 
hate these people,

[[Page 11160]]

I just randomly chose someone. It's a senseless act of violence. That 
will be a defense to an important element of this new created Federal 
offense.
  Another thing we keep hearing people say is, and I had an amendment 
to address this, is being shut out. We should have had a right to vote 
on this. People say, well, no, you are specifically protected under the 
rule of evidence provision in this law. We even had Mr. Davis' 
amendment that further said religious speech is protected. But what 
they don't point to is what I'm pointing to, under that it says, ``It 
may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the 
evidence specifically relates to the offense.''
  Well, when you tie that with current existing Federal law, 18 U.S.C. 
2(a), the law of principals, which is a good law, most States have it, 
the Federal Code has it, it says, Whoever aids, abets, counsels, 
commands, induces or procures a crime's commission is punishable, just 
as the principal. And for those of us who have been judges or 
prosecutors and have prosecuted or seen prosecuted people as a 
principal who didn't commit the offense, but they induced it, then you 
know every statement, things that you said to induce, could be 
introduced. That's where they go after ministers.
  I think a large part of this is the fact that many people do not 
understand a Christian heart because they just don't like people that 
disagree with them. Whereas the Christian, the true Christian heart can 
disagree with people and love them, love them deeply and be willing to 
give their lives for them.
  This is an unfair law, the way the rule is being put to it. We are 
not going to protect religious speech because you can go after a 
minister, and this came up in committee, you can go after a minister 
who says, gee, relations outside of a marriage with a man and a woman 
is wrong. Someone goes out after hearing that, shoots somebody, and 
then he says, well, the preacher told me it was wrong, that's what 
induced me to do that, the sermons, the Bible teachings, whatnot, that 
the preacher used that this person may have heard are all relevant on 
whether or not he was a principal and can go to prison for the actual 
shooting. And it also provides that nothing changes the rule of 
impeachment.
  So if he says, well, no, I never advocate violence, well, here comes 
everything he has ever said, his hard drives, his files, and we had an 
amendment to deal with that, and we were not allowed to use it.
  This is not a good law. These things are already protected. We ought 
to have an open rule to fix it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bad rule because it's a closed rule, which has 
been demonstrated with the observations of Mr. Lungren and Mr. Gohmert.
  Mr. Speaker, if someone commits a crime, they should be punished. 
Period. This is a bill that ends equality under the law by authorizing 
$10 million in grants over 2 years to State and local law enforcement 
to combat hate crimes targeted to special categories of people. It is a 
bad bill. This rule is a bad bill, not allowing for improvement, so I 
ask Members to oppose the rule and the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record at this time 
a list of endorsements from law enforcement organizations all across 
the country. I will also submit for the Record the endorsement of the 
National Education Association, the Religious Action Center of Reformed 
Judaism, the Matthew Shepard Foundation and the UAW.

        Local Law Enforcement Hate Crime Prevention Act of 2007


              law enforcement support for this legislation

       This legislation has received bipartisan majority support 
     in Congress. In the last session of Congress, on September 
     14, 2005, the House of Representatives approved the measure 
     as an amendment to the Children's Safety Act by a vote of 
     233-199. The Senate has approved the bill on two occasions 
     since 2000, most recently in June, 2004 by a vote of 65-33. 
     Unfortunately, in the past, the House leadership has acted to 
     block approval of this legislation.
       The measure also enjoys the support of over 210 civil 
     rights, professional, civic, and religious groups, 31 state 
     Attorneys General, former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, 
     and a number of the most important national law enforcement 
     organizations, including:
       Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Hispanic 
     American Police Command Officers Association, Hispanic 
     National Law Enforcement Association, International 
     Association of Chiefs of Police, International Brotherhood of 
     Police Officers, Major Cities Chiefs Association, National 
     Asian Peace Officers Association, National Black Police 
     Association, National Center for Women & Policing, National 
     Coalition of Public Safety Officers, National District 
     Attorneys Association, National Latino Police Officers 
     Association, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement 
     Executives, National Sheriffs' Association, Police Executive 
     Research Forum, Police Foundation.
       Here's what some of them are saying about the legislation:
     Police Executive Research Forum
       ``This measure is critical to helping law enforcement 
     effectively address the ravaging effects on hate crimes on 
     both the victims of these crimes and the communities 
     destabilized by the fear and anger they generate . . . In the 
     past, PERF has opposed efforts to expand the federal 
     government's authority over traditionally local crimes. 
     However, given the unusual nature of hate crimes and the 
     substantial gaps in state laws, PERF believes in a 
     significant federal role in combating hate crimes.''--
     Excerpts from letter to Members of Congress from Chuck 
     Wexler, Executive Director, PERF, July 19, 2004.
     National Sheriffs' Association
       ``On behalf of the more than 22,000 members of the National 
     Sheriffs' Association I am writing to seek your support for . 
     . . the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act [LLEEA]. 
     Unfortunately, there are situations where state and local 
     authorities are unable to properly investigate these crimes. 
     This legislation overcomes those situations . . . The passage 
     of LLEEA will greatly assist state and local law enforcement 
     agencies in investigating and prosecuting hate crimes.''--
     Excerpts from letters to congressional leadership from 
     Sheriff Aaron D. Kennard, Salt Lake City, Utah, President, 
     National Sheriffs' Association, July 21, 2004.
     Dick Thornburgh, Former U.S. Attorney General
       ``I would like to express my strong support for the passage 
     of . . . the Hate Crimes Prevention Act . . . From my 
     experiences as a Governor, the Attorney General, and as a 
     parent of a child with a disability, I can attest to the 
     importance of this legislation . . . Please add my name to 
     the list of supporters for the passage of this important 
     legislation.''--Excerpts from letter to the Honorable Orrin 
     G. Hatch, Sept. 29, 1998.
     International Association of Chiefs of Police
       ``On behalf of the International Association of Chiefs of 
     Police (IACP), I am writing to urge you to vote in support of 
     . . . the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act . . . The 
     passage of the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act will 
     greatly assist state and local law enforcement agencies in 
     investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. The IACP urges you 
     to vote for [the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act] . . 
     .''--Excerpts from letter to the Senate from Daniel N. 
     Rosenblatt, IACP Executive Director, Alexandria, Virginia, 
     July 19, 2004.
     Albany County Sheriff's Department
       ``As you know, last week saw the conclusion of the trial of 
     Aaron McKinney for the murder of Matthew Shepard, a case on 
     which we worked day and night for the last year . . . We 
     believe justice was served in this case, but not without 
     cost. We have been devastated financially, due to expenses 
     incurred in bringing Matthew's killers to justice. For 
     example, we had to lay off five law enforcement staff. We do 
     not want the federal take over of hate crimes, but 
     communities like ours must be able to call upon the expertise 
     and resources of the federal government. This approach worked 
     very well in Jasper, Texas in the case of James Byrd Jr. 
     Because of the multiple jurisdiction granted by current 
     federal law related to race-based hate crimes, Jasper was 
     able to access approximately $284,000 in federal Byrne grant 
     money. These grants are only available when a federal 
     jurisdictional basis exists. Presently, unlike race, color, 
     religion and national origin, sexual orientation is not 
     covered. We believe this is a grave oversight that needs to 
     be corrected . . . We respectfully urge you to do everything 
     you can to give law enforcement the tools it needs to fight 
     crime in this country.''--Excerpts from letter to House 
     Speaker Dennis Hastert from Sheriff James Pond and Detective 
     Sergeant Robert DeBree, Albany County Sheriff's Department, 
     Nov. 11, 1999.
     Eric Holder, Former U.S. Deputy Attorney General
       ``The enactment of H.R. 1082 [bill number for Hate Crimes 
     Prevention Act, 106th Congress] would significantly increase 
     the ability of state and federal law enforcement agencies to 
     work together to solve and prevent a wide range of violent 
     crimes committed because of bias based on the race,

[[Page 11161]]

     color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, 
     or disability of the victim. This bill is a thoughtful, 
     measured response to a critical problem facing our 
     Nation.''--Excerpts from testimony before the House Judiciary 
     Committee hearing on hate crimes, Aug. 4, 1999.
     Jeanine Pirro, District Attorney from Westchester County, 
         N.Y.
       ``The vast majority of criminal prosecutions are brought by 
     local prosecutors . . . That is the way it should remain . . 
     . However, there are times when states are unable or 
     unwilling to recognize and address fundamental issues vital 
     to our society. And, when that time comes, the federal 
     government must act. Hate crime is a civil rights issue, and 
     the proper role of the federal government in controlling this 
     menace should mirror federal action in other areas of civil 
     rights . . . I maintain hope that immediate federal action on 
     this pressing issue will encourage states . . . to enact 
     legislation of their own . . .''--Excerpts from testimony 
     before the Senate Judiciary Committee, May 11, 1999.
     Laramie, Wyoming, Police Department
       ``When it comes to the families of hate crime victims, 
     Congress needs to also be able to look these people in the 
     eyes and say it is doing all it can. In all honesty, right 
     now they cannot say this. There is much more they can do to 
     assist us in helping these families--if they can only find 
     the political will to do so . . . Yes, justice was served in 
     the end during the Shepard investigation. But the Albany 
     County Sheriff's office had to furlough five investigators 
     because of soaring costs. If the Local Law Enforcement 
     Enhancement Act were passed, this would never have happened . 
     . .''--Excerpts from press statement made by Commander David 
     O'Malley, chief investigator in the murder of Matthew 
     Shepard, Sept. 12, 2000.
     National Association of Attorneys General
       ``We are writing to express our enthusiastic support for 
     the passage of . . . the Hate Crimes Prevention Act . . . 
     Although state and local governments will continue to have 
     the principal responsibility, an expanded federal role in 
     investigating and prosecuting serious forms of hate crimes is 
     critically needed if we are to be successful in addressing 
     and deterring these crimes in our nation. The amendment to 18 
     U.S.C. Section 245 would provide invaluable tools for the 
     United States Department of Justice and the United States 
     Attorneys to combat hate crimes effectively. Therefore, we 
     strongly urge passage of this important hate crimes 
     legislation.''--Excerpts from letter signed by 31 State 
     Attorneys Generals to Speaker Dennis Hastert, Majority Leader 
     Bill Frist, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate 
     Minority Leader Harry Reid, April, 2006.
     National Center for Women & Policing
       ``. . . I want to assure you of our support for the Hate 
     Crimes Prevention Act . . . We realize the significance of 
     this important piece of legislation.''--Excerpts from letter 
     from Chief Penny Harrington, Director, National Center for 
     Women & Policing, to Elizabeth Birch, Human Rights Campaign, 
     March 23, 2000.
     National District Attorneys Association
       ``On behalf of the members of the National District 
     Attorneys Association, I am writing to express our 
     organization's support of . . . the `Local Law Enforcement 
     Enhancement Act of 2005.' . . . With local law enforcement 
     and prosecutors investigating and prosecuting approximately 
     95 percent of the crimes committed such assistance would 
     certainly provide state and local officials with the 
     necessary tools to address crimes motivated by hate. The 
     National District Attorneys Association supports [the bill] 
     not only because of its proposal to provide additional 
     resources and federal assistance to state and local 
     authorities for the investigation and prosecution of hate 
     crimes but also its recognition of the primacy of state and 
     local jurisdiction over such crimes.''--Excerpts from letter 
     to The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy, April 14, 2006.
     Police Foundation
       ``The Police Foundation urges you to support . . . [the] 
     Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act. Hate crimes are 
     extremely debilitating to individuals, groups, and entire 
     communities, and the prevention, investigation, and 
     prosecution of these crimes present important challenges for 
     local law enforcement . . . This legislation will be of 
     valuable assistance to state and local agencies . . .''--
     Excerpts from letter to Members of Congress from Hubert 
     Williams, Chairman of the Board, Police Foundation, July 26, 
     2004.
       Updated January, 2007.
                                  ____



                      support for this legislation

       The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act is 
     supported by thirty-one state Attorneys General and over 210 
     national law enforcement, professional, education, civil 
     rights, religious, and civic organizations.
       A. Philip Randolph Institute, AIDS National Interfaith 
     Network, African-American Women's Clergy Association, 
     Alliance for Rehabilitation Counseling, American-Arab Anti-
     Discrimination Committee, American Association for 
     Affirmative Action, American Association of University Women, 
     American Association on Mental Retardation, American Citizens 
     for Justice, American Civil Liberties Union, American Council 
     of the Blind, American Counseling Association, American 
     Ethical Union, Washington Office, American Federation of 
     Government Employees, American Federation of Musicians, 
     American Federation of State, County, and Municipal 
     Employees, AFL-CIO, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, 
     American Foundation for the Blind, American Jewish Committee.
       American Jewish Congress, American Medical Association, 
     American Music Therapy Association, American Network of 
     Community Options and Resources, American Nurses Association, 
     American Speech-Language Hearing Association, American 
     Therapeutic Recreation Association, American Psychological 
     Association, Americans for Democratic Action, American 
     Veterans Committee, And Justice For All, Anti-Defamation 
     League, Aplastic Anemia Foundation of America, Inc., Arab 
     American Institute, The Arc of the United States, Asian 
     American Justice Center, Asian American Legal Defense & 
     Education Fund, Asian Law Caucus, Asian Pacific American 
     Labor Alliance, Asian Pacific American Legal Center.
       Association for Gender Equity Leadership in Education, 
     AYUDA, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Bi-Net, B'nai 
     B'rith International, Brain Injury Association, Inc., 
     Business and Professional Women, USA, Catholics for Free 
     Choice, Center for Community Change, Center for Democratic 
     Renewal, Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism, Center for 
     Women Policy Studies, Central Conference of American Rabbis, 
     Chinese American Citizens Alliance, Christian Church Capital 
     Area, Church Women United, Coalition of Black Trade 
     Unionists, Coalition of Labor Union Women, Communication 
     Workers of America.
       Congress of National Black Churches, Consortium of 
     Developmental Disabilities Councils, Cuban American National 
     Council, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, 
     Disciples of Christ Advocacy Washington Network, Easter 
     Seals, The Episcopal Church, Equal Partners in Faith, 
     Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, Office for Government 
     Affairs, Fair Employment Council of Greater Washington, 
     Family Pride Coalition, Federal Law Enforcement Officers 
     Association, Federally Employed Women, Feminist Majority, 
     Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, Gender Public 
     Advocacy Coalition, General Federation of Women's Clubs, 
     Goodwill Industries International, Inc., Hadassah, Hispanic 
     American Police Command Officers Association.
       Hispanic National Law Enforcement Association, Human Rights 
     Campaign, Human Rights First, The Indian American Center for 
     Political Awareness, Interfaith Alliance, International 
     Association of Chiefs of Police, International Association of 
     Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, International Association of 
     Jewish Vocational Services, International Brotherhood of 
     Teamsters, International Dyslexia Association, International 
     Union of United Aerospace and Agricultural Implements, 
     Japanese American Citizens League, Jewish Council for Public 
     Affairs, Jewish Labor Committee, Jewish War Veterans of the 
     USA, Jewish Women International, JAC-Joint Action Committee, 
     Justice for All, LDA, The Learning Disabilities Association 
     of America, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, 
     Latino/a, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Organization, 
     Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Leadership 
     Conference on Civil Rights, LEAP--Leadership Education for 
     Asian Pacifics, Inc., Learning Disabilities Association of 
     America, League of Women Voters.
       League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Log Cabin 
     Republicans, Major Cities Chiefs Association, MALDEF--Mexican 
     American Legal Defense & Education Fund, MANA--A National 
     Latina Organization, Maryland State Department of Education, 
     Matthew Shepard Foundation, The McAuley Institute, National 
     Abortion Federation, NAACP, NAACP Legal Defense and 
     Educational Fund, Inc., NA'AMAT USA, NAKASEC--National Korean 
     American Service & Education Consortium, Inc., National Asian 
     Pacific American Women's Forum, National Asian Peace Officers 
     Association, National Association for Multicultural 
     Education, National Association of Commissions for Women, 
     National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, National Alliance of 
     Postal and Federal Employees, National Asian Pacific American 
     Bar Association.
       National Association for the Education and Advancement of 
     Cambodian, Laotian and Vietnamese Americans, National 
     Association of Collegiate Women Athletics Administrators, 
     National Association of the Deaf, National Association of 
     Developmental Disabilities Councils (NADDC), National 
     Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials 
     (NALEO), National Association of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and 
     Transgender Community Centers, National Association for 
     Multicultural Education, National Association of People with 
     AIDS, National Association of Private Schools for Exceptional 
     Children, National Association of Rehabilitation Research and 
     Training Centers, National Association of School 
     Psychologists,

[[Page 11162]]

      National Association of Social Workers, National Black 
     Police Association, National Black Women's Health Project, 
     National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Center for 
     Transgender Equality, National Center for Victims of Crime, 
     National Center for Women & Policing, National Coalition 
     Against Domestic Violence.
       National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community 
     Development, National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, 
     National Coalition on Deaf-Blindness, National Coalition of 
     Public Safety Officers, National Conference for Community and 
     Justice (NCCJ), National Congress of American Indians, 
     National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, National 
     Council of Jewish Women, National Council of La Raza, 
     National Disability Rights Network, National District 
     Attorneys Association, National Education Association, 
     National Federation of Filipino American Associations, 
     National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, National Hispanic 
     Leadership Agenda (NHLA), National Italian American 
     Foundation, National Jewish Democratic Council, National 
     Korean American Service and Education Consortium, National 
     Latino Police Officers Association, National League of 
     Cities.
       National Mental Health Association, National Multicultural 
     Institute, National Newspaper Publishers Association, 
     National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, 
     National Parent Network on Disabilities, National Partnership 
     for Women & Families, National Puerto Rican Coalition, Inc., 
     National Rehabilitation Association, National Respite 
     Network, National Sheriffs' Association, National Spinal Cord 
     Injury Association, National Spiritual Assembly of the 
     Baha'is of the United States, National Therapeutic Recreation 
     Society, National Urban League, National Victim Center, 
     National Women's Law Center, National Youth Advocacy 
     Coalition, NOW--National Organization for Women, NOW Legal 
     Defense & Education Fund, NETWORK, A National Catholic Social 
     Justice Lobby.
       Organization of Chinese Americans, ORT--Organization for 
     Educational Resources and Technological Training, Paralyzed 
     Veterans of America, Parents, Families and Friends of 
     Lesbians and Gays, People For the American Way, Police 
     Executive Research Forum, Police Foundation, Presbyterian 
     Church (USA), Washington Office, Pride at Work, Project 
     Equality, Inc., Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, Rehabilitation 
     Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North 
     America, The Rabbinical Assembly, Rock the Vote, Service 
     Employees International Union--AFL-CIO, Sikh American Legal 
     Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF), Society for the 
     Psychological Study of Social Issues, South Asian American 
     Leaders of Tomorrow (SAALT), Southeast Asia Resource Action 
     Center, Spina Bifida Association of America.
       Union of Reform Judaism, Union of Needletrades, Industrial 
     & Textile Employees (UNITE), Unitarian Universalist 
     Association, United Church of Christ--Office of Church in 
     Society, United Food and Commercial Workers International 
     Union, United Methodist Church--General Commission on 
     Religion and Race, The United States Conference of Mayors, 
     United States Student Association, United Synagogue of 
     Conservative Judaism, The Woman Activist Fund, Inc., Women of 
     Reform Judaism--Federation of Temple Sisterhoods, Women 
     Work!, Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics & Ritual, 
     Women's American ORT, YWCA of the USA.
       Updated February, 2007
                                  ____

                                                   April 30, 2007.
     Hon. James P. McGovern,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman McGovern: On behalf of the National 
     Education Association's 3.2 million members, we would like to 
     urge your support for the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes 
     Prevention Act (H.R. 1592), scheduled for floor debate this 
     week. Votes associated with these issues may be included in 
     the NEA Legislative Report Card for the 110th Congress.
       In spite of our nation's substantial advances toward 
     equality over the past 40 years, prejudice and hatred 
     continue to lead to violence. As educators, NEA members share 
     a commitment to protecting the civil and human rights of our 
     students and communities. We believe the federal government 
     must play a leadership role in confronting criminal acts 
     motivated by prejudice.
       NEA has taken aggressive steps to address the issue of hate 
     crimes in the context of schools and school districts. NEA 
     and its affiliates have worked to develop training for 
     educators and programs for students regarding hate crimes and 
     human relations skills. But our efforts in this area will not 
     be successful absent a comprehensive federal/state/local 
     partnership to address hate crimes.
       This legislation has strong bipartisan support in Congress; 
     the support of more than 210 law enforcement, civil rights, 
     civic and religious groups; and the support of the 
     overwhelming majority of American people. We urge your 
     support for this important initiative.
           Sincerely,
     Diane Shust,
       Director of Government Relations.
     Randall Moody,
       Manager of Federal Advocacy.
                                  ____

                                           Religious Action Center


                                            of Reform Judaism,

                                                   April 30, 2007.
       Dear Representative, On behalf of the Union for Reform 
     Judaism, whose more than 900 congregations across North 
     America encompass 1.5 million Reform Jews, I urge you to vote 
     for H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes 
     Prevention Act of 2007 (LLEHCPA).
       All violent crimes are reprehensible, but the damage done 
     by hate crimes cannot be measured solely in terms of physical 
     injury or dollars and cents. Hate crimes rend the fabric of 
     our society and fragment communities; they target a whole 
     group of people, not just the individual victim. By providing 
     new authority for federal officials to investigate and 
     prosecute cases in which the violence occurs because of the 
     victim's real or perceived sexual orientation, gender 
     identity, gender, or disability, the LLEHCP A will 
     significantly strengthen the federal response to these 
     horrific crimes.
       This legislation only applies to bias-motivated crimes, and 
     will not affect lawful public speech or preaching in any way. 
     States will continue to play the primary role in prosecuting 
     bias-motivated violence, but the LLEHCPA will allow the 
     federal government to intervene in cases where local 
     authorities are either unable or unwilling to investigate and 
     prosecute a criminal act as a hate crime.
       Studies demonstrate that gay, lesbian, transgender, and 
     disabled persons face a significantly increased risk of 
     violence and harassment based solely on these immutable 
     characteristics. This long-overdue legislation would rightly 
     classify violence based On sexual orientation, gender 
     identity, and disability as a hate crime under federal 
     statute. We cannot allow another Congress to slip by without 
     enactment of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention 
     Act
       As Jews, we cherish the biblical commandment found in 
     Leviticus 19:17: ``You shall not hate another in your 
     heart.'' We know all too well the dangers of unchecked 
     persecution and of failing to recognize hate crimes for what 
     they are: acts designed to victimize an entire community. We 
     also take to heart the commandment ``You may not stand idly 
     by when your neighbor's blood is being shed'' (Leviticus 
     19:16). Jewish tradition consistently teaches the importance 
     of tolerance and the acceptance of others. Inasmuch as we 
     value the pursuit of justice, we must actively work to 
     improve, open, and make safer our communities.
       This bill has come far too close to becoming law for far 
     too long. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention 
     Act of 2007 is one of our organization's top legislative 
     priorities for the 11Oth Congress. I urge you to vote for 
     this legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                           Rabbi David Saperstein,
     Director and Counsel.
                                  ____



                                   Matthew Shepard Foundation,

                                                      May 2, 2007.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the Matthew Shepard 
     Foundation and our family, we urge you to vote YES and resist 
     any amendments and motions to recommit on the Local Law 
     Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (LLEHCPA) of 2007 
     (H.R. 1592).
       Hate crimes are an unrelenting and under-addressed problem 
     in the United States. By enacting the LLEHCPA, a crucial step 
     will be taken to address violent crimes committed all too 
     often against individuals based on actual or perceived sexual 
     orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability.
       In particular, hate crimes based on sexual orientation are 
     of grave concern. According to the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation's (FBI) Unified Crime Reports, approximately 
     10,000 hate crime incidents based on sexual orientation have 
     been reported since 1998. Consistently, since 1998, hates 
     crimes based on sexual orientation have ranked as the third 
     highest category of reported incidents in the United States. 
     These are just the statistics. Behind these numbers are real 
     human beings--our son Matthew being one of them.
       Despite evidence of the grave reality of hate crimes, anti-
     gay political organizations are spreading misinformation and 
     lies. Many members of Congress have been targeted by these 
     organizations claiming that this legislation would punish 
     religious people for anti-gay speech--dubbing this a 
     ``thought crimes bill.''
       These claims are completely false. This legislation would 
     grant local law enforcement officials federal funds for the 
     investigation and prosecution of violent crimes motivated out 
     of prejudice and hate that result in serious bodily injury 
     and death. Claims that the bill would punish preaching or 
     other ways of speaking out against homosexuality ring 
     particularly hollow because the legislation was specifically 
     crafted to prevent that. Two separate provisions make clear 
     that speech unrelated to the violent crime under 
     consideration could not be used to prove a hate crime. This 
     is about violent actions.
       As the parents of a young man killed simply for being gay, 
     we refuse to be silent and

[[Page 11163]]

     let this bill be misconstrued by these organizations. Let 
     each of us be mindful that the only crime of thought we can 
     commit this week would be to let these lies take our 
     collective sights off of this vital bill and the thousands of 
     Americans who have lost their lives to senseless hate 
     violence.
       Since Matthew's death, while we have continued our own 
     personal grieving, we have met too many other parents who 
     have lost children in the same way we did. For all of those 
     parents, for our own family, and for Matthew--we are calling 
     on all members of the House of Representatives to vote YES on 
     the H.R. 1592 and to resist any attempts to kill this 
     critical piece of legislation to protect all Americans from 
     violence. If you have any questions or would like additional 
     information, please contact Brad Clark, Outreach & Advocacy 
     Director, at (303) 830-7400 or [email protected].
           Sincerely,
     Judy Shepard,
       Executive Director.
     Dennis W. Shepard,
       Chairman, Board of Directors.
                                  ____

         International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & 
           Agricultural Implement Workers of America--UAW,
                                                      May 1, 2007.
       Dear Representative: This week the House is scheduled to 
     take up the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act 
     of 2007 (H.R. 1592.) The UAW strongly supports this hate 
     crimes prevention legislation. We urge you to vote for this 
     vital legislation and to oppose any weakening amendments.
       This legislation would strengthen existing federal hate 
     crimes laws by removing unnecessary obstacles to federal 
     prosecution and providing authority for federal involvement 
     in a wider category of bias-motivated crimes. Specifically, 
     H.R. 1592 would eliminate the current requirement that the 
     crime must have been committed because of the victim's 
     involvement in a ``federally protected activity,'' such as 
     voting, serving on a jury or attending public school. It 
     would also permit federal involvement in the prosecution of 
     bias-motivated crimes based on the victim's gender, sexual 
     orientation or disability.
       This measure has repeatedly attracted majority, bipartisan 
     support in both the Senate and the House. In the 109th 
     Congress, the House of Representatives approved the text of 
     this measure as an amendment to the Children's Safety Act by 
     a vote of 223-199 on September 14, 2005. In the 108th 
     Congress, on June 15, 2004, the Senate approved this measure 
     as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2005 by a vote of 65-33. In September 2004, the 
     House approved a motion to instruct its conferees to retain 
     this provision in conference by a vote of 213-186. 
     Unfortunately, this legislation was dropped from the final 
     conference report.
       The UAW believes there is a need for a strong federal 
     response against hate crimes. Congress has an opportunity to 
     provide leadership on this vital issue by acting to 
     strengthen the federal hate crimes statute. We therefore urge 
     you to support the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes 
     Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1592) and to oppose any 
     weakening amendments.
       Thank you for considering our views on this important 
     issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Alan Reuther,
                                             Legislative Director.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us provides much needed 
support for local law enforcement agencies in the fight against violent 
hate crimes. That's why so many law enforcement agencies all across the 
country are enthusiastically supporting this legislation. That's why 31 
State Attorney Generals, including the Republican Attorney General from 
the State of Washington, supports this bill.
  Victims have reported an average of 191,000 hate crime incidents 
annually since the year 2000. Seventy-three percent of Americans 
support strengthening hate crimes laws.
  This bill, as I said, is endorsed by virtually every major law 
enforcement organization in the country. The legislation is also 
supported by President George H.W. Bush's Attorney General, Dick 
Thornburg. This legislation is virtually identical to the version 
approved by a bipartisan majority in the Republican-led 109th Congress.
  Hate crimes affect more than one individual, Mr. Speaker. It is 
committed with the intention of terrorizing a group of people or an 
entire community.
  Now, we've heard arguments from some on the other side that this bill 
somehow violates the first amendment. In fact, the measure includes an 
explicit statement that the bill may not be interpreted as limiting 
first amendment protections language that is based on the existing 
Washington State hate crime statute. The provision only applies when a 
person's conduct, not thought or speech, is being punished.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States Supreme Court has rejected the claim 
that a hate crime law is a law against thoughts. The Supreme Court 
recognized in Wisconsin v. Mitchell that it is common to take motive 
into account in criminal law.
  So to those of my colleagues who are worried about protecting bigoted 
speech, they can stop worrying because this bill, sadly, will not 
affect that kind of speech.
  Now, some have argued that this law is an unnecessary extension of 
the Federal Government. The bill provides support and resources to 
assist local law enforcement agencies. The majority of hate crimes will 
still be prosecuted at the State level. The Federal Government only has 
jurisdiction in certainly limited and extreme circumstances.
  The Federal Government has the responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to 
protect all Americans against bigotry and against violent crime.
  So what we have before us, Mr. Speaker, is relatively simple; you 
either support providing an expansion of civil liberties and civil 
rights and civil protections under the law, or you don't. So that is 
the question that my colleagues have to deal with.
  I think the answer is simple. I think we should support this 
legislation. This is a good bill. It should enjoy bipartisanship 
support because it has in the past. I would urge all of my colleagues 
to support this rule and to support the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of 
the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, 
nays 196, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 296]

                               YEAS--217

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne

[[Page 11164]]


     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--196

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Engel
     Fattah
     Gingrey
     Graves
     Hirono
     Hunter
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Lampson
     McMorris Rodgers
     Moran (VA)
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Radanovich
     Tancredo
     Tanner

                              {time}  1124

  Mr. DUNCAN, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, and Mr. BURGESS changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 296, I was attending a 
hearing on S. 310, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 
2007 and missed this vote. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213, 
noes 199, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 297]

                               AYES--213

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--199

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Boucher
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Engel
     Fattah
     Gingrey
     Graves
     Heller
     Hunter
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)

[[Page 11165]]


     Lampson
     McMorris Rodgers
     Moran (VA)
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Radanovich
     Tancredo
     Tanner

                              {time}  1134

  Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 364, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 1592) to provide Federal assistance to States, local 
jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for 
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1592

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Local Law Enforcement Hate 
     Crimes Prevention Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or 
     perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, 
     sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the 
     victim poses a serious national problem.
       (2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of 
     communities and is deeply divisive.
       (3) State and local authorities are now and will continue 
     to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority 
     of violent crimes in the United States, including violent 
     crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out 
     their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal 
     assistance.
       (4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this 
     problem.
       (5) A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated 
     by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and 
     the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages 
     the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be 
     selected.
       (6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce 
     in many ways, including the following:
       (A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, 
     and members of such groups are forced to move across State 
     lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.
       (B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from 
     purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining 
     employment, or participating in other commercial activity.
       (C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.
       (D) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of 
     interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of 
     such violence.
       (E) Such violence is committed using articles that have 
     traveled in interstate commerce.
       (7) For generations, the institutions of slavery and 
     involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and 
     ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary 
     servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption 
     of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, through widespread public and private violence 
     directed at persons because of their race, color, or 
     ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, 
     eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means 
     of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, 
     incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.
       (8) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th 
     amendments to the Constitution of the United States were 
     adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious 
     and national origin groups were and are perceived to be 
     distinct ``races''. Thus, in order to eliminate, to the 
     extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of 
     slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of 
     real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to 
     the extent such religions or national origins were regarded 
     as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 
     15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
       (9) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes 
     motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local 
     authorities to work together as partners in the investigation 
     and prosecution of such crimes.
       (10) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is 
     sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as 
     to warrant Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, 
     and Indian tribes.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.

       In this Act--
       (1) the term ``crime of violence'' has the meaning given 
     that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;
       (2) the term ``hate crime'' has the meaning given such term 
     in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and
       (3) the term ``local'' means a county, city, town, 
     township, parish, village, or other general purpose political 
     subdivision of a State.

     SEC. 4. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS 
                   BY STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 
                   OFFICIALS.

       (a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--At the request of State, local, or Tribal 
     law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide 
     technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of 
     assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of 
     any crime that--
       (A) constitutes a crime of violence;
       (B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or Tribal 
     laws; and
       (C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or 
     perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, 
     sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the 
     victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Tribal hate 
     crime laws.
       (2) Priority.--In providing assistance under paragraph (1), 
     the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed 
     by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one State 
     and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the 
     extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or 
     prosecution of the crime.
       (b) Grants.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General may award grants to 
     State, local, and Indian law enforcement agencies for 
     extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and 
     prosecution of hate crimes.
       (2) Office of justice programs.--In implementing the grant 
     program under this subsection, the Office of Justice Programs 
     shall work closely with grantees to ensure that the concerns 
     and needs of all affected parties, including community groups 
     and schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed 
     through the local infrastructure developed under the grants.
       (3) Application.--
       (A) In general.--Each State, local, and Indian law 
     enforcement agency that desires a grant under this subsection 
     shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such 
     time, in such manner, and accompanied by or containing such 
     information as the Attorney General shall reasonably require.
       (B) Date for submission.--Applications submitted pursuant 
     to subparagraph (A) shall be submitted during the 60-day 
     period beginning on a date that the Attorney General shall 
     prescribe.
       (C) Requirements.--A State, local, and Indian law 
     enforcement agency applying for a grant under this subsection 
     shall--
       (i) describe the extraordinary purposes for which the grant 
     is needed;
       (ii) certify that the State, local government, or Indian 
     tribe lacks the resources necessary to investigate or 
     prosecute the hate crime;
       (iii) demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement 
     the grant, the State, local, and Indian law enforcement 
     agency has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, 
     nongovernmental victim services programs that have experience 
     in providing services to victims of hate crimes; and
       (iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this 
     subsection will be used to supplement, not supplant, non-
     Federal funds that would otherwise be available for 
     activities funded under this subsection.
       (4) Deadline.--An application for a grant under this 
     subsection shall be approved or denied by the Attorney 
     General not later than 30 business days after the date on 
     which the Attorney General receives the application.
       (5) Grant amount.--A grant under this subsection shall not 
     exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any 1-year 
     period.
       (6) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2008, the Attorney 
     General shall submit to Congress a report describing the 
     applications submitted for grants under this subsection, the 
     award of such grants, and the purposes for which the grant 
     amounts were expended.
       (7) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

     SEC. 5. GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) Authority To Award Grants.--The Office of Justice 
     Programs of the Department of Justice may award grants, in 
     accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may 
     prescribe, to State, local, or Tribal programs designed to 
     combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs 
     to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, 
     investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST 
                   STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department 
     of the Treasury and the Department of Justice, including the 
     Community Relations Service, for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 
     2010 such sums as are necessary to increase the number of 
     personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations of 
     section

[[Page 11166]]

     249 of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 7 of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 7. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 13 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, 
     religion, or national origin.--Whoever, whether or not acting 
     under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any 
     person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an 
     explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily 
     injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived 
     race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--
       ``(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in 
     accordance with this title, or both; and
       ``(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for 
     life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
       ``(i) death results from the offense; or
       ``(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to 
     kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit 
     aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
       ``(2) Offenses involving actual or perceived religion, 
     national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, 
     or disability.--
       ``(A) In general.--Whoever, whether or not acting under 
     color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph 
     (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through 
     the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary 
     device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, 
     because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, 
     gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of 
     any person--
       ``(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in 
     accordance with this title, or both; and
       ``(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for 
     life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

       ``(I) death results from the offense; or
       ``(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to 
     kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit 
     aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

       ``(B) Circumstances described.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this 
     subparagraph are that--
       ``(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs 
     during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the 
     defendant or the victim--

       ``(I) across a State line or national border; or
       ``(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of 
     interstate or foreign commerce;

       ``(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or 
     instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in 
     connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);
       ``(iii) in connection with the conduct described in 
     subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, explosive 
     or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in 
     interstate or foreign commerce; or
       ``(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--

       ``(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity 
     in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or
       ``(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.

       ``(b) Certification Requirement.--No prosecution of any 
     offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the 
     United States, except under the certification in writing of 
     the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the 
     Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General 
     specially designated by the Attorney General that--
       ``(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to 
     believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, 
     national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, 
     or disability of any person was a motivating factor 
     underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and
       ``(2) such certifying individual has consulted with State 
     or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution 
     and determined that--
       ``(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not 
     intend to exercise jurisdiction;
       ``(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government 
     assume jurisdiction;
       ``(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government 
     assuming jurisdiction; or
       ``(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State 
     charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal 
     interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.
       ``(c) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `explosive or incendiary device' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;
       ``(2) the term `firearm' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 921(a) of this title; and
       ``(3) the term `gender identity' for the purposes of this 
     chapter means actual or perceived gender-related 
     characteristics.
       ``(d) Rule of Evidence.--In a prosecution for an offense 
     under this section, evidence of expression or associations of 
     the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence 
     at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that 
     offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules 
     of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for 
     chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

``249. Hate crime acts.''.

     SEC. 8. STATISTICS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (b)(1) of the first section of 
     the Hate Crimes Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is 
     amended by inserting ``gender and gender identity,'' after 
     ``race,''.
       (b) Data.--Subsection (b)(5) of the first section of the 
     Hate Crimes Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by 
     inserting ``, including data about crimes committed by, and 
     crimes directed against, juveniles'' after ``data acquired 
     under this section''.

     SEC. 9. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this 
     Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any 
     person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the 
     remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and 
     the application of the provisions of such to any person or 
     circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McNulty). Pursuant to House Resolution 
364, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill, 
modified by the amendment printed in House Report 110-120, is adopted 
and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 1592

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Local Law Enforcement Hate 
     Crimes Prevention Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.

       In this Act--
       (1) the term ``crime of violence'' has the meaning given 
     that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;
       (2) the term ``hate crime'' has the meaning given such term 
     in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and
       (3) the term ``local'' means a county, city, town, 
     township, parish, village, or other general purpose political 
     subdivision of a State.

     SEC. 3. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS 
                   BY STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 
                   OFFICIALS.

       (a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--At the request of State, local, or Tribal 
     law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide 
     technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of 
     assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of 
     any crime that--
       (A) constitutes a crime of violence;
       (B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or Tribal 
     laws; and
       (C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or 
     perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, 
     sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the 
     victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Tribal hate 
     crime laws.
       (2) Priority.--In providing assistance under paragraph (1), 
     the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed 
     by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one State 
     and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the 
     extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or 
     prosecution of the crime.
       (b) Grants.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General may award grants to 
     State, local, and Indian law enforcement agencies for 
     extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and 
     prosecution of hate crimes.
       (2) Office of justice programs.--In implementing the grant 
     program under this subsection, the Office of Justice Programs 
     shall work closely with grantees to ensure that the concerns 
     and needs of all affected parties, including community groups 
     and schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed 
     through the local infrastructure developed under the grants.
       (3) Application.--
       (A) In general.--Each State, local, and Indian law 
     enforcement agency that desires a grant under this subsection 
     shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such 
     time, in such manner, and accompanied by or containing such 
     information as the Attorney General shall reasonably require.
       (B) Date for submission.--Applications submitted pursuant 
     to subparagraph (A) shall be submitted during the 60-day 
     period beginning on a date that the Attorney General shall 
     prescribe.
       (C) Requirements.--A State, local, and Indian law 
     enforcement agency applying for a grant under this subsection 
     shall--
       (i) describe the extraordinary purposes for which the grant 
     is needed;
       (ii) certify that the State, local government, or Indian 
     tribe lacks the resources necessary to investigate or 
     prosecute the hate crime;
       (iii) demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement 
     the grant, the State, local, and Indian law enforcement 
     agency has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, 
     nongovernmental

[[Page 11167]]

     violence recovery service programs that have experience in 
     providing services to victims of hate crimes; and
       (iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this 
     subsection will be used to supplement, not supplant, non-
     Federal funds that would otherwise be available for 
     activities funded under this subsection.
       (4) Deadline.--An application for a grant under this 
     subsection shall be approved or denied by the Attorney 
     General not later than 30 business days after the date on 
     which the Attorney General receives the application.
       (5) Grant amount.--A grant under this subsection shall not 
     exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any 1-year 
     period.
       (6) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2008, the Attorney 
     General shall submit to Congress a report describing the 
     applications submitted for grants under this subsection, the 
     award of such grants, and the purposes for which the grant 
     amounts were expended.
       (7) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

     SEC. 4. GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) Authority To Award Grants.--The Office of Justice 
     Programs of the Department of Justice may award grants, in 
     accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may 
     prescribe, to State, local, or Tribal programs designed to 
     combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs 
     to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, 
     investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST 
                   STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department 
     of Justice, including the Community Relations Service, for 
     fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010 such sums as are necessary 
     to increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to 
     alleged violations of section 249 of title 18, United States 
     Code, as added by section 7 of this Act.

     SEC. 6. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 13 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, 
     religion, or national origin.--Whoever, whether or not acting 
     under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any 
     person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an 
     explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily 
     injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived 
     race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--
       ``(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in 
     accordance with this title, or both; and
       ``(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for 
     life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
       ``(i) death results from the offense; or
       ``(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to 
     kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit 
     aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
       ``(2) Offenses involving actual or perceived religion, 
     national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, 
     or disability.--
       ``(A) In general.--Whoever, whether or not acting under 
     color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph 
     (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through 
     the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary 
     device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, 
     because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, 
     gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of 
     any person--
       ``(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in 
     accordance with this title, or both; and
       ``(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for 
     life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

       ``(I) death results from the offense; or
       ``(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to 
     kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit 
     aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

       ``(B) Circumstances described.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this 
     subparagraph are that--
       ``(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs 
     during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the 
     defendant or the victim--

       ``(I) across a State line or national border; or
       ``(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of 
     interstate or foreign commerce;

       ``(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or 
     instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in 
     connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);
       ``(iii) in connection with the conduct described in 
     subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, explosive 
     or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in 
     interstate or foreign commerce; or
       ``(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--

       ``(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity 
     in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or
       ``(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.

       ``(b) Certification Requirement.--No prosecution of any 
     offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the 
     United States, except under the certification in writing of 
     the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the 
     Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General 
     specially designated by the Attorney General that--
       ``(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to 
     believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, 
     national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, 
     or disability of any person was a motivating factor 
     underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and
       ``(2) such certifying individual has consulted with State 
     or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution 
     and determined that--
       ``(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not 
     intend to exercise jurisdiction;
       ``(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government 
     assume jurisdiction;
       ``(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government 
     assuming jurisdiction; or
       ``(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State 
     charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal 
     interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.
       ``(c) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `explosive or incendiary device' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;
       ``(2) the term `firearm' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 921(a) of this title; and
       ``(3) the term `gender identity' for the purposes of this 
     chapter means actual or perceived gender-related 
     characteristics.
       ``(d) Rule of Evidence.--In a prosecution for an offense 
     under this section, evidence of expression or associations of 
     the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence 
     at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that 
     offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules 
     of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections at the beginning of chapter 13 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new item:

``249. Hate crime acts.''.

     SEC. 7. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this 
     Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any 
     person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the 
     remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and 
     the application of the provisions of such to any person or 
     circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

     SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, 
     shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct 
     protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities 
     protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the 
     First Amendment to the Constitution.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) 
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
H.R. 1592.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the hate crimes bill, H.R. 1592, will provide assistance 
to State and local enforcement agencies and amend Federal law to 
facilitate the investigation and prosecution of violent, bias-motivated 
crimes.
  Last Congress, this legislation passed with a bipartisan vote, and it 
also passed in the 108th Congress and the 106th Congress. So we have 
the same bill before us that we had in the 109th Congress.
  This legislation has attracted the support of over 211 civil rights 
organizations, educational institutions, religious organizations, civic 
groups; and importantly, virtually every major law enforcement 
organization in the country has endorsed the bill, including the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National District 
Attorneys Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the Police 
Executive Research Forum and 26 State attorneys general.
  Hate crimes are disturbingly prevalent and pose a significant threat 
to the full participation of all Americans in our democratic society. 
It just so happens that we documented 113,000 hate crimes by the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and in the year 2005, the most current 
data available, the FBI

[[Page 11168]]

compiled reports on law enforcement agencies across the country, 
identifying 7,163 bias-motivated criminal incidents.
  The fact of the matter that is known to law enforcement is that hate 
crime incidents are notoriously underreported; and so we come here 
today to take the civil rights laws that we have passed across the 
years to the last, final extent, to crimes of violence based on the 
hate of the individual, intended to intimidate the class or group that 
that individual comes from.
  We have a strong bill. We have more supporters than ever in the 
Congress and in the national community, and we know that the current 
law limits Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes against individuals on 
the basis of race, religion, color or national origin, but only when 
the victim is targeted because he or she is engaged in a Federal 
protected activity, such as voting.
  Further, the existing statutes do not permit Federal involvement in a 
range of cases where the crimes are motivated by bias against the 
victims' actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender 
identity or disability.
  This legislation, identical to the version approved in the 109th 
Congress, will strengthen existing Federal law in the same way that the 
Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 helped Federal prosecutors combat 
church arson, by addressing the rigid jurisdictional requirements under 
Federal law and expand the jurisdiction to crimes motivated by bias 
against the victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, 
gender identity or disability.
  This bill only applies to bias-motivated crimes of violence. It does 
not impinge on public speech or writing in any way. In fact, the 
measure improves two explicit first amendment free speech protections 
for the accused, and we want you to know that there are no first 
amendment disabilities about this measure in any way. As a personal 
advocate of the first amendment, I can assure you that that would be 
the last thing that would be allowed to be in this bill.
  What we are saying now is that a vote for this bill is not a vote in 
favor of any particular sexual belief or characteristic. It is a vote, 
rather, to provide basic rights for and protection for individuals so 
that they are protected from assaults based on their sexual 
orientation.
  But the majority of incidents reported on racially motivated crimes, 
54 percent, are based on racially motivated crimes, 17 percent on 
religious bias, and 14 percent on sexual orientation bias.
  The time has come for the Congress to finally deal with this whole 
subject of hate crimes. It is a blot on our constitutional 
understanding of what democracy is all about, and it is so important 
that today we debate and pass finally the hate crimes law that has been 
here and approved in three different Congresses.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill, H.R. 1592, for three reasons. First, 
the bill will result in disproportionate justice for crime victims who 
do not fall within the categories it contains. Second, it will have a 
chilling effect on religious freedom and first amendment rights. And 
third, it is probably unconstitutional and raises significant 
Federalism issues.
  We can all agree that every violent crime is deplorable, regardless 
of its motivation. Every violent crime can be devastating not only to 
the victim, but also to the larger community whose public safety has 
been violated. That is why all violent crimes must be vigorously 
prosecuted. However, this bill, no matter how well intended, undermines 
basic principles of our criminal justice system.
  Our criminal justice system has been built on the ideal of equal 
justice for all. Under this bill, justice will no longer be equal, but 
depend on the race, sex, sexual orientation, disability or status of 
the victim. It will allow different penalties to be imposed for the 
same crime. For example, criminals who kill a homosexual or transsexual 
will be punished more harshly than criminals who kill a police officer, 
a member of the military, a child, a senior citizen or any other 
person.

                              {time}  1145

  To me, all victims should have equal worth in the eyes of the law. In 
fact, in 1984, Congress, in a bipartisan manner, enacted the Sentencing 
Reform Act to ensure the consistent application of criminal penalties 
to avoid, ``unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants who 
have been found guilty of similar criminal conduct.''
  Why are we departing from the fairness embodied in that Act? 
Ordinarily, criminal law does not concern itself with motive, but 
rather with intent.
  This legislation forces law enforcement officials to comb the 
offender's past to determine whether the offender ever expressed 
hostility toward a protected group. In addition, the bill raises the 
real possibility that religious leaders or members of religious groups 
could become the subject of a criminal investigation focusing on a 
suspect's religious beliefs, membership and religious organizations and 
any past statements made by a suspect. A chilling effect on religious 
leaders and others who, press their constitutionally protected beliefs, 
unfortunately, could result.
  Some of my colleagues on the other side will claim that an amendment 
adopted during committee markup protects religious speech. However, it 
would not diminish the chilling effect of possible involvement in 
criminal investigations. Religious speakers and groups will feel in 
greater jeopardy as a result of this bill.
  The facts of the Supreme Court decision in Wisconsin v. Mitchell 
underscore the danger of this legislation. In that case, Todd Mitchell 
received an enhanced hate crime sentence because of remarks he made to 
prior to others attacking a teenager because of his race. Mitchell did 
not participate in the physical assault of the teenager. His sentence 
was upheld. He was punished for his words.
  My colleagues on the other side have argued that no prosecutor would 
ever subject members of a religious community to the criminal process. 
Are we willing to take the risk and leave the first amendment 
protections to a prosecutor's discretion?
  I also believe the bill itself is probably unconstitutional and will 
likely be struck down by the courts. There is little evidence to 
support the claim that hate crimes impact interstate or foreign 
commerce, an important consideration for any Federal court reviewing 
the constitutionality of this legislation.
  In 2000, the Supreme Court in the United States v. Morrison struck 
down a prohibition on gender-motivated violence. In that case, the 
court specifically warned Congress that the commerce clause does not 
apply to noneconomic violent criminal conduct that does not cross State 
lines, nor does the proposed legislation authorized under the 14th and 
15th amendments. Those amendments only extend to State action and do 
not cover the actions of private persons who commit violent crimes.
  While the 13th amendment reaches private conduct such as individual 
criminal conduct, it is difficult to argue that one's sexual 
orientation, disability or gender identity constitutes a badge and 
incidence of slavery. Aside from the constitutional defects of this 
bill, it purports to federalize crimes that are being effectively 
prosecuted by our States and local governments.
  FBI statistics show that the incidence of so-called hate crimes has 
actually declined over the last 10 years. Only six of approximately 
15,000 homicides in the Nation involved hate crimes.
  As the Washington Post stated in a previous editorial, ``Rape, murder 
and assault--no matter what prejudice motivates the perpetrator--are 
presumptively local matters in which the Federal Government should 
intervene only when it has a pressing interest. The fact that hatred 
lurks behind a violent incident is not, in our view, an adequate 
Federal interest . . .''

[[Page 11169]]

  Unfortunately we cannot legislate away the hatred that some feel in 
their hearts. We need fewer labels and more unity in our country. For 
all the reasons I have mentioned above, I oppose the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a 
distinguished member of the committee, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, the House today has a historic opportunity 
to expand upon the principles of equal rights and equal protection 
embodied in our Constitution by passing the Local Law Enforcement Hate 
Crimes Prevention Act.
  This Act would offer Federal protections for victims of hate crimes 
targeted because of their race, color, religion, national origin, 
sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability. These 
characteristics are included in this hate crimes legislation, not 
because they deserve any special protection as opponents of this 
legislation claim, but because of the history of particularly heinous 
and violent crimes committed against individuals based on such 
characteristics. That's what warrants this inclusion.
  I wanted to share several stories about why this legislation is so 
important. I only have time for one. Let us never forget the story of 
Matthew Shepard, who was brutally attacked by his hateful, homophobic 
assailants and left to die on a fence in a remote area of Wyoming.
  Matthew's death generated international outrage by exposing the 
violent nature of hate crimes and its horrific effect on the entire 
targeted commune. The sponsors of the Senate hate crimes legislation 
have renamed the bill the Matthew Shepard Act. Today we have been 
joined by Matthew's mother, Judy Shepard and a lead investigator in 
this case, David O'Malley, who are still courageously advocating for 
the passage of this legislation more than 8 years after Matthew's 
death.
  The passage of hate crimes legislation is long overdue. This will be 
critical for both symbolic and substantive reasons. The legal 
protections are essential to our system of ordered justice and 
essential for ensuring that those who commit heinous crimes are 
punished. But on a symbolic basis, it is important for Congress to 
enunciate clearly that hate-based violence targeting women, gays, 
lesbians, transgender individuals and people with disabilities will no 
longer be tolerated.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Conyers, Chairman Scott, and 
the staff of the Judiciary Committee for their diligent work in 
bringing the bill to the floor.
  Hate crimes are different than other violent crimes because they seek 
to instill fear into a whole community--be it burning a cross in 
someone's yard, the burning of a synagogue, or a rash of aggravated 
batteries of people outside a gay community center. These are crimes 
motivated by prejudice and meant to send a message to society and 
others who belong to the same category. This sort of domestic terrorism 
demands a strong, federal response because this country was founded on 
the premise that persons should be free to be who they are--without 
fear of violence.
  I want to share with you a few reasons why the passage of this 
legislation is so urgent and necessary. Last week in Committee, we 
heard from a very young man, Mr. David Ritcheson, who was brutally 
beaten last year by two individuals due to his ethnicity as a Mexican-
American. Mr. Ritcheson spent the next 3 months and 8 days in the 
hospital, recovering from severe internal injuries. Yet because the 
attack took place in a private yard rather than an area of public 
access, the FBI had no grounds to investigate the attack under existing 
hate crimes laws.
  The story of Brandon Teena also demonstrates the need for this 
legislation. Dramatized in the movie ``Boys Don't Cry,'' Brandon was 
raped and later killed after the discovery of his biological gender by 
two acquaintances. Five days before his murder, Brandon reported his 
rape and beating by the same perpetrators, but the Richardson County 
Nebraska Sheriff would not pursue the case against Brandon's attackers.
  Let us never forget the story of Matthew Shepard, who was brutally 
attacked by his hateful homophobic assailants and left to die on a 
fence in a remote area of Wyoming. Matthew's death generated 
international outrage by exposing the violent nature of hate crimes and 
its horrific effect on the targeted community. I remember the impact 
locally in Wyoming. I was in the midst of my first campaign for 
Congress in October 1998. Many gay and lesbian youths roughly Matthew's 
age were working on my campaign. I remember the impact of the crime on 
them. They were afraid for their safety, and that is precisely the 
effect these crimes have. The sponsors of the Senate hate crimes 
legislation have renamed the bill the Matthew Shepard Act, and today we 
are joined by Matthew's mother Judy Shepard and the lead investigator 
in his case David O'Malley, who are still courageously advocating for 
the passage of this legislation more than 8 years after Matthew's 
tragic death. Mr. Speaker, the passage of hate crimes legislation is 
long overdue.
  The passage of H.R. 1592 today will be critical for both substantive 
and symbolic reasons. The legal protections are essential to our system 
of ordered justice and essential for ensuring that those who commit 
these heinous crimes are punished . . . but on a symbolic basis, it is 
important for Congress to enunciate clearly that hate-based violence 
targeting women, gays and lesbians, transgender individuals, and people 
with disabilities will no longer be tolerated.
  The opponents of this legislation will disseminate a lot of 
misinformation today in order to derail this bill. But make no mistake, 
the legislation we are considering today has been carefully crafted to 
protect an individual's First Amendment right to speech, expression, 
and association. It also provides much needed federal resources to 
local law enforcement authorities without usurping local authority. 
Finally, the bill is fully consistent with Supreme Court precedence on 
both First Amendment and interstate commerce cases.
  Our society is not perfect; the passage of the Local Law Enforcement 
Hate Crimes Prevention Act will not make all hate crimes go away. H.R. 
1592 is about giving state, local, and federal law enforcement 
authorities the necessary resources and tools to combat violent crimes 
based on prejudice and intended to terrorize a group of people or an 
entire community. Such hate crimes are in desperate need of a federal 
response, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in support of this 
bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) a senior member of the 
Judiciary Committee and a former attorney general of California.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, hate crimes are a serious issue. That's why 45 out of 
the 50 States have laws against them. That's why we have an already 
existing Federal law where there is a Federal interest involved.
  Unfortunately, this bill is not necessary or is not drawn 
appropriately for any specific Federal problem. Some 20 years ago, I 
remember supporting the gentleman from Massachusetts against an effort 
by a Member on my side of the aisle to remove homosexuals from 
protection under the Hate Crimes Act at the time, that is the Hate 
Crimes Statistics Act. That went to the definition.
  I am concerned about the definition in this bill. I mentioned this 
during the rule. In this rule there is no definition of sexual 
orientation, which becomes a protected class in the sense of enhanced 
penalty or a new crime for protection for such a victim.
  We asked whether we would put the definition that is noted in the 
statute that goes to the sentencing commission in the bill. In fact, 
many on the committee said that I had a good idea. Yet, I was denied 
the opportunity in committee and in the Rules Committee to present 
that.
  So, therefore, we have no definition of sexual orientation. I wanted 
the simple definition that's recognized in the note to the sentencing 
commission, which limits it to homosexual or heterosexual conduct. So, 
now we have an undefined term of sexual orientation.
  Why am I concerned about it? Because I come from the State of 
California, where, for the past 20 years, we have had a problem dealing 
with an organization called NAMBLA, North American Man/Boy Love 
Association. They march in parades. They asserted the right, under the 
first amendment, to be able to hold their meetings in the local chapter 
in a library in my district. That's a sexual orientation.

[[Page 11170]]

  Without limiting the definition, as I asked us to do, we open up the 
potential for creating a new protected class. I do not understand why 
the majority refused to allow us a serious amendment to just define 
what this is and get rid of this problem.
  We were told, look at the statute. It defines it. We found out it 
didn't. It said it does it by reference. We went to it. The only 
reference is to a note to the sentencing commission. It is not defined.
  If this is not taken care of, this bill, I know it's not the intent, 
but it becomes essentially a NAMBLA Protection Act, because it allows 
that sort of conduct or any other sexual orientation to be considered 
because there is a lack of definition.
  Why you didn't allow it, I don't know. But you didn't allow it. On 
that grounds alone, this bill ought not to go forward.
  This bill needs to be reviewed, it needs to be amended, it needs to 
be perfected. It doesn't do what it claims it does. It has an expansion 
beyond all that anybody would support. At least in the committee they 
told me they didn't support it.
  They said they would take care of it. They didn't take care of it. I 
asked for a simple amendment in the Rules Committee. We were denied a 
simple amendment. I don't know why you are doing this, but it is a 
failure of this bill and will probably defeat this bill.


                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  First of all, I want to assure my friend Mr. Lungren, the former 
attorney general of California, that we have no opposition about 
dealing with the definition of which he complained.
  I also take this opportunity to remind him that 26 State attorney 
generals, just like you were, approved this bill.
  Now I turn to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Bobby Scott, 
and I yield him 2 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, bias-based crimes are an unfortunate reality in this 
country. This legislation is necessary because existing law, 18 U.S.C. 
section 245(b)(2) does not protect individuals from violent acts based 
on race, color, national origin or religion, unless the defendant 
intended to interfere with the victims' participation in certain 
enumerated Federal activities.
  Additionally, Federal law does not presently provide for hate crime 
protection at all for a tax based on sexual orientation, gender, gender 
identity or disability.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill also addresses many of the express concerns 
about the first amendment rights to free speech and association. H.R. 
1592 addresses these concerns by providing an evidentiary exclusion, 
which prohibits the government from introducing evidence of expression 
or association as substantive evidence at trial, unless it is directly 
relevant to the elements of the crime.
  This provision will ensure that defendants will only be prosecuted 
and convicted based on their criminal acts, not on what they say or 
what they believe, or because of the people with whom they are 
associated. There are some of us who criticize the bill as an improper 
exercise of Federal jurisdiction. But based on testimony and the issues 
of the witnesses at our hearings, this legislation has been carefully 
drafted to address the Supreme Court's decisions in Lopez and Morrison, 
which limited Congress' jurisdiction to pass legislation.
  Furthermore, H.R. 1592, in response to the gentleman's complaint, 
Federal prosecutors must confer with State authorities to decide 
whether Federal jurisdiction is appropriate, and no prosecution can 
proceed without the express approval of the United States attorney 
general or his designee. Additionally at trial they must prove a valid 
Federal interest as a specific element of the crime.
  In addition to creating new hate crime offenses and expanding the 
application of existing ones, this bill also establishes an important 
grant program to provide financial assistance to States, local, and 
tribal law enforcement agencies to provide much-needed assistance in 
investigating high-profile crimes.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill has broad support. For these reasons, I urge 
my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), a senior member of the Judiciary 
Committee and a ranking member of the IP subcommittee.
  Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill before us.
  All crimes are deplorable, particularly when they are motivated by 
some form of discrimination. But this bill, in my opinion, does nothing 
to prevent these acts. States and Federal governments traditionally 
prosecute hate crimes now. I agree with the argument that this bill 
would unfairly classify crimes against certain groups of people, and 
ignore others such as law enforcement, children, veterans or senior 
citizens who deserve the same degree of protection.

                              {time}  1200

  I am concerned that this legislation will lead to unseemly 
investigations, possibly into thoughts and beliefs, which could have 
the effect of criminalizing religious or political speech.
  Furthermore, I understand that the legislation does not have a nexus 
with interstate commerce that would survive a constitutional challenge.
  I understand the need to protect vulnerable people, Mr. Speaker, and 
I support funding to help community safety and to prosecute criminals, 
but I cannot support this legislation.
  Oftentimes, Mr. Speaker, those of us who oppose hate crime 
legislation are accused of being uncaring and insensitive. Now, to 
those charges I plead ``not guilty,'' but I oppose this, among other 
reasons, because hate crime legislation is duplicative. There is 
sufficient statutory relief readily available now to aggrieved victims. 
There is such a thing as having too many laws, and I think this would 
result if we enact this today, and I urge its defeat.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to 
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, as one of the lead Republican cosponsors of H.R. 1592, I 
am pleased we are considering this legislation, which will allow the 
Justice Department to investigate crimes committed on the basis of the 
victims race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual 
orientation, gender identity or disability.
  Under this bill, hate crimes that cause death or bodily injury 
because of prejudice can be investigated federally, regardless of 
whether the victim was exercising a federally protected right.
  In my judgment, violence based on prejudice is a matter of national 
concern that federal prosecutors should be empowered to punish if the 
States are unable or unwilling to do so.
  Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said:

       We must scrupulously guard the civil rights and civil 
     liberties of all citizens, whatever their background. We must 
     remember that any oppression, any injustice, any hatred, is a 
     wedge designed to attack our civilization.

  That statement is no less true today than it was back then. I urge 
support of this legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this as the original 
cosponsor of this legislation. We find that a hate crime can ignite 
group-on-group violence that would tear a community apart. We have seen 
it in other countries; we want to make sure it never happens here.
  This is especially dangerous when group-on-group violence can 
overwhelm a small suburban police department, and this offers 
assistance so that a small problem doesn't become a big problem and 
doesn't become a national

[[Page 11171]]

problem. We saw when Rodney King was beaten that a riot broke out in 
Beloit, Wisconsin, and overwhelmed that police department.
  So to be able to make sure that the Federal Government can defend the 
Nation and to make sure that our country stands not just for freedom 
and democracy, but also tolerance, is one reason why we should follow 
enactment of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, under President George 
Herbert Walker Bush, to also pass this legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Feeney), a member of the Judiciary Committee and a 
former speaker of the Florida house.
  Mr. FEENEY. I am very grateful to the ranking member.
  Mr. Speaker, hate is an awful thing, but we cannot punish people for 
what is in their hearts. We cannot punish people and make it a crime 
for what people are thinking. We punish acts in this country.
  Unfortunately, I think this bill is badly misnamed. This bill should 
not be called the hate crimes bill, this should be called the unequal 
protection bill, because what it does is to say that the dignity and 
the property and the person and the life of one person gets more 
protection than another American. That is just wrong. With respect to 
my friend from Illinois, who just said hate crimes can tear this 
country apart, that is what this bill does. It gives different people 
the protection of their life, their property, and their person based on 
their special status.
  We need to treat all Americans equally. Justice ultimately must turn 
on the fundamental word of each and every human being as equal before 
God and before the law. This bill undermines both of those principles.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, the gentleman from New York, 
Mr. Jerry Nadler, for 2 minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with violent crimes committed against 
victims who are singled out solely because someone doesn't like who 
they are.
  Violent attacks because of actual or perceived race, color, religion, 
national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or 
disability often cause serious injury or death. They are more serious 
than a normal assault because they target not just an individual, but 
an entire group. They spread terror to all members of the group and 
often deter them from exercising their constitutional rights, sometimes 
for simply walking down the wrong street.
  The only question for Members is whether they believe that singling 
out a person for a crime of violence because of his or her race or 
religion or because any other trait is sufficiently heinous to merit 
strong punishment.
  For many years, Mr. Speaker, Congress debated what were known as the 
Federal lynching laws. They were designed to deal with the widespread 
practice of lynching primarily African Americans. There was staunch 
resistance to those laws here in Congress. For three decades, they did 
not pass while thousands were lynched. We heard many of the same 
arguments then that we are hearing today. That was not a proud period 
in our Nation's history. Today, we can do the right thing. I hope we 
can agree to do so.
  Under current law, the attackers of someone like Michael Sandy of 
Brooklyn, who was attacked simply because he was walking down a street 
and he was gay, could not be prosecuted for a hate crime because, under 
existing law, only victims targeted because they are engaged in a 
federally protected activity, such as voting, are protected. This bill 
expands the definition to cover all violent crimes motivated by race, 
color, creed, national origin, et cetera.
  This is not an issue of free speech. This bill deals only with crimes 
of violence in which the victim is selected with his or her status.
  The law routinely looks to the motivation of a crime and treats the 
more heinous of them differently. Manslaughter is different from 
premeditated murder, which is different from a contract killing. We all 
know how to make these distinctions. The law does it all the time. We 
ought to do it here; we ought to say that crimes of violence motivated 
by one's status are particularly heinous and ought to be treated as 
such.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee yielding to me.
  This bill before us today is one that I have dreaded seeing come 
before the American people.
  I was born in 1949. That was the year that George Orwell published 
the book ``1984.'' I offered an amendment in committee to change the 
title of this bill from the Hate Crimes bill to the Thought Crimes 
bill. In fact, you are seeking to punish thought. And even though the 
gentleman from Virginia has stated correctly that under this bill, they 
will be prosecuting crimes, they will also be sentenced for thoughts.
  Orwell wrote in 1949 in the book ``1984,'' ``We are not interested in 
those stupid crimes that you have committed. The party is not 
interested in any overt act. The thought is all that we care about. We 
do not merely destroy our enemies; we change them. Do you understand 
what I mean by that?''
  And he goes on to define ``crimethink,'' which is exactly the bill 
before us today. And he defines it this way: ``To even consider any 
thought not in line with the principles of Ingsoc. Doubting any of the 
principles of Ingsoc. All crimes begin with a thought. So, if you 
control thought, you control crime. Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime 
does not entail death. Thoughtcrime is death, the essential crime that 
contains all others in and of itself.''
  And the definition of ``Ingsoc'' is English socialism, which is how 
he defined the coming creeping of socialism and Marxism that he feared.
  So I make that point strongly that we have now come to this. ``1984'' 
has manifested itself on the floor of the United States Congress with 
the belief that, somehow or another, we can divine what somebody thinks 
and then punish them for it. And I have been called a racist on the 
floor of this House for using the term ``cultural continuity.'' How can 
someone who could make that allegation who has been elected to the 
United States Congress be sitting on a jury of me? We judge by a jury 
of our peers, or the peers of the accused and what's in their mind. 
That's a thoughtcrime in and of itself.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield 1 minute now to a distinguished member of the 
Judiciary Committee, Mr. Ellison of Minnesota.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, it is horribly sad that anyone would want 
to vocalize hateful ideas, but it is not illegal. What Don Imus said 
about African American women was legal though deplorable. But violence 
is not. Violence is different. Violence is acts, if motivated by 
hateful thoughts, that make an impact on the community that is much 
more harmful than to the individual. It expands to an entire community 
and injects an immobilizing, terrorizing fear into that community which 
makes it even more wrong than an act against an individual.
  When Eric Richey drove his Mustang into the largest mosque in Ohio on 
September 16, 2001, he didn't just destroy a building, he injected fear 
into an entire community.
  My question is this: Why do you want to protect thugs and 
hatemongers? Why don't you want to stand with the civilized community 
and say, hate is wrong and we must stop it now?
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Pence), also a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today in strong 
opposition to the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. It 
would be Thomas Jefferson who would remind the American people that the 
government reaches actions only and not opinions, in his famous letter 
to the Danbury Baptists.

[[Page 11172]]

  This legislation is unnecessary and bad public policy. Violent 
attacks on people or property are already illegal regardless of the 
motive behind them, and there is no evidence that underlying violent 
crimes at issue here are not already being fully and aggressively 
prosecuted. Therefore, hate crimes laws serve no practical purpose and, 
instead, serve to penalize people for their thoughts and beliefs.
  Now, some of these thoughts and beliefs are abhorrent, like racism 
and sexism, and I disdain them. But hate crimes bills are broad enough 
to encompass legitimate beliefs as well, and protecting the rights of 
freedom of speech and religion must be paramount on our minds.
  The first amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting the 
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. 
There is a real possibility that this bill, as written, that religious 
leaders or members of religious groups could be prosecuted criminally 
based on their speech or protected activities under conspiracy laws or 
section 2 of title XVIII, which holds a person criminally liable if 
they aid and abet in the commission of a crime. Putting a chill on a 
pastor's words or a religious broadcaster's programming, an evangelical 
leader's message, or even the leader of a small group Bible study is a 
blatant attack on the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of 
religion.
  Last week, I offered an amendment before the committee that simply 
would have stated that nothing in this section limits the religious 
freedom of any person or group under the Constitution. Unfortunately, 
this amendment was rejected by the majority and rejected by the Rules 
Committee for consideration today.
  We must guard against the potential for abuse of hate crimes laws. 
The Pence amendment would have done so by stating, once and for all, 
that people in groups will not have their constitutionally guaranteed 
right to freedom of religion taken away.
  On this National Day of Prayer, let's take a stand for the right of 
every American to believe and speak and pray in accordance with the 
dictates of their conscience and reject this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today in strong opposition to 
H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
  As Thomas Jefferson once said, ``Believing with you that religion is 
a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes 
account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the 
legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American 
people which declared that their legislature should `make no law 
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free 
exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church 
and State.''
  This legislation is unnecessary and bad public policy. Violent 
attacks on people or property are already illegal regardless of the 
motive behind them and there is no evidence that the underlying violent 
crimes at issue here are not already being fully and aggressively 
prosecuted in the States. Therefore, hate crimes laws serve no 
practical purpose and instead serve to penalize people for their 
thoughts, beliefs or attitudes.
  Some of these thoughts, beliefs or attitudes such as racism and 
sexism are abhorrent, and I disdain them. However the hate crimes bill 
is broad enough to encompass legitimate beliefs, and protecting the 
rights of freedom of speech and religion must be paramount in our 
minds.
  The First Amendment to the Constitution provides that ``Congress 
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' America was founded upon the 
notion that the government should not interfere with the religious 
practices of its citizens. Constitutional protection for the free 
exercise of religion is at the core of the American experiment in 
democracy.
  There is a real possibility that as this bill is written, religious 
leaders or members of religious groups could be prosecuted criminally 
based on their speech or protected activities under conspiracy law or 
section 2 of title 18, which holds criminally liable anyone who aids, 
abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission; or one 
who ``willfully causes an act to be done'' by another.
  In the debate at the Judiciary Committee, much was made of the fact 
that an amendment was adopted by the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Davis. 
However, that amendment did not go far enough in making it clear that 
the bill will not limit religious freedom. The sponsor of the amendment 
admitted that a pastor could still be targeted under the bill for 
incitement of violence for simply preaching his religious beliefs. For 
example if a pastor included a statement in his sermon that sexual 
relations outside of marriage is wrong, and a member of the 
congregation caused bodily injury to a person having such relations, 
that sermon could be used as evidence against the pastor.
  Putting a chill on a pastor's words, a religious broadcaster's 
programming, an evangelical leader's message, or even the leader of a 
small-group Bible study is a blatant attack on the Constitutionally-
guaranteed right to freedom of religion.
  Last week when the Judiciary Committee took up this bill, I offered 
an amendment to make it clear that the bill will not affect the 
Constitutional right to religious freedom.
  The Pence Amendment stated, ``Nothing in this section limits the 
religious freedom of any person or group under the Constitution.''
  Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated by the majority in the 
Judiciary Committee. Yesterday, I submitted the Pence Religious Freedom 
Amendment to the Rules Committee for consideration, but that committee 
chose to adopt a closed rule for today's debate, effectively blocking 
my amendment and many other good amendments from consideration.
  We must guard against the potential for abuse of hate crimes laws, 
and the Pence Amendment would have done so by stating once and for all 
that people and groups will not have their Constitutionally-guaranteed 
right to religious freedom taken away.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill threatens religious freedom by criminalizing 
religious thoughts. On this National Day of Prayer, let's take a stand 
for the right of every American to believe, speak and pray in 
accordance with the dictates of their conscience. Take a stand for 
religious freedom and the First Amendment and vote no on the Local Law 
Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield to a 
distinguished Member on the Judiciary Committee, Steve Cohen of 
Tennessee, for 1 minute.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand in support 
of this bill. The fact is, these crimes, the victims of which have been 
Matthew Shepard, James Byrd, Emmett Till over the years have shocked 
the conscience of this country, and that is why they need special 
treatment.
  When you look at the laws and the type of activities that we are 
looking at, discrimination based on race, color, religion, national 
origin, or disabilities, you are looking at the same people that the 
Nazis tried to exterminate. If you were Jewish, if you were black, if 
you were disabled, if you were gay, the Nazis made a systematic attempt 
to eliminate you. And people who do that, even if they are not 
governments, should be punished, because that is the type of conduct 
that this world has seen and abhors and went to war for; and our U.S. 
attorneys should be given the ammunition to go to war against people 
that perpetrate those type of crimes.
  And if you stand against this, what's going to happen? Certain 
villainous hooligans will maybe get less time. These are the people we 
need to lock up and put away, because this is a country about life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and everybody gets an 
opportunity.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Judiciary Committee, and also 
the ranking deputy member of the Crimes Subcommittee.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, this bill starts off with a preamble that 
makes it faulty to begin with.
  There are all kinds of recitations in the beginning, factual, so-
called findings that were not supported and are not supported by any 
evidence. That is a major problem here.
  First of all, people want to talk about how desperately this is 
needed to stop hate-based crimes. However, there are laws that protect 
every man, woman, and child from violent acts. In fact, I have heard my 
colleague across the aisle reference that the Matthew Shepard case 
shows how desperately we need hate crime legislation. Those 
perpetrators that did that horrible act

[[Page 11173]]

both got life sentences under regular murder laws. This was not 
necessary.
  People in committee threw up the Byrd case, a horrible tragedy where 
a man was dragged to his death simply because he was African American. 
Those two main perpetrators got the death penalty, and no hate crime 
that has been passed would address that.
  Now, these statistics, if you really want to look at the facts before 
we pass bad legislation that is not justified by the facts, and I do 
take issue with the preamble's fact findings. There is no evidence to 
support them. But let's look.
  Since 1995, the FBI statistics show that we have gone from 9,500 to 
12,400 agencies reporting, more of the country is being covered, and 
yet a steady decline has gone from right at 8,000 to 7,100 incidents.

                              {time}  1215

  Offenses have gone down near well a thousand, to 8,300. Victims have 
gone down 1,600. Offenders have gone down 1,600. The laws are working. 
What this is trying to do is protect a class from any ill speech, 
anything that's derogatory.
  Now, friends across the aisle say no, no, no. We put that in the 
bill. We've got an amendment that protects that. But if you go to the 
law in this bill, it says that, yeah, religious or protected speech 
would not be used at trial, unless it pertains or is relevant to the 
offense. And as anybody that's prosecuted someone as a principal, not a 
conspiracy, but a principal, a principal under Federal law, it says 
whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, procures a crime's 
commission is punishable as if he committed the crime.
  And this is where this is going; ministers reading from the Bible, 
rabbis reading from the Torah, imams reading from the Koran who say 
sexual activity outside of marriage of a man and a woman is wrong, if 
they have somebody from their flock, some nut go out and commit a crime 
of violence and, by the way, this is not a restricted crime of 
violence. It could be violence against property. It can be a touching 
to be bodily injury. We've lowered the standard in this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased now to recognize the gentleman 
from Alabama, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, Artur 
Davis for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, there's a pastor back home who has 
a card that he carries around with him and it says, made by God, return 
to the Creator upon expiration.
  As a person of faith, if you believe that, as I do, you have to 
believe that that admonition and that promise applies not just to you 
and your kind, but to people who may be different, act different, think 
different, and look different. So this is the simplest way I can put 
this to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  If you are a person of faith, you have a Bible-based problem with 
hate. And if you have a Bible-based problem with hate, it's legitimate 
to say that hate ought to be punished a little bit more. That's all 
this legislation says.
  Obviously, it must be done consistent with the first amendment, and 
that is why I offered an amendment that was accepted in committee and 
that my good friend, Lamar Smith from Texas, not only voted for, but 
praised during the markup. The amendment says specifically, nothing in 
this statute shall change the terms of the first amendment as they 
exist.
  So this is as simple as I can put this to my good friend, Mr. 
Gohmert. The only people who ought to fear this bill are people who 
would say to another human being, you ought to do violence against 
someone else. I don't know a man of God or woman of God who would take 
to any pulpit in the land, any synagogue or mosque in the land and say, 
do violence to another one of God's children. And because I have 
confidence in people of faith and know they wouldn't do that, I know 
they won't be hurt by this bill. And, by the way, I say that as the 
only Democrat on the committee who voted against gay marriage.
  This bill ought to be passed, and I ask my colleagues to do so.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
fro Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin).
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments about 
faith and God. And I am a woman of God. I oppose hate, and I think all 
crimes are awful. And I have a great disdain for violence produced by 
hate.
  But this bill is the wrong solution for an ideal goal. It is horrible 
for anyone to hate for any class, race or religion or sexual 
orientation. Violence produced by hate is already outlawed. Why would 
we, as a Nation, want to divide our American citizens into various 
categories of more worthy or less worthy of whatever protection the law 
can give them? What happened to the great ideal this Nation was founded 
on of equal, equal protection under law?
  The hate crimes bill will chill the first amendment rights of 
religious groups. This hate crimes bill will chill the first amendment 
rights of the religious groups, and the government will be required to 
prove the suspect's thoughts as a category of the victim involved in 
the crime.
  Religious groups may become the subject of criminal investigations in 
order to determine the suspect's religious beliefs, membership in 
religious organization, or past statements about persons associated 
with specific categories. Religious leaders will be chilled from 
expressing their religious views for fear of involvement in the 
criminal justice system.
  This hate crime bill will result in unequal justice for all and the 
restriction of one of our ideals that has made this Nation great, free 
speech.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased now to recognize the most 
distinguished civil rights leader that we have serving in the House of 
Representatives, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. John Lewis. And I 
yield to him 1 minute.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, hate is too heavy a burden to 
bear. We have the opportunity, with this bill, to move this Nation one 
step forward toward laying down the burden, the burden of hate. With 
this legislation, we can send the strongest possible message that 
violence against our fellow citizens because of race, color, national 
origin, religion, sexual orientation or transgender will not be 
tolerated.
  It was the Great Teacher who said, ``As much as you have done it unto 
the least of these, you have done it unto me.''
  During the 1950s and the 1960s, as a participant in the Civil Rights 
Movement, I tasted the bitter fruits of hate, and I didn't like it. I 
saw some of my friends beaten, shot and killed because of hate. Hate is 
too heavy a burden to bear. It also was the Great Teacher who said, 
``Love you one another.'' He didn't say hate you one another.
  We're one people. We're one family. We all live in the same house. It 
doesn't matter whether we're gay or straight. We're one people.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased now to yield to the 
distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) for 1 minute.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Last night, Mr. Speaker, I re-read Martin Luther King, 
Jr.'s ``Letter from a Birmingham City Jail.'' In that letter, King 
dealt with the notion of timing. He said to us that time is never 
right; time is never wrong; that time actually is neutral, and it's 
only what we make it. We can use it constructively, or we can use it 
destructively.
  King went on to say that it's always the right time to do that which 
is right.
  Now, a lot of people on yesterday told me that this was the wrong 
time to bring this legislation. For a moment, I agreed. But reflecting 
on Dr. King's admonition that the time is always right to do right, I 
come before this body today to ask us to use the time that we have 
before us to do right by those people who may not be like us.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, this is a serious

[[Page 11174]]

issue, and people ought to recognize it's a serious issue.
  There is something called hate crimes. And in the past, the Supreme 
Court has looked at issues to try and differentiate between mere speech 
and speech connected with conduct and how you articulate a law in a 
proper way that does not offend the first amendment, which allows 
terrible speech. One of the prices of our democracy and one of the 
prices of this society is to allow terrible speech, not to say you 
accept it, but to allow it.
  And so the Supreme Court has carefully reviewed hate crime 
legislation. When I was attorney general of California, we issued an 
amicus brief before the Supreme Court to support one version of the 
hate crime legislation in one State that was similar to ours in 
California. We declined to do it in another State. And in that one in 
which we declined to do it, the Supreme Court found that it was afoul 
of the law.
  That's why I think it's very, very important how we carefully 
construct a hate crimes bill. The underlying premise of this bill is 
that we should extend the already existing Federal hate crimes 
legislation, which has a Federal nexus, based on the individual victim 
or victims being involved in a protected Federal activity.
  This bill goes beyond that and suggests that the constitutional nexus 
with Federal activity is that hate directed against the particular 
protected classes here somehow restricts interstate commerce. And I 
would just suggest that the findings in the bill did not have evidence 
to back it up. And I think there may very well be a constitutional 
attack that is successful in the Court on that. That's why we are 
concerned about the way this is written.
  Second, there are those who suggest that we will not have the concern 
become a reality expressed by some on this floor and by some outside 
this floor that this somehow will chill free speech. The suggestion is 
we've carefully crafted the legislation so that's not to be the case.
  I would just direct our attention to another section of the bill 
which calls for participation by the Federal Government in the 
investigation and prosecution of crimes at the State level which 
delineates the definition of hate crimes in the first two paragraphs 
but, in the third paragraph says, or any other hate crime established 
by State law. So what we are doing is extending it beyond the carefully 
constructed definitions that we have in this bill, considering the 
constitutional questions and extended it far beyond that. That is 
another legitimate concern about this bill.
  And so I would just say that I hope we don't get totally involved in 
the argument that there are no hate crimes and they, therefore, never 
should be involved in our criminal justice system, versus that they are 
the worst of all crimes, or they are so essentially different from 
others that those who are subjected to attacks because of a random 
attitude by the perpetrator, or for reasons outside the protected 
class, somehow don't have the sufficiency of interest or the 
sufficiency of importance to be included.
  Hate crimes exist in our society. Hate crimes are to be condemned in 
our society. As I said before, that's why 45 States have done so, most 
of them successfully in negotiating the shows of constitutional concern 
that are created by the first amendment. And therefore, one might 
suggest that we need to review this in far greater detail than we've 
been allowed thus far.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds to respond to my 
dear friend from California (Mr. Lungren).
  The purpose of this hate crime bill is to supplement State and local 
actions. It is not to take over.
  Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hank 
Johnson, member of the Judiciary Committee, 1 minute.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, we've had Federal hate crime 
legislation on the books since 1968. It covered violent crimes targeted 
against persons based upon race, color, religion and national origin.
  Now we've got folks who don't want us to extend this hate crime 
legislation to those who would be attacked because of their gender, 
sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of the victim, and 
this at a time, Mr. Speaker, when one in six hate crimes is motivated 
by the victim's sexual orientation. And yet today's Federal laws don't 
include any protection for these Americans.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. It is the right 
thing to do. It is the humane thing to do. Let's bring protection to 
those who need it now, 39 years later after the act was enacted.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this legislation because, at its core, 
its purpose is to punish thought; and to respectfully suggest that this 
new majority continues to bring sad and divisive legislation to the 
floor.
  All violent crime is wrong. All violent crime is founded in hate.
  This legislation will easily move us to the point of punishing 
thought and punishing motive. Hate crimes have already been used to 
suppress speech opposed by cultural elites. In New York, for example, 
city officials recently cited hate crime principles to force a pastor 
to remove billboards containing biblical quotations on sexual morality.
  Many pastors and ministers from around this Nation adamantly oppose 
this legislation. And to bring this forward on the National Day of 
Prayer adds insult to injury and may, in fact, be hateful.
  The hate crimes bill creates a new Federal thought crime. The bill 
requires law enforcement officials to probe, infer, or deduce if a 
crime occurred because of a bias towards a protected group. A 
criminal's thoughts will be considered an element of the crime.
  Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that one can never reliably 
determine the true thought or motive of a criminal.
  And with thought crimes come thought police. What a sad day.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the 
chairman of our caucus, Mr. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to hate and discrimination, 
America speaks with one voice, ``no.'' Zero tolerance. You cannot be a 
beacon of freedom around the world and fail that test here at home.
  President Kennedy was moved on the civil rights movement because he 
understood, in the battle of the Cold War, you could not be a beacon 
for freedom against intolerance around the world if we weren't free 
here at home. You could not. And as we talk, all our colleagues always 
say, as we battle on the issues on the war in Iraq, Islamic fascism, 
the whole world will watch what we say here in Congress.
  People will watch this vote and understand, most importantly, whether 
America remains true to its principles on freedom or not. People will 
watch this vote. And I would hope my colleagues will remember, as we do 
this today, that every time America widens the circle of democracy to 
protect more of its citizens who sit in the shadows, it is true to its 
principles.
  I would hope people will vote ``yes'' on this legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to a 
distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary from Houston, 
Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, with great emotion, I come to 
this floor.
  Congressman Frank, let me thank you. No one that may be listening had 
the opportunity to listen to Congresswoman Baldwin and you speak of 
your existence.
  So I rise today to make sure that everyone understands that this bill 
is about hate. Regular order is in place. It is about protecting young 
people who

[[Page 11175]]

have an identity that is different from any of us. It is about 
reflecting the definition of hatred that says that it is an affection 
of the mind awakened by something regarded as evil. Can we in America 
regard human life as evil?
  Even as Christians, and many of us are not, the Bible dictates about 
the instruction of loving thy neighbor. This bill reflects on the needs 
of African Americans and Hispanics and the disabled and those with 
gender identity. It reflects on the fact that brutality and viciousness 
because of hate cannot be tolerated by a country that believes we are 
all created equal.
  This is a fair bill. It does not encourage you to change your faith, 
but it encourages you to adhere to democracy and to the Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1592, the ``Local Law 
Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.'' Mr. Speaker, as 
important as it is to apprehend, prosecute, convict, and punish 
severely those who commit hate crimes, we can all agree that in the 
long run it is even more important and better for society if we can 
increase our effectiveness in eradicating the desire to commit a hate 
crime in the first place. I have long believed, and research confirms, 
that if a person does not acquire a proclivity to hate as a juvenile, 
he or she is not likely to be motivated to commit crimes out of hate as 
an adult.
  Mr. Speaker, Webster's Dictionary defines hate as a ``strong 
aversion; intense dislike; hate; an affection of the mind awakened by 
something regarded as evil.''
  Mr. Speaker, before I proceed any further, I would be remiss if I 
failed to note that this legislation is more timely than any of us 
could have predicted just a month ago. Two weeks ago, at Virginia Tech 
University, one of the Nation's great land grant colleges, we witnessed 
the most senseless acts of violence on a scale unprecedented in our 
history. Neither the mind nor the heart can contemplate a cause that 
could lead a human being to inflict such injury and destruction on 
fellow human beings. The loss of life and innocence at Virginia Tech is 
a tragedy over which all Americans mourn and the thoughts and prayers 
of people of goodwill everywhere go out to the victims and their 
families. In the face of such overwhelming grief, I hope they can take 
comfort in the certain knowledge that unearned suffering is redemptive.
  But the carnage at Virginia Tech also commands that we here in this 
body take a stand against senseless acts of violence taken against 
persons for no reason other than that they are different, whether in 
terms of race, religion, national origin, gender, or sexual 
orientation. It is long past time for our national community to declare 
that injuries inflicted on any member of the community by another 
simply because he or she is different poses a threat to the peace and 
security of the entire community. For that reason alone, such conduct 
must be outlawed and punished severely. That is why I have, Mr. 
Speaker, since 1999 introduced and supported strong legislation to 
deter and punish hate crimes, including as noted earlier, H.R. 254, the 
``David Ray Hate Crime Prevention Act of 2007'' pending in this 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, every act of violence is tragic and harmful in its 
consequences, but not all crime is based on hate. A ``hate crime'' is 
the violence of intolerance and bigotry, intended to hurt and 
intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, 
religion, sexual orientation, or disability.
  The purveyors of hate use explosives, arson, weapons, vandalism, 
physical violence, and verbal threats of violence to instill fear in 
their victims, leaving them vulnerable to more attacks and feeling 
alienated, helpless, suspicious and fearful. Others may become 
frustrated and angry if they believe the local government and other 
groups in the community will not protect them. When perpetrators of 
hate are not prosecuted as criminals and their acts not publicly 
condemned, their crimes can weaken even those communities with the 
healthiest race relations.
  Of all crimes, hate crimes are most likely to create or exacerbate 
tensions, which can trigger larger community-wide racial conflict, 
civil disturbances, and even riots. Hate crimes put cities and towns at 
risk of serious social and economic consequences. The immediate costs 
of racial conflicts and civil disturbances are police, fire, and 
medical personnel overtime, injury or death, business and residential 
property loss, and damage to vehicles and equipment. Long-term recovery 
may be hindered by a decline in property values, which results in lower 
tax revenues, scarcity of funds for rebuilding, and increased insurance 
rates.
  Mr. Speaker, a study funded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics 
released September 2000, shows that 85 percent of law enforcement 
officials surveyed recognize bias-motivated violence to be more serious 
than similar crimes not motivated by bias.
  Hate crimes are destructive and divisive. A random act of violence 
resulting in injury or even death is a tragic event that devastates the 
lives of the victim and their family, but the intentional selection and 
beating or murder of an individual because of who they are terrorizes 
an entire community and sometimes the Nation. For example, it is easy 
to recognize the difference between check-kiting and a cross burning; 
or an arson of an office building versus the intentional torching of a 
church or synagogue. The church or synagogue burning has a profound 
impact on the congregation, the faith community, the greater community, 
and the Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, some opponents of hate crimes legislation claim that 
such legislation is a solution in search of a problem. They claim that 
there is no epidemic of bias-motivated violence and thus no need to 
legislate. I wish to briefly address this claim.


                        victims and perpetrators

  According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, racially motivated 
hate crimes most frequently target blacks. 6 in 10 racially biased 
incidents target blacks, and 3 in 10 incidents targeted whites. 
Hispanics of all races were targeted in 6.7 percent of incidents and 
Asians in 3 percent. Younger offenders were responsible for most hate 
crimes and most of their victims were between 11 and 31. The age of 
victims of violent hate crimes drops dramatically after age 45. Thirty-
one percent of violent offenders and 46 percent of property offenders 
were under age 18. Thirty-two percent of hate crimes occurred in a 
residence, 28 percent in an open space, 19 percent in a retail 
commercial establishment or public building, 12 percent at a school or 
college, and 3 percent at a church, synagogue, or temple.


                    examples of CRS hate crime cases

  In Harris County--Houston--Texas, in a case that drew national 
attention, 16-year-old David Ray Ritcheson, a Mexican-American, was 
severely assaulted April 23, 2007, by 2 youths while attending a party 
in the Houston suburb of Spring, Texas. One of his teen-age attackers, 
a skinhead, yelled ethnic slurs and kicked a pipe up his rectum, 
severely damaging his internal organs and leaving him in the hospital 
for 3 months and 8 days--almost all of it in critical care. For the 
supposed crime of allegedly kissing a white girl, young David Ray's 
assailants punched him unconscious, kicked him in the head, 
sadistically inflicted 17 cigarette burns that still scar his body, 
poured bleach on his face and body, and then assaulted with a pipe 
taken from a patio umbrella. He was left lying unconscious and 
unattended in the back yard of a house for more than 8 hours. He has 
endured more than 30 operations to restore his appearance and regain 
the normal use of his bodily functions.
  In Jasper, Texas, an African-American man, James Byrd, Jr., was 
brutally murdered by being kidnapped, beaten unconscious, spray painted 
in the face with black paint, tied to the back of a pick-up truck, 
pants dropped down to his ankles, dragged 2.5 miles over pavement 
through a rural Black community in Jasper County called Huff Creek, 
leaving his skin, blood, arms, head, genitalia, and other parts of his 
body strewn along the highway, his remains were dumped in front of a 
Black cemetery.

  In Springfield, Missouri, an African-American male in the company of 
a white female was stabbed at local Denny's restaurant by a group of 
white males.
  Near San Diego, California, elderly immigrant workers were attacked 
by white youths. The body of a Latino immigrant youth was also 
discovered in the same vicinity as the attacks on the workers.
  An African-American employee of a construction company in Marquette, 
Kansas, reported that he had been racially harassed for several months 
by fellow employees through racist graffiti and name-calling.
  A Jewish synagogue was vandalized by 4 Arab-American males in the 
Bronx, New York.
  Every individual's life is valuable and sacred, and even one life 
lost is too many. There is ample evidence that violent, bias-motivated 
crimes are a widespread and serious problem in our Nation. But it is 
not the frequency or number of these crimes alone, that distinguish 
these acts of violence from other types of crime; it is the impact 
these crimes have on the victims, their families, their communities 
and, in some instances, the Nation.
  Evidence indicates that bias-motivated crimes are underreported; 
however, statistics show that since 1991 over 100,000 hate crime 
offenses have been reported to the FBI, with 7,163 reported in 2005, 
the FBI's most recent reporting period. Crimes based on race-related 
bias were by far the most common, representing 54.7 percent of all 
offenses for 2005. Crimes based on religion represented 17.1

[[Page 11176]]

percent and ethnicity/national origin, 13.2 percent. Crimes based on 
sexual orientation constituted 14.2 percent of all bias-motivated 
crimes in 2005, with 1,017 reported for the year.
  The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP), a non-
profit organization that tracks bias incidents against gay, lesbian, 
bisexual and transgender people, reported 1,985 incidents for 2005 from 
only 13 jurisdictions, compared to the 12,417 agencies reporting to the 
FBI in 2005.
  Additionally, the Hate Crimes Statistics Act makes the reporting of 
bias-motivated crimes by State and local jurisdictions voluntary, 
resulting in no participation by many jurisdictions each year. Hawaii, 
for instance, did not participate in reporting at all in 2005. 
Underreporting is also common. Wyoming, for instance, reported only 4 
incidents for 2005. Six States reported 10 or fewer incidents in 2005. 
Some large cities have been egregiously deficient in reporting hate 
crimes. Jacksonville, Florida, for example, reported only 5 incidents 
in 2005.
  Sadly, statistics only give a glimpse of the problem. It is widely 
recognized that violent crimes on the basis of sexual orientation often 
go unreported due to fear and stigmatization. A Department of Justice 
report released in October 2001 confirms that bias-motivated crimes are 
under-reported; that a disproportionately high percentage of both 
victims and perpetrators of these violent crimes are young people under 
25 years of age; and that only 20 percent of reported hate crimes 
result in arrest.
  A December 2001 report by the Southern Poverty Law Center, SPLC, a 
nonprofit organization that monitors hate groups and extremist activity 
in the United States, went so far as to say that the system for 
collecting hate crimes data in this Nation is ``in shambles.'' SPLC 
estimates that the real number of hate crimes being committed in the 
United States each year is likely closer to 50,000, as opposed to the 
nearly 8,000 reported by the FBI.
  Next, Mr. Speaker, let me address the specious claim that H.R. 1592 
abridges free speech. Opponents seem to be complaining that the 
legislation would prohibit pursuant to Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of 
Evidence, the introduction of substantive evidence of the defendant's 
expression or associations, unless the evidence specifically relates to 
the offense or is used to impeach a witness. In this way, the 
legislation strikes the appropriate balance between two competing 
interests: the interest of the government in punishing hate crimes and 
the rights of the defendant.
  Hate crimes legislation allows society to prescribe greater 
punishments for hate crimes because of the distinct emotional harm they 
cause their victims, the community unrest they incite, and the 
likelihood that they will provoke retaliatory crimes. See Wisconsin v. 
Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 488 (1993) (upholding a hate crimes punishment 
enhancement statute). However, H.R. 1592 also protects a defendant's 
rights by only permitting the introduction of evidence within the 
confines of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the First Amendment.
  The First Amendment protects speech and expressive conduct. Our bill 
only punishes criminal conduct, which is not protected by the First 
Amendment. Any argument that this legislation punishes expressive 
conduct would likely be unsuccessful because using violence to convey 
one's ideas is outside the scope of the First Amendment. NAACP v. 
Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 916 (1982). In Wisconsin v. 
Mitchell the Court distinguished between statutes that are explicitly 
directed at expression and statutes that are directed at conduct. 508 
U.S. at 487. The Court upheld the statute in Wisconsin v. Mitchell 
because it was directed at criminal conduct, unlike the statute at 
issue in R.A.V. v. St. Paul, which the Court struck down because it was 
explicitly directed at expression. Id. The critical flaw with the 
statute at issue in R.A.V. was that it was viewpoint discriminatory: It 
prohibited otherwise permissible speech based on the subject and 
perspective of the speech. R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 391 
(1992).
  H.R. 1592 does not ban religious, political, or offensive speech, or 
even punish expressive conduct, such as cross burning or flag burning. 
Rather, the legislation is only directed at criminal conduct that is 
independently criminal, such as assault or murder. It punishes conduct 
that is already criminal more severely because of the defendant's 
motivation in choosing the victim. Thus, evidence of a defendant's 
expressions and associations properly can be admitted under certain 
circumstances.
  Moreover, Mr. Speaker, nothing in this legislation would prohibit the 
lawful expression of one's deeply held religious beliefs. If they wish, 
any person will continue to be free to say things like: ``Homosexuality 
is sinful''; ``Homosexuality is an abomination''; or ``Homosexuals will 
not inherit the kingdom of heaven.'' This is because H.R. 1592 only 
covers violent actions committed because of a person's sexual 
orientation that result in death or bodily injury.
  Mr. Speaker, the American public opinion strongly favors this 
legislation. According to a recent survey by Peter Hart and Associates, 
voters overwhelmingly favor expanding the definition of hate crimes to 
include crimes against people based on sexual orientation or gender 
identity. Three in four (73 percent) voters favor Congress's expanding 
the definition of hate crimes in this way, including 62 percent who 
strongly favor it. Just 22 percent oppose this action, with 17 percent 
who strongly oppose it.
  Support for hate crimes definition expansion is strong across the 
board. Large majorities of every major subgroup of the electorate--
including such traditionally conservative groups as Republican men (56 
percent) and evangelical Christians (63 percent)--express support for 
this proposal. Support also crosses racial lines, with three in four 
whites (74 percent), African Americans (74 percent), and Latinos (72 
percent) favoring Congress's including sexual orientation and gender 
identity in the definition of hate crimes.
  Voters believe strongly in government's obligation to protect all 
citizens, the fact that crimes based on prejudice are directed against 
an entire community, and that it would give local law enforcement extra 
help in solving crimes.
  Voters soundly reject arguments against this proposal. Whether it is 
the idea that it creates unequal treatment under the law; that it 
attacks the moral and religious beliefs of those opposed to 
homosexuality; or that it equates being gay with being Black or a 
woman, arguments against the hate crimes bill are not compelling to the 
public.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, by passing H.R. 1592 we also pay fitting 
tribute to David Ray Ritcheson of Spring, Texas, my constituent, 
friend, and a very courageous young man. David Ray, a victim of one of 
the most horrible hate crimes in Harris County, Texas came forward to 
tell his story to the Crime Subcommittee in the hopes of saving others 
from experiencing a similar brutal ordeal. In coming forward, he has 
performed a valuable service to our Nation. In going forward with H.R. 
1592 and seeing it through to final passage, this Committee is also 
performing a great service to our Nation by hastening the day when we 
make hate history.
  In conclusion, let me say that I strongly support H.R. 1592 and will 
vote to report the bill favorably to the full Committee.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to Jan 
Schakowsky of Illinois.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman.
  I am so proud to stand here against hate, but even more, I feel 
compelled to stand here against violence.
  When the categories of people that are named in this bill were 
picked, it wasn't sort of a capricious or random or even a liberal bias 
sort of thing, that we want to support certain people or single them 
out. It is because the statistics show us and the law enforcement 
community who supports this bill has said, these are the victims of 
violence. They are named for only one reason and that's it. And we are 
talking about people who are victims of assault, of brutal attacks, of 
torture, or even of murder.
  You can say it as many times as you want. This is not about thought. 
This is not about speech. This is about violence. And you or your 
pastor may not agree with homosexuals or transgenders, but surely you 
don't think that is a reason for them to be assaulted.
  Support the bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my colleagues. We have twice 
as many requests for time than we have the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I now yield 30 seconds to the brilliant gentlelady from 
Oakland, California, Barbara Lee.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank Congresswoman Baldwin and 
Congressman Barney Frank for making sure we have a chance to vote on 
this very important legislation today. And I just want to briefly tell 
you a story, if I can, very quickly.
  There was a young lady next to my district named Gwen Araujo. She was 
viciously beaten to death and buried,

[[Page 11177]]

again, by four men, simply because she was born a male. Gwen was 
comfortable as herself, as a transgendered woman who had gone through 
most of high school as a girl and had the love and support of her 
family, particularly her mother, Sylvia Guerrero.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say there are so many stories of countless 
people who are dead, countless people who get killed because of their 
God-given right that they were living to be themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1592, and I am 
pleased that today, we can have a vote on the legislation that I know 
many of us have in this chamber. Chairman Conyers, Congresswoman 
Baldwin, and Congressman Frank.
  This legislation is long overdue. In the history of this Nation, 
there is a dark chapter. That chapter is full traumatic scenes of 
people being murdered, beaten, attacked, raped, harassed, and 
threatened because something about them was different from their 
aggressors. Whether it has been the color of their skin, their 
religion, their gender, their disability, National origin, or their 
sexual orientation or identity the sad fact is that so many in this 
country have suffered violence, often ending in death, because of one 
of these reasons.
  Sadly, many of the recent attacks based on sexual orientation have 
been on black gay men. One of those stories happened in New York this 
past October, when a young man named Michael Sandy, was beaten by four 
men who set him up, just so they could beat and rob him. He ended up in 
a coma for several days, before finally succumbing to his injuries. In 
court proceedings, it was revealed that his at1ackers would often seek 
out gay men to steal from and attack. Fortunately, New York has a Hate 
Crimes law that includes sexual orientation.
  Many hate groups have also used the debate on immigration to amp up 
their hate speech, and violence, promoting hate crimes against Mexican-
Americans and other Latinos. In Houston, TX, David Ritcheson, a 16 
year-old Mexican-American high school football team member was 
viciously and savagely beaten by two young skinheads. They poured 
bleach on him, and sodomized him, leaving him a coma, with massive 
internal injuries and now deaf in one ear.
  And closer to home, right outside my district in Newark, CA, a young 
woman in high school, named Gwen Araujo, was viciously beaten to death 
and buried, again, by four young men, simply because she was born a 
male. Gwen was comfortable as herself, a transgendered woman, who had 
gone through most of high school as a girl, and had the love and 
support of her family, particularly her mother, Sylvia Guerrero.
  Her story resonates with me because in my time in the California 
Legislature, I championed the California School Hate Crimes Reduction 
Act. I did so because our children needed to feel safe in their 
schools. I was determined to include sexual orientation in that bill. 
Doing so made passing that legislation an uphill battle, even leading 
to a veto by Governor Pete Wilson. Nonetheless, we were finally able to 
pass the California School Hate Crimes Act of 1995, thanks to the 
assistance of our former Republican colleague, Congressman Tom Campbell 
who was then serving with me in the California Legislature. During that 
period, I learned just how deep-seated the hate against people who were 
gay or transgendered, black or latino, or otherwise somehow different, 
still is today and that is why we need to pass H.R. 1592 today.
  Mr. Speaker, these stories are just a small glimpse of the vicious 
crimes going on out there. We must pass this legislation today, in the 
memory of Michael Sandy, Gwen Araujo, and countless others who are now 
dead, simply because they were themselves. People have a God given 
right to be themselves and as law makers we must protect everyone from 
violence based on hate. As an African-American woman who has faced so 
much hatred and so much discrimination in my life I implore you today 
to remember the words of Dr. M.L. King, Jr. Injustice anywhere is a 
threat to justice everywhere.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the 
majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this will be one of the serious votes that we 
cast during this session. This will be a vote on whether or not we are 
going to allow bigotry to manifest itself in hate and result in 
violence.
  My friend, Artur Davis, rose and he said he didn't know anybody of 
faith who recommended violence. I would suggest that tragically the 
citizens of the United States know all too well some who claim to be 
men of faith and who have issued fatwas to kill those not of their 
faith, and that if they do so, Allah will reward them. We call them 
terrorists. They kill not because of individual wrongdoing or 
individual action. They kill because of the membership in a faith or a 
race or a nationality, because perhaps we are Christian or we are Jews 
or we are Americans. And we call them terrorists.
  This is an important vote. Neither the exercise of bigotry nor the 
rationalization of bigotry ought to be sanctioned in this great House, 
but we know through the centuries it has been. We know there were those 
who in times past rose on this floor and rationalized slavery and 
rationalized why we should not have antilynching laws in America. We 
know that. We lament it, and we say to ourselves had we lived in those 
times, had we lived in the 18th century, hopefully we would have been 
beyond our time, or in the 19th century hopefully beyond our time, or 
in the 20th century hopefully beyond our time, as Martin Luther King, 
Jr., urged us to be.
  We serve now in the 21st century, and we know that there are those in 
America and throughout the world who preach hate against a class of 
people not because of their actions, not because of their character, 
but because of who they are. That is what this vote is about today.
  Through this legislation, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes 
Prevention Act, the Members of this body will make a strong statement 
in favor of values that unite us as Americans: tolerance, respect for 
our differences, and justice and accountability for those who 
perpetrate violent acts against others.
  It has been too recent that lynching was rationalized in our country. 
It is too present in today's society that some across the sea and, yes, 
some here rationalize violence because of membership in another class 
different than they. It is long past time to bring the existing Federal 
hate crimes law, which was enacted nearly 40 years ago, into the 21st 
century. Under existing law, Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes is 
limited to those acts directed at individuals on the basis of race, 
religion, color, or national origin.
  Let me say something about that to my friends. We have come to accept 
in America in the 21st century that it is not respectable nor 
acceptable to be bigoted against those who are black, be bigoted 
against those who are women, be bigoted against those who are Catholic 
or Baptist or Jews or Muslims. It is not respectable. It is not 
acceptable. You don't talk about that in the restaurant anymore.
  But there is a class in America that is still respectable, 
rationalized many times by faith. But then segregation was rationalized 
for faith-based reasons.
  My friends, this is an important vote of conscience, of a statement 
of what America is, a society that understands that we accept 
differences. We may not agree with those differences, but we know if 
society is to be free that we must accept differences.

                              {time}  1245

  That is the bedrock of what America means, not just to us, but to all 
the world.
  And so today, my friends, I say we have an important statement to 
make, not a bill to pass, but a statement to make about the values of 
our country.
  I had a prepared statement here, I won't read the balance of it. But 
I hope that every Member has the courage and the perspective, that when 
they rise from their bed 20 years from now, they will be able to say, 
unlike some of our predecessors in centuries past who failed the test 
of tolerance, to say that we had the courage to live out the principles 
that makes America such a wonderful, great, decent and just Nation.
  Vote for this bill. Vote for our principles. Vote for your faith that 
teaches that we reach out to lift up and to love. Vote for this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, today, through this legislation--``The Local Law 
Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act''--the Members of this body will 
make a strong statement in favor of values that unite us as Americans: 
tolerance, respect for our differences, and justice and accountability 
for those who perpetrate violent acts against others.

[[Page 11178]]

  It is long past time to bring the existing Federal hate crimes law, 
which was enacted nearly 40 years ago, into the 21st century.
  Under existing law, Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes is limited 
to those acts directed at individuals on the basis of race, religion, 
color or national origin and only when the victim is targeted because 
he or she is engaged in a Federally protected activity, such as voting.
  This legislation broadens this provision to cover all violent crimes 
motivated by race, religion, or national origin, when the defendant 
causes bodily injury or attempts to cause bodily injury.
  Furthermore, the bill expands current law to prohibit the same 
conduct, if such conduct is motivated on the basis of the victim's 
gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact is, the Federal Government has long had a 
history of combating crimes based on prejudice.
  This bill simply expands the current law to groups that historically 
have been affected by violence and thus it responds to the reality in 
America today.
  According to the FBI, race ranks first among motivations for hate 
crimes and sexual orientation ranks second among the reasons that 
people are targeted.
  Some people ask: Why is this legislation even necessary?
  To them, I answer: because brutal hate crimes motivated by race, 
religion, national orgin, gender, sexual orientation and identity or 
disability not only injure individual victims, but also terrorize 
entire segments of our population and tear at our Nation's social 
fabric.
  Let us be clear: This legislation does not affect free speech, or 
punish beliefs or thoughts. It only seeks to punish violent acts.
  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this bill would allow the Federal 
Government to provide assistance to State and local law enforcement 
officials to investigate and prosecute hate crimes, and would clarify 
the conditions under which such crimes could be federally investigated 
and prosecuted.
  Enacting these important additions to current law will send a very 
powerful message that crimes committed against any American--just 
because of who he or she is--are absolutely unacceptable.
  Not surprisingly, this legislation is supported by 31 State attorneys 
general, and more than 280 national law enforcement, professional, 
education, civil rights, religious and civic organizations, including 
the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National 
District Attorneys Association and the National Sheriffs Association.
  I urge my colleagues: Vote for this legislation, not only because it 
is important and necessary but also because it is the right thing to 
do.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor now to recognize the Speaker 
of the House, Ms. Nancy Pelosi, for 1 minute.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, Mr. Conyers, for yielding time, but more importantly, for 
bringing this important legislation to the floor in his ongoing, long 
commitment to justice in our country. And I want to commend 
Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin and Chairman Barney Frank for their 
leadership. It is an honor to call you colleague. Thank you for giving 
us the opportunity today to make America more American.
  Every day we come to this floor, we honor the tradition of our 
Founders, that every person is created equal, and that we are all God's 
children. Every day that we come to this floor, we pledge allegiance to 
the flag, and at the end of that pledge we say ``with liberty and 
justice for all.'' That is what today is about. Because in the preamble 
to the Constitution, which we take an oath to, we talk about forming a 
more perfect union. Our Founders knew that our Constitution had to be 
amended. They knew that we had to move to a more perfect union in terms 
of legislation to reflect the values of our country. And so we are here 
today to extend to the hate crimes legislation others who have had hate 
crimes committed against them. The record is clear.
  What I am so interested in is the fact that so many law enforcement 
organizations have endorsed this legislation. My colleagues have spoken 
very eloquently as to why this is about the values of our country. They 
have spoken very clearly about the need for this legislation. And if it 
has been said, I think it bears repeating that the law enforcement 
organizations, many of them, including the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, the 
National Sheriffs Association, the Police Executive Research Forum, as 
well as nearly 30 attorney generals across the country, support need 
for Federal hate crime legislation. They are joined by more than 230 
civil rights, education, religious and civic organizations who have 
voiced their support. Let us be clear that this Congress, this House of 
Representatives, have heard their call.
  Hate crimes, as have been said, have no place in America, no place 
where we pledge every morning ``with liberty and justice for all.'' We 
must act to end hate crimes and save lives.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation will help prevent bias-motivated 
violence based on religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender 
identity, national origin or disability, while respecting the first 
amendment rights of free speech and religious expression. It increases 
the ability of State, local and Federal law enforcement agencies to 
solve a wide range of violent hate crimes.
  We in our country take pride in saying that we are moving to end 
discrimination of all kinds. Today, we have an opportunity to end 
discrimination and the violence that goes with it that equal a hate 
crime. So whatever you may think of any one of us, based on our 
ethnicity or our gender or whatever, you have no right to act upon that 
opinion in a violent way. Who would disagree with that? That is why I 
hope that we can send a clear message from the Congress that this 
Congress does not agree with that and pass this legislation.
  Who of us can think of the story of the Shepard family and the Byrd 
family and so many examples that we have of this and not say that is 
wrong. And at the very least, we can pass legislation that tells 
Federal authorities that they can assist State and local authorities in 
enforcing the law. Over 100,000 hate crimes reported since 1991. There 
are so many more that go unreported, many of them unprosecuted.
  So today, let us take this step forward that is consistent with the 
values of our Founders, both in terms of all being equal, and our faith 
that we are all God's children, but also consistent with the call and 
the preamble to form a more perfect union.
  Again, passing this legislation makes America more American. I urge a 
``yes'' vote.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield now for a unanimous consent request 
to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, 
because our Nation is one.
  I rise today in support of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes 
Prevention Act. Crime, violent crime in particular, has repercussions 
beyond the individual perpetrator and victim. It impacts family and 
friends and the surrounding community.
  Hate crimes, whether motivated by the race, creed, or sexual 
orientation of an individual, terrorize a community. In 2005, 7,163 
hate crimes were reported to the FBI. Over half of those hate crimes 
were motivated by race-related bias. Seventeen percent were crimes 
based on religion. One in six hate crimes is motivated by the victim's 
sexual orientation. The purpose and intention of these crimes extends 
beyond the crime itself. They serve to instill fear in others sharing 
that trait.
  This legislation does not punish thoughts or speech; it punishes 
crimes motivated by bias against the race, religion, national origin, 
gender identity, or sexual orientation of the victim. It gives law 
enforcement additional tools to punish violent crimes.
  Hate crimes are inherently divisive. Regardless of the group 
targeted, hate crimes undermine our collective ability to look past our 
differences and find common ground. If we as a Nation seek the 
eradication of acts of violence, we must address the underlying causes 
of that violence. We must uncover and address the hatred and 
discrimination that motivates these crimes.
  This legislation is step towards that goal. I urge my colleagues to 
support H.R. 1592.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we make progress in dealing with 
discrimination based on sexual orientation when we're not distracted by 
myth

[[Page 11179]]

and bigotry, but when we deal with the rights and needs of real people. 
I am pleased that that is why we will pass this hate crime legislation 
today which follows progress in my State of Oregon just this week, 
where we have provided protection for domestic partnerships and 
antidiscrimination legislation. I hope it will herald changes on the 
Federal level in the military for gays and lesbians, and in the 
workplace with non-discrimination protection for all Americans.
  When we deal with real people, their rights and needs, we will solve 
these problems and America will be a better place.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 30 seconds to my 
dear friend from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation 
because it is time to take a stand against the violence, the violent 
acts that flow from prejudice. This is not about the thought police, 
this is not about sermons on morality, this is about the status of our 
civilization, and it is about our humanity.
  As human beings, we have the right to be safe from physical attack, 
no matter our race, our religion, sexual orientation or gender 
identity. In other words, human beings have the right to be safe from 
attacks based on who they are. No one should have to be afraid because 
of who they are.
  We need to pass this legislation to ensure that this principle is 
embodied in our law.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize our brother from 
Missouri (Mr. Cleaver), himself a minister, for 30 seconds.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, as best as can be determined, I have 
delivered at least 15,600 sermons. I have never been investigated, I 
have never been indicted. I have spoken in churches and synagogues all 
around this country. I have spoken to thousands of pastors and clergy. 
I know not one who has been investigated for a sermon.
  And so today I must not say I cannot, I must not, I will not sit 
silently and watch any injustice because in the words of my unlettered 
grandmother, ``The God I serve don't make no trash.''
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I now recognize the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Langevin) for 30 seconds.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Hate 
Crimes Prevention Act. This legislation will expand the Federal 
definition of hate crimes to include crimes which a victim was selected 
because of his or her disability.
  So much has been done over the years to ensure inclusion of Americans 
with disabilities in our communities. Sadly, though, there have been 
shameful instances where these Americans, who may look or speak 
differently than others, are victims of abuse, neglect or targeted 
crimes. Investigating and prosecuting hate violence against someone 
with a disability involves unique challenges to law enforcement. Many 
violent crimes against people with disabilities go unreported or 
unprosecuted. Providing Federal resources to law enforcement is 
essential to help ensure proper prosecution of these crimes.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1592, the Local Law 
Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. This legislation will 
expand the Federal definition of hate crimes, allowing for Federal 
resources for law enforcement in their investigations and prosecutions 
of hate crimes.
  I come to the floor today to draw attention to the inclusion of 
crimes in which a victim was selected because of his or her disability.
  The Supreme Court's Olmstead decision, the ADA and other progressive 
policies have resulted in increased inclusion of Americans with 
disabilities in our classrooms, workplaces and communities. As a 
nation, we are growing in our acceptance of those who are perceived as 
``different.'' But this effort has not been without growing pains. Many 
people with disabilities look or speak differently or struggle with 
challenges like chronic seizures. We have seen too many shameful 
instances where these Americans are the victims of abuse, neglect and 
targeted crimes.
  I recently learned the story of Ricky Whistnant, a mentally retarded 
adult man who was excited to have the opportunity to live independently 
at the age of 39. With the support of a local social service agency, he 
moved out of a Connecticut state group home and learned to cook for 
himself, maintain an apartment and be a part of the community. One 
evening, after cooking himself a chicken dinner, Ricky went to the 
corner store to buy some soda. He encountered a group of teenagers who 
mocked him, followed him back to his apartment, hurled a soda bottle at 
him. After he fell, striking his head on a windowsill, the boys 
continued to kick and taunt him. Ricky died a short time later in the 
hospital.
  Ricky's story is extreme, but it is not isolated. It represents the 
reality of the challenges faced by individuals with disabilities. 
Investigating and prosecuting hate violence against someone with a 
disability involves unique challenges to law enforcement, and sadly 
many violent crimes against people with disabilities go unreported or 
unprosecuted.
  As policymakers, we have a responsibility to address this problem. 
The inclusion of disability in the Federal hate crimes statute is a 
meaningful and substantive way to combat violence against Americans 
with disabilities. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1592.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas controls 4 minutes. 
The gentleman from Michigan has 50 seconds remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. I am now pleased to recognize Lynn Woolsey of California 
for 30 seconds.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, my granddaughter, Julia, is 3 years old. 
She goes to preschool. Even in preschool, they gang up and they bully. 
The parents at that preschool tell me that my Julia steps in and she 
stops it. She will not put up with bullying and unfairness.
  It is our turn. Be as brave as a 3-year-old. Vote for H.R. 1592. Show 
the world that if not now, when?
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I will yield the balance of my time 
to my good friend and colleague from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), a senior 
member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Texas for his leadership on the committee and his strong opposition to 
this legislation.
  I rise in strong opposition to the legislation as well. This bill 
would increase penalties for those who commit crimes against certain 
groups of citizens, but not others. For example, if a man walks down 
the street and punches another man because the victim is a 
transvestite, the aggressor would be punishable by up to 10 additional 
years in prison. However, if the same man walks down the street and 
punches another person because the victim is a pregnant woman, a senior 
citizen, a child under the age of 10, a veteran or the like, then the 
aggressor would not be punishable by the potential 10-year prison 
sentence. This is simply unfair.
  While I strongly support efforts to rid our schools, neighborhoods 
and communities of violent crimes, I do not believe that new Federal 
laws specifically addressing hate crimes are necessary.
  Today, there are few, if any, cases in which law enforcement has not 
prosecuted violent crimes to the fullest extent of the law, regardless 
of the background of the person.
  In addition, this bill sets a dangerous and unconstitutional 
precedent of punishing citizens for their thoughts. When prosecutions 
occur under this bill, prosecutors will undoubtedly submit evidence of 
prior statements by individuals to prove that the aggressor was 
motivated by hate. This will have a chilling effect on citizens' 
willingness to speak freely as citizens will adapt to a new world where 
the Federal Government can cause any unpopular statements they make to 
be used against them in the future.
  One of the great freedoms we have as Americans is our first amendment 
right to speak our minds, whether our thoughts are popular or 
unpopular, and this legislation undermines that right.

                              {time}  1300

  Again, I abhor acts of violence against any citizen. I abhor bigotry 
and believe that such crimes should be punished to the fullest extent 
of the

[[Page 11180]]

law when aggressive violence occurs. However, this legislation gives 
special preferences to certain classes of citizens and would create a 
chilling effect on one of our most cherished constitutional rights.
  For these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. 
However, if my colleagues need to be reminded further, I would like to 
share with them the statement of the administration regarding this 
legislation, H.R. 1592:
  ``The administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent 
crime, including crime based on personal characteristics such as race, 
color, religion, or national origin. However, the administration 
believes that H.R. 1592 is unnecessary and constitutionally 
questionable. If H.R. 1592 were presented to the President, his senior 
advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
  ``State and local criminal laws already provide criminal penalties 
for the violence addressed by the new Federal crime defined in section 
7 of H.R. 1592, and many of these laws carry stricter penalties 
(including mandatory minimums and the death penalty) than the proposed 
language in H.R. 1592. State and local law enforcement agencies and 
courts have the capability to enforce those penalties and are doing so 
effectively.
  ``There has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to 
federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement, 
and doing so is inconsistent with the proper allocation of criminal 
enforcement responsibilities between the different levels of 
government. In addition, almost every State in the country can actively 
prosecute hate crimes under the State's own hate crimes law.''
  Mr. Speaker, I include the balance of the statement of administration 
policy for the Record.

       H.R. 1592 prohibits willfully causing or attempting to 
     cause bodily injury to any person based upon the victim's 
     race, color, religion, or national origin, gender, sexual 
     orientation, gender identity, or disability. The 
     Administration notes that the bill would leave other classes 
     (such as the elderly, members of the military, police 
     officers, and victims of prior crimes) without similar 
     special status. The Administration believes that all violent 
     crimes are unacceptable, regardless of the victims, and 
     should be punished firmly. Moreover, the bill's proposed 
     section 249(a)(1) of title 18 of the U.S. Code raises 
     constitutional concerns. Federalization of criminal law 
     concerning the violence prohibited by the bill would be 
     constitutional only if done in the implementation of a power 
     granted to the Federal government, such as the power to 
     protect Federal personnel, to regulate interstate commerce, 
     or to enforce equal protection of the laws. Section 249(a)(1) 
     is not by its terms limited to the exercise of such a power, 
     and it is not at all clear that sufficient factual or legal 
     grounds exist to uphold this provision of H.R. 1592.

  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the administration and 
oppose this legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to conclude our debate by 
yielding our remaining time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Dr. King reminded us that on some 
questions, cowards will ask us, is it safe? What will happen to me if I 
do this? The answer is, what will happen to them if we don't do it? And 
on some questions, expediency will ask, is it politic? Will I get 
reelected? And then vanity asks, is it popular?
  Today, let's do that which is neither safe nor politic nor popular. 
Let's do it because it's right.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Hate Crimes 
Prevention Act.
  This bipartisan legislation will give state and local law enforcement 
the tools and resources they need to prevent and prosecute violent hate 
crimes.
  In the not so distant past, violence motivated by hatred or 
discrimination towards a minority was sanctioned by our government. As 
we struggled to right the inequities present in our society, many used 
targeted violence against individual African Americans as a tactic to 
scare African Americans in general and discourage the Civil Rights 
Movement overall.
  This type of targeted violence against a minority--violence 
specifically intended to intimidate and repress all members of that 
minority--was particularly reprehensible and damaging to society as a 
whole. Congress recognized that these particularly heinous actions 
warranted stronger criminal penalties, which were codified in Federal 
hate crimes law in 1968.
  Unfortunately, almost 20 years later bias-based violence continues, 
and while the groups and individuals victimized have changed, the 
damage remains the same. In 1998, Matthew Sheppard was viciously 
murdered because of his sexual orientation. In January 2000, a 16-year-
old high school female student was brutally attacked by a group of 
teenagers because the student was holding hands with another girl--a 
common practice in her native country in Africa. Just last October, 
Michael Sandy was beaten then chased into traffic and killed because he 
was gay.
  Under current law, the attackers in each of these cases could not be 
prosecuted for a hate crime for two reasons. First, in order for it to 
constitute a federal hate crime, a victim must be engaged in a 
federally protected activity such as voting. Second, the current hate 
crime law does not consider sexual orientation a protected class.
  The Hate Crimes Prevention Act addresses both these gaps in current 
law by expanding the definition of a hate crime to cover all violent 
crimes motivated by race, color, religion, national origin, gender, 
sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. It also expands the 
instances in which federal authorities can prosecute or assist local 
authorities in prosecuting hate crimes.
  Importantly, the bill before the House includes specific language 
stating that nothing in the bill can be interpreted to prohibit 
``expressive conduct'' protected by the First Amendment. In doing so, 
we have ensured that this legislation in no way impinges on one's 
constitutional right to freedom of speech or religious expression.
  The Hate Crimes Prevention Act enjoys the strong support of law 
enforcement, and has been endorsed by International Association of 
Chief of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, the National 
District Attorneys Association, as well as 31 state Attorneys General.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
legislation. In doing so we are sending a clear message that hate 
crimes have no place in America.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Local 
Law Enforcement Hate Crime Prevention Act, H.R. 1592. This legislation 
seeks to address the pernicious effects that hate crimes have on our 
society.
  Bigotry, bias, and ignorance have existed since the dawn of time. 
Yet, in a country founded on the principles of freedom, equality and 
liberty for all, we must do all we can to stop individuals from 
committing crimes based solely on prejudice.
  According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, there were 7,163 hate 
crimes committed in 2005 and we can be sure that number is low for 
crimes that are underreported. Hate crimes are very real. And each hate 
crime spreads fear and violence among an entire community. It's long 
past time for Congress to pass this important legislation to help 
prosecute those who would commit these heinous acts.
  To paraphrase Martin Luther King, the laws we pass may not change the 
heart; but they can restrain the heartless.
  As an original cosponsor of this legislation, I believe it is the 
fundamental role of government to protect its citizens. Therefore, it 
is necessary and proper for the federal government to work in 
conjunction with local law enforcement officials to robustly prosecute 
crimes motivated by bigotry.
  The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act expands our 
Nation's existing hate crimes laws to ensure that certain violent 
crimes committed against an individual because of race, religion, 
national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or 
disability are prosecuted. As this bill states, bias and bigotry 
related crime ``savages the community sharing the traits that caused 
the victim to be selected'' for the crime, Additionally, this 
legislation expands the hate crime statute by dropping the requirement 
that the victim had been engaged in six specifically defined federally 
protected activities, such as voting.
  H.R. 1592 also creates a grant program for the federal government to 
assist state and local law enforcement agencies in investigating and 
prosecuting hate crimes. State and local law enforcement prosecute the 
overwhelming majority of hate crimes. However, investigating and 
prosecuting these acts takes more time and resources than many local 
and state agencies may possess. Thus, H.R. 1592 authorizes the federal 
government to provide tools and resources that are needed by local law 
enforcement.
  This legislation is supported by the National Sheriffs Association, 
National District Attorneys Association, International Association of 
Chiefs of Police, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 
National Coalition of Public Safety Officers, Anti-Defamation League,

[[Page 11181]]

American Jewish Committee, Consortium of Developmental Disabilities 
Councils, Human Rights Campaign, NAACP, National Victim Center, United 
States Conference of Mayors, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 
American Association on Mental Retardation, and more than 200 other law 
enforcement, religious, civil rights, and civic organizations.
  By making our Nation's hate crimes statutes more comprehensive, we 
will take a needed step in favor of tolerance and against prejudice and 
hate-based crime in all its forms. This legislation sends a strong 
message that hate-based crime cannot be tolerated and will be 
vigorously prosecuted.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of every Congress, 
every member of this august body takes an oath to ``defend and protect 
the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and 
domestic.'' It is an oath that I am proud that the majority of the 
citizens of the 13th Congressional District of Michigan have honored me 
with their vote for more than 12 years. One of the most important 
duties that I have as a Member of the United States House of 
Representatives is to protect and defend its citizens, which is 
precisely what H.R. 1592, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, introduced by 
my fellow Michigander and Detroiter, one of the founders of the 
Congressional Black Caucus, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, Jr. 
This bill protects all Americans from bias-motivated violence; it 
provides funds so that local authorities can tackle the tough challenge 
of hate crimes, and it protects the First Amendment to the 
Constitution. It does not criminalize speech or thoughts; it does not 
give some people ``special rights,'' and it is not anti-Christian.
  As a child and as a proud Christian, the least common denominator of 
all of the lessons that I learned from my parents and minister is about 
God's ethic of love. Along that, I learned from the practices of my 
parents and my minister my divine responsibility to love our neighbors 
as ourselves. Indeed, it is out of my love that all of my brothers and 
sisters, and the activism that Jesus Christ illustrated through loving 
His enemies, through His compassion for the poor, the down trodden, and 
those who seek justice, that I became an activist, a state legislator 
and now a Member of Congress. It is that thirst for justice for all 
human beings that drives all that I do, guided by unerring and infinite 
wisdom and faith in God.
  Despite the teachings of my parents and that of countless clergy--of 
all religions--around our Nation, there are some who perpetrate crime 
with hatred and bigotry in their heart. Who can forget that, during the 
civil rights era, the murders of the courageous Medgar Evers? Who can 
forget the killing of civil rights workers James Chaney, Michael 
Schwerner, and Andrew Goodman for merely registering African Americans 
to vote? Who can forget the murder of native Detroiter Viola Liuzzo, 
who was gunned down as she drove civil rights workers to voting booths? 
All of these crimes, motivated by some bias, were ultimately prosecuted 
under Federal laws because, at the time, local authorities were either 
unable or unwilling to prosecute these crimes. These crimes could only 
be prosecuted because all of these individuals were participating in 
activities protected by the Federal Government--helping individuals 
vote or register to vote, for example. Only in limited, specific 
instances does this law even apply.
  I vote in support of H.R. 1592 because H.R. 1592 sends a powerful 
message that all crime motivated by hatred and bias will not be 
tolerated in our society. I have voted for this bill at every 
opportunity when it came before the U.S. Congress. This legislation 
strengthens Federal law by providing local authorities with more money 
to prosecute hate crime and by expanding the jurisdiction to crimes 
motivated by bias against the victims actual or perceived sexual 
orientation, gender, or disability.
  Unfortunately, opponents of this bill are shamelessly advancing false 
claims about the bill's impact on religion, particularly the freedom of 
clergy to preach about their beliefs, and that the bill legalizes 
certain sexual acts. Both of these claims are patently false. If you 
are a minister, this bill does not restrict any sermon, homily, speech 
or lesson unless that minister plans to start urging people to go out 
and commit violent crimes against others. During floor debate on the 
bill, Chairman Conyers reiterated the fact that the bill would not 
legalize any one of a plethora of sexual acts or activity, most of 
which are already illegal in most states.
  Again this bill in no way, shape or fashion restricts free speech. 
Indeed, it clearly states, and has been supported by a Republican-
dominated, conservative Supreme Court, that it in fact protects the 
First Amendment. Language is protected under this bill. Actions are 
criminalized. Preaching against homosexuality, against disabled people, 
against women--the categories that this bill protects--is allowed as it 
has always been, under the protections of the First Amendment. Under 
this bill, it would be criminal to incite violence by willfully causing 
``bodily injury based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, 
national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or 
disability of the victim or is a violation of the state, local, or 
tribal hate crime laws.''
  Since 1991, over 100,000 hate crimes have occurred in our nation. 
Hate crimes devastate the communities, counties, cities and states in 
which they occur. These crimes of bigotry and hatred against an 
identifiable minority--based on race, color, ethnic origin, gender, 
disability or sexual orientation--not only hurts the individual 
affected, but demoralizes and dehumanizes whole groups of people. As 
the civil rights era clearly illustrated, these crimes are committed 
solely to intimidate and trample upon the human rights of others.
  This as the immediate effect of crushing the investment of companies 
in that locality, of tourists visiting that state, of individuals 
wanting to relocate to that region. This is measurable in real dollars 
and cents. The Federal Government cannot stand by to allow these 
heinous, horrible offenses to be committed. I did not stand for this 
when I was an activist fighting for human rights in the City of 
Detroit, Michigan; I will not stand for it as a Member of Congress with 
an opportunity to make a change and make a difference.
  Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel once said 
that ``indifference is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits 
the aggressor--never his victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she 
is forgotten. The political prisoner in his cell, the hungry children, 
the homeless refugees--not to respond to their plight, not to relieve 
their solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them from 
human memory. And in denying their humanity, we betray our own. 
Indifference, then, is not only a sin, it is a punishment.''
  In the past decade, our country has had men murdered merely because 
they were gay, disabled, or African American. These were all hard-
working, tax-paying, law-abiding American citizens, killed because of 
these differences. As we move onward through this new millennium, as we 
continue to change course, confront crises, and continue the legacy, I 
will do so with the continued guidance and love of an infinite God, 
with extraordinary hope, with profound faith, and with the knowledge 
that in caring for the least of our brothers and sisters, we care for 
ourselves. We cannot afford to be indifferent.
  As we celebrate two centuries of the end of the African slave trade, 
it is my hope that today will be the beginning of the end of the 
decades of mindless hatred, bigotry, and discrimination against all 
God's children. All Americans have an investment in a stable, violence-
free government, and that is exactly what this bill provides.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1592, the 
Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This bill lends a voice to those who have 
no voice.
  As a nation, we have been endowed to preserve the truth that all men 
and women are created equal under God and as Members of Congress, we 
must fight to preserve this truth as long as we continue to live in a 
democracy.
  The Hate Crimes Prevention Act does not in any way infringe on the 
First Amendment rights of Americans. On the contrary, the bill only 
covers violent criminal actions. Nothing in this legislation would 
prohibit any form of lawful expression of one's religious beliefs.
  This legislation brings our current hate crimes laws into the 21st 
century by expanding the current provision to cover all violent crimes 
motivated by race, color, religion, or national origin when the 
defendant causes bodily injury, or attempts to cause bodily injury 
through use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device.
  Additionally, the bill will also allow the Federal Government to 
provide crucial Federal resources to State and local agencies to equip 
local officers with the tools they need to prosecute hate crimes. This 
resolution ensures that the Federal prosecution of hate crimes is 
limited to cases that implicate the greatest Federal interest and 
present the greatest need for Federal intervention.
  This bill will protect people like Billy Ray Johnson of Linden, TX, a 
mentally-challenged African-American man who suffered severe brain 
damage after being maliciously attacked by four white men who hurled 
racial expletives at him. This law would properly prosecute the 
individuals, ensure that justice is allowed to run its course, and is 
seen by Mr. Johnson's family.
  In conclusion Mr. Speaker, hate in any form is neither a Democratic 
nor an American value and I do not subscribe to it.

[[Page 11182]]

  We must love our neighbors and moreover we must protect them from 
crimes committed against them due to their self-expression.
  We must be vehemently opposed to prejudice in all forms. I strongly 
support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to vote in favor 
of this important bill.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
1592, The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.
  In 2003 the FBI announced that there were more than 9,000 reported 
hate crime victims in these United States. This means that on average 
25 people per day were victims of violence fueled by the toxic fumes of 
hate. If you are not outraged by this figure then you haven't been 
paying attention. As a former prosecutor in Cuyohoga County, OH, I know 
that these numbers are shocking for a number of reasons.
  In a country as blessed as we are, and with the resources that we 
have, we still have an absurdly high crime rate. Violence is taken to 
be the norm. Local news in most big cities begins with a report on who 
was shot. Then, we have a country which regularly puts out a report on 
the human rights records of other countries around the world. Is a hate 
crime not a human rights issue? It has been long established 
constitutional doctrine that individuals should not be treated 
differently based on their race, color, creed, nationality, gender or 
sexual orientation.
  This Act allows the Justice Department to grant local jurisdictions 
up to $100,000 to help prosecute hate crimes. It also provides moneys 
for preventative programs to stem the growing tide of hate crimes 
committed by minors. In the Bible, verse 5:43 in the Gospel of Matthew, 
it says ``Love thy neighbor.'' That is what this bill is about.
  The time is now to pass this legislation. We honor our founders, 
ancestors, and the people who built this great Nation by ensuring that 
going forward, Americans from every walk of life can walk down our 
streets in peace.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of hate crime 
prevention.
  Our laws should reflect the reality that hate crimes are 
fundamentally different from ordinary crimes. Hate crimes cause entire 
communities to live in fear of being attacked simply because of who 
they are. Hate crimes are meant to send a message and terrorize an 
entire group of people, not just an individual victim.
  Hate crimes are a national issue and should be dealt with at the 
national level. In 2005, more than 7,000 hate crimes were reported to 
the FBI. Even this high number is certainly lower than the actual 
numbers of crimes committed all across America, as many go unreported 
and the FBI does not receive information from all law enforcement 
agencies.
  The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 
1592) recognizes the need for a federal response and allocates the 
necessary resources to investigate and prosecute hate crimes when local 
officials are unable or unwilling to investigate incidents of hate 
crime. Local authorities, however, would maintain their autonomy and 
primary authority for these investigations. Federal intervention would 
be the last resort.
  The bill also removes existing barriers that prohibit the FBI and the 
Department of Justice from fully assisting local law enforcement 
agencies in addressing hate crimes. This is vital because local 
governments often lack the resources necessary to properly conduct 
expensive hate crimes investigations and prosecutions. For example, the 
investigation of the Matthew Shepard murder in Wyoming cost over 
$150,000 and resulted in lay-offs at the local Sheriff's department.
  Congress has a moral and constitutional obligation to offer the full 
protection of our Nation's laws to all individuals. This vital 
legislation expands existing hate crime protections to those who are 
targeted because of their gender, disability, or sexual orientation. 
These groups have been frequent targets of hate crimes. According to 
the FBI, 14 percent of reported hate crimes are motivated by sexual-
orientation bias.
  I fully support this bill. But I feel compelled to also note that it 
fails to address the growing number of hate crimes being committed 
against homeless individuals. The National Coalition for the Homeless 
has documented 614 hate crimes against homeless individuals since 1999, 
including 189 deaths. Some of these crimes against society's most 
vulnerable have been caught on tape, giving us a glimpse into the 
violence and fear of violence that many homeless people experience on a 
daily basis. I hope that this body will work to bring the issue of hate 
crimes against homeless individuals to light and move toward 
protections that recognize the value of all of our neighbors, including 
those lacking shelter.
  Hate crimes impact all of us and it is our collective responsibility 
to actively confront the terror they cause. I urge all of my colleagues 
to support this important bill.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the Local Law 
Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, H.R. 1592, which will provide 
needed assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies and make 
changes to Federal law to facilitate the investigation and prosecution 
of violent, bias-motivated crimes against people for no other reason 
than their perceived or actual race, religion, national origin, sexual 
orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.
  Hate crimes are alarmingly prevalent and threaten the full 
participation of all Americans in our democratic society. While State 
and local governments will maintain principal responsibility, an 
expanded Federal role in investigating and prosecuting serious forms of 
hate crimes is critical in targeting and preventing hate crime in our 
Nation. The measure importantly applies only to bias-motivated violent 
crimes and does not impinge free speech in any way. In fact, it 
explicitly states: ``Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by 
this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct 
protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the 
free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the 
Constitution.''
  H.R. 1592 is supported by virtually every major law enforcement 
organization in the country. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting H.R. 1592.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to 
express my opposition to H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate 
Crimes Prevention Act.
  This measure represents an unprecedented departure from the deeply 
rooted American principle of equal justice under law.
  Justice should be blind. It should be equal for all Americans, and it 
should be rendered in a criminal justice system that does not take such 
issues as race, gender, and religion into consideration.
  It makes no sense to me that crimes committed against one citizen 
should be punished any more or any less than crimes committed against 
another, which is what this bill will do.
  Violent crimes that are not aimed at a certain class of people, like 
those committed recently at Virginia Tech, are just as reprehensible as 
those that are committed for other reasons.
  Yet this bill would likely treat the senseless, random violence at 
Virginia Tech less harshly than other, less ``random'' crimes.
  Even worse, the bill asks local law enforcement to infer if a crime 
was committed ``because of'' bias toward a protected group. This 
essentially means that one's ``thoughts'' or ``feelings'' might be 
evidence of hate, and can be considered when determining whether a 
crime was indeed a ``hate'' crime.
  Let me say that again. The bill would ask law enforcement to consider 
one's potential ``thoughts'' as evidence of ``hate.''
  Mr. Speaker, this is the dangerous, likely unconstitutional threat 
that has caused great concern to so many residents of Ohio's 4th 
Congressional District.
  Upon consideration of this bill in the Judiciary Committee, Mr. 
Speaker, I sent you a letter, co-signed by many of my Republican 
colleagues on the committee. The letter expressed concern about H.R. 
1592's ``thought crime'' provisions and their potential to categorize 
individuals who share spiritual or gospel messages as hate criminals.
  In the letter, we noted that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors 
passed Resolution 060356, which castigated Cardinal William Levada and 
the Catholic Church for opposing the adoption of children by 
homosexuals. The resolution, perhaps prophetically, describes the 
Church's policy using such words as ``hateful,'' ``discriminatory,'' 
``insulting,'' and ``callous.''
  It is easy to see how this type of inflammatory anti-religious 
assertion emanating from a governmental body is disconcerting to those 
who espouse deep religious beliefs.
  This so-called hate crimes bill not only discards the fundamental 
American legal principle of equal justice, it also lays the groundwork 
to criminalize individuals and groups that might not share the liberal 
values of places like San Francisco.
  It is rather ironic that on this, the National Day of Prayer--a day 
where Americans gather to celebrate our religious heritage--liberal 
members of this House are uniting to pass a bill that could deem their 
prayerful voices as ``hateful.''
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1592, the 
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. I would like 
to thank the chief sponsor of this legislation, Congressman Conyers, 
for his

[[Page 11183]]

work and dedication in bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor for 
debate.
  H.R. 1592 will strengthen existing Federal hate crimes laws in two 
meaningful ways. First, the bill removes the requirement that victims 
of violent bias-motivated crimes be engaged in a federally protected 
activity, such as voting, when the crime is committed. Federal entities 
would then be able to provide technical and grant support for the hate 
crimes investigations of State and local law enforcement agencies. 
Second, the bill provides for a more comprehensive definition of hate 
crimes to include those motivated by gender, disability, sexual 
orientation, or gender identity.
  In 2005, the FBI documented 7,163 hate crimes directed against 
institutions and individuals because of their race, religion, sexual 
orientation, national origin, or disability. These statistics were 
gathered from 12,417 law enforcement agencies across the country. Yet 
it is not the frequency or number of crimes alone that distinguish 
these acts of violence from other crimes.
  We know that hate crimes are more than individual assaults--they send 
shock waves and fear throughout a whole community and segments of our 
diverse population. Hate violence is also a message crime and the 
messages are clear: ``know your place'' and ``your kind is not welcome 
here.'' Hate crimes clearly pose a serious threat to our Nation's 
security and the very values upon which our country were founded.
  As an original cosponsor of H.R. 1592, I urge my colleagues to vote 
in support of final passage.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1592, 
the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. Violent 
crimes committed against anyone because of their race, religion, 
national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or 
disability should not be taken lightly. H.R. 1592 would make this kind 
of violent crime a Federal offense and authorizes Federal grants to 
assist state and local law enforcement agencies in prosecuting violent 
hate crimes.
  I believe that it is necessary for the Federal Government to secure 
the lives of all people and bring justice to individuals who have been 
victims of a violent hate crime. By allowing the Federal Government 
jurisdiction in certain, limited cases of violent hate crime, this bill 
provides much-needed support to local law enforcement agencies. This 
piece of legislation is particularly important at a time when the 
number of hate groups has grown over the past years. The Southern 
Poverty Law Center reported that the number of hate groups has seen a 
40 percent increase since 2000 and attributed much of this growth to 
the immigration issue.
  Hate crimes that are motivated by bigotry and bias against minority 
populations affect entire families and communities. We must stand to 
protect our communities from hateful actions. I urge my colleagues to 
vote in support of H.R. 1592.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, while I was unavoidably absent from the 
floor today to attend the funeral of a close personal friend and great 
Georgian, C.W. Matthews, I want to express my strong opposition to H.R. 
1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. Had 
I been present during the actual vote, I would have voted ``no'' to 
H.R. 1592 because I believe all crimes should be prosecuted equally 
without special rights based on gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual 
orientation. All criminal acts are committed with the intention of 
harming or depriving another individual, and trying to elevate crimes 
against certain individuals would be an arbitrary way to punish. I 
absolutely believe that those who commit crimes against anyone should 
be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Furthermore, I would have 
voted ``yes'' in strong support of the motion to recommit which would 
have amended the legislation to protect seniors and veterans.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1592, the 
Local law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act and to oppose attempts 
to weaken the bill by removing certain groups from its protection.
  Mr. Speaker, no one knows better than a member of the African-
American community in this country that hate crimes exist and have been 
an ugly part of this country's history. And we also know that in the 
face of all of the apologies offered and passed for slavery and 
lynching, if we cannot pass this bill today they are but empty words on 
a piece of worthless paper.
  It is time for us to demand through this vote that this country draw 
the line with a zero-tolerance policy for crimes based on any 
characteristic of the victim.
  This critically needed legislation will provide local police and 
sheriff's departments with vital Federal resources to address hate 
crimes; which are crimes against either persons or property where the 
offender intentionally selects the victim because of their actual or 
perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, 
disability, or sexual orientation.
  I fail to understand why anyone, including members of the clergy 
would oppose this legislation. This form of hate for one human-being to 
another should be repugnant to all of us and not be tolerated.
  While current Federal law covers hate crimes it is very narrow in 
scope and does not reach many cases where individuals motivated by hate 
kill or injure others. H.R. 1592, would strengthen the Federal response 
to hate crimes by giving the U.S. Justice Department power to 
investigate and prosecute violence motivated by the victims race color, 
religion national origin gender or sexual orientation, gender identity 
of disability.
  Sadly, the need for H.R., 1592 is underscored because this problem of 
violence based on hate for a person of another race, ethnicity, gender 
or persuasion is getting worse not better. Since 1991, the FBI has 
received reports of more than 113,000 hate crimes. For the year 2005 
(for which the most current data are available), the FBI received 
reports from law enforcement agencies identifying 7,163 bias-motivated 
criminal incidents.
  It is time that this Congress send a message to the American people 
that we will not tolerate hate crimes, that they must strengthen the 
Federal response and prosecution of those who perpetrate them, that we 
uphold the principles of equality and justice for all upon which this 
country was founded and that we intend to practice what many of us 
preach; which is brotherly love.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1592.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1592, 
the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.
  Simply put, the current patchwork of State laws alone does not fully 
protect the rights of all Americans from violence based upon actual or 
perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual 
orientation, gender identity, or disability. I am frankly astounded 
that current Federal laws are not more inclusive.
  It is unconscionable that we are only now voting on this legislation 
today. Almost 150 years after our country enshrined the freedom from 
violence based upon race, with the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to 
the United States Constitution, we still have not extended those same 
protections to all of our citizens. Today, this body has the chance and 
indeed the responsibility to rectify this injustice.
  Hate knows no borders, so even though 38 states already provide some 
of the protections that would be extended by Federal law if H.R. 1592 
is enacted, only a Federal law can ensure equal protection under the 
law for all Americans.
  Remarkably, this legislation faces opposition. These opponents have 
claimed that H.R. 1592 is somehow an attack on free speech or a 
person's religious beliefs. H.R. 1592 does not criminalize freedom of 
speech or religious expression, but it does criminalize violence 
against a person based upon their perceived race, color, religion, 
national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or 
disability. In fact, a long and diverse list of religious organizations 
have spoken out in favor of H.R. 1592, including groups representing 
Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim and Sikh faiths.
  No longer will this body be silent for the millions of Americans that 
too often have no voice in the world.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to show my 
support for H.R. 1592, The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention 
Act of 2007.
  Freedoms of speech, expression, and equal protection under the law 
are the founding principles of this country. The Constitution 
guarantees these rights to all Americans. I believe that it is our duty 
to fight for the equal rights of all Americans, regardless of their 
race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, 
gender identity, or disability.
  I abhor all violent crimes. Attacks that are motivated by hate are 
attacks on a whole class of people. Such hate crimes are intended to 
instill fear in an entire community and are particularly heinous. We 
must give law enforcement the proper tools to investigate and prosecute 
crimes that are motivated by hate.
  Laws punishing hate crimes are not intended to value one group over 
another, but rather to acknowledge the historical bias against certain 
minority groups and opinions so that all can enjoy the same legal 
protections as the majority. Hate crime laws protect innocent people 
and allow them to engage in everyday activity without fear.

[[Page 11184]]

  I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this important 
legislation. This bill helps to better define a hate crime and prevents 
the erosion of civil liberties critical to our democracy.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Hate Crimes 
Prevention Act. Our country values diversity, values individuality, 
values different cultures and respects people for who they are. Hate 
crimes are simply un-American.
  In 2005, there were over 7,000 Federal hate crimes committed in this 
country, but the current law does not cover most true hate crimes.
  Late last year in New York, three men lured Michael J. Sandy to a 
parking lot, beat him and chased him into traffic where he was struck 
by a car. He died 5 days later, one day after his 29th birthday. Why 
did these attackers target Michael J. Sandy? Because he was gay.
  Today, Mr. Sandy's attackers can not be prosecuted under Federal law 
for two reasons. First, in order to be a Federal hate crime, a victim 
must be engaged in a federally protected activity such as voting. 
Second, the current hate crime law does not consider sexual orientation 
a protected class.
  The Hate Crimes Prevention Act will sensibly expand the definition of 
a Federal hate crime to cover all violent crimes motivated by race, 
color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender 
identity, or disability when the defendant causes bodily injury or 
attempts to cause bodily injury through the use of a firearm or an 
explosive device.
  Thankfully, New York law has allowed this case to be prosecuted as a 
hate crime, but it is time to update our Federal laws to protect our 
citizens.
  The bill will also give local law enforcement the help they need in 
solving and prosecuting these despicable crimes. Some of these cases 
can strain local resources, but under this legislation, law enforcement 
can reach out and secure Federal resources to pursue these complex 
cases.
  Because the bill makes common sense reforms, the bill has enjoyed 
wide bipartisan support. In fact, the bill is supported by 31 State 
Attorneys General and over 280 national law enforcement, professional, 
education, civil rights, religious, and civic organizations.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical 
legislation.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong 
support of H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention 
Act, which would address the appalling crimes that continue to occur 
today simply because of a person's race, religion, national origin, 
ethnicity, gender, disability or sexual orientation.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 1592 because it is the 
government's responsibility to defend the civil liberties of every 
American and prosecute acts of aggression directed at a specific group 
of individuals. Current federal law provides for enhanced sentencing 
for hate crimes, however, the vast majority of these crimes are not 
tried in federal court. This bill would make it a federal crime to 
cause, or attempt to cause, bodily harm to another person through the 
use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device because of the victim's 
actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender or 
sexual orientation. Opponents of this bill claim that it would chip 
away at First Amendment rights. On the contrary, H.R. 1592 would 
protect First Amendment speech and is only intended to prosecute acts 
of violence.
  The bill would also provide federal assistance to states and local 
jurisdictions to prosecute hate crimes. Specifically, the measure would 
authorize the Attorney General to make grants available to state and 
local law enforcement agencies that have incurred extraordinary 
expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate 
crimes. Currently, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) collects 
statistics on crimes based on race, religion, sexual orientation, 
ethnicity, and disability. This legislation would require that the FBI 
collect statistics on gender and gender identity-related bias crimes.
  I applaud Chairman Conyers and members of the House Judiciary 
Committee for their tireless efforts and leadership on this landmark 
legislation. I would also like to single out the efforts of the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin, and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Frank, for their leadership on this issue. During my 
tenure in the House of Representatives and as a father of three 
children, I have been a consistent supporter of this measure and 
believe it is a tragedy that terrible injustices continue to occur in 
the 21st century. Our nation was founded on the principles of liberty 
and justice for all and these hate crimes run counter to our national 
conscience.
  I believe Robert F. Kennedy spoke most eloquently on this issue while 
commenting on the loss of Dr. Martin Luther King: ``What we need in the 
United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not 
hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence or 
lawlessness; but love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, 
and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our 
country * * *'' Today's legislation takes us one further step towards 
the kind of nation Senator Kennedy and Dr. King worked for and I 
encourage my colleagues to join me in voting for it.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1592, the 
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Let me say from the 
outset: I am strongly opposed to violent crimes committed against an 
individual, regardless of the motivation of the person committing it. 
That is why I support strong state and local prosecution measures to 
curb violent crime and increase safety in our communities. In fact, I 
am a principal supporter in Congress for increasing Federal funding for 
state and local law enforcement officers to curb gang and drug crimes, 
which often leads to violent crimes.
  I have also spent considerable time in my district meeting with 
groups who have experienced discrimination or have been targets of 
violent behavior simply due to their race, religion or sexual 
orientation. The concerns they have raised with me have weighed heavily 
on my mind, and have caused me to reconsider my views on our 
Constitution's Tenth Amendment.
  In the past, I have not supported Federal hate crimes legislation 
since it has traditionally been the responsibility of state and local 
prosecutors rather than the Federal Government. States have the right 
to apprehend and prosecute criminals under their own criminal codes, 
which must be respected. They also have the right to enhance penalties 
as they see fit, and many states have taken that step. My own state of 
Nebraska enacted comprehensive hate crimes legislation in 1997.
  The Nebraska legislation authorizes judges to impose harsher 
penalties in criminal cases when a determination is made that the crime 
was committed due to the victim's race, color, religion, ancestry, 
national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability or 
because of his or her association with persons who fit the specified 
classifications. The enhanced penalties for hate crimes provided for in 
the statute would be the next highest penalty classification above the 
one statutorily imposed for the crime, with the death penalty as the 
only exception. A broad variety of criminal charges could be enhanced, 
including manslaughter, assault, terroristic threats, stalking, 
kidnapping, false imprisonment, sexual assault of an adult or child, 
arson, criminal mischief, and criminal trespass. Our state statutes 
also provide victims with the authority to bring civil actions against 
attackers.
  The actions taken by Nebraska and so many other states are 
appropriate because the states have the ability to expand their 
criminal codes as each sees fit. At the same time, there is no Federal 
nexus and thus no need for duplicative Federal legislation.
  The Tenth Amendment is clear: ``The powers not delegated to the 
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, 
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' At some 
point, we have to stop federalizing every problem in the country, no 
matter how large or small. When the states are addressing a problem 
effectively, there is no need for the Federal Government to add an 
extra layer of bureaucracy. Crime and punishment, with few exceptions, 
are in the purview of state legislative authority. I am unwilling to 
interfere with that constitutional balance, no matter how worthy the 
underlying subject matter might be. For these reasons, I must oppose 
H.R. 1592.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, in my view an act of violence 
against one person is an act of violence against all of us Our actions 
toward each other should--and our policies as a nation must--be based 
on compassion and understanding of human experiences if we are to truly 
have a nation of liberty and justice for all.
  In other words, I think in our country all of us, regardless of our 
race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, should be able to 
live our lives free from violence, intimidation, and discrimination.
  That is why I believe Congress must pass legislation to make it more 
likely that people who are guilty of violent crimes based on bias are 
properly prosecuted, convicted, and punished.
  The result will not be to end hate--nor to make hate a crime--but to 
establish that our government will not tolerate hate and bigotry that 
manifests itself in violence against anyone.
  Because I support that result, since first coming to Congress I have 
cosponsored and

[[Page 11185]]

voted for legislation similar to the measure now before us.
  And that is why I will vote for this bill today.
  The bill will amend the Federal criminal code to prohibit willfully 
causing bodily injury to any person because of the actual or perceived 
race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, 
gender identity, or disability of that person.
  It also will authorize the Department of Justice to provide 
technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or other assistance to help local 
law enforcement agencies investigate and prosecute acts that are both 
crimes of violence under Federal law or a felony under State, local, or 
Indian tribal law; and also are motivated by prejudice based on the 
actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, 
sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim. And 
to further assist State, local, and tribal officials with the expenses 
related to hate crime cases, the bill would authorize the Attorney 
General to establish a grant program to be administered by the Office 
of Justice Programs that would have a particular focus on combating 
hate crime committed by juvenile offenders.
  The bill also will broaden Federal coverage of hate crimes under two 
scenarios. First, under any circumstance, it will prohibit willfully 
inflicting bodily injury to any person, attempted or otherwise, through 
the use of fire, a firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, if such 
conduct were motivated on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, 
religion, or national origin of any person. Second, it will prohibit 
the same conduct, if such conduct were motivated on the basis of the 
victim's gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, in 
addition to the four bases covered by the first scenario, in 
circumstances involving specific jurisdictional ties to the 
Constitution's interstate commerce clause.
  Under either scenario, offenders could be sentenced to 10 years' 
imprisonment and a fine, or for any term to life imprisonment if the 
crime resulted in the victim's death, or involved murder, kidnapping, 
attempted kidnapping, rape, or attempted rape.
  The bill addresses two deficiencies in current law that limit the 
Federal Government's ability to work with State and local law 
enforcement agencies and have led to acquittals in some cases in which 
Federal jurisdiction has been asserted to backstop local efforts.
  One is the fact that current Federal law provides no coverage for 
violent hate crimes committed because of the victim's perceived sexual 
orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. The other is that 
current law requires proof that the crime was committed with the intent 
to interfere with the victim's participation in one of six specifically 
defined federally protected activities. The bill addresses both those 
limitations and provides the Justice Department tools to effectively 
act against bias-motivated violence by assisting States and local law 
enforcement agencies and by pursuing Federal charges where appropriate. 
This is the same approach Congress took in the Church Arson Prevention 
Act of 1996.
  It is important to note that even after enactment of this bill, State 
and local authorities will deal with the overwhelming majority of hate 
crimes--and the bill is drafted to ensure that the Federal prosecution 
of hate crimes will be limited to cases that implicate the greatest 
Federal interest and present the greatest need for Federal 
intervention.
  The bill is not intended to federalize all rapes, sexual assaults, 
acts of domestic violence, or other gender-based crimes.
  In fact, for a hate crime case to be prosecuted federally, the 
Attorney General, or a high-ranking subordinate, would have to certify 
that pertinent state or local officials (1) were unable or unwilling to 
prosecute; (2) favored Federal prosecution; or (3) prosecuted, but the 
investigation or trial's results did not satisfy the Federal interest 
to combat hate crimes.
  This certification requirement is intended to ensure that the Federal 
Government will assert the new hate crimes jurisdiction in a principled 
and properly limited fashion, consistent with procedures under the 
current Federal hate crimes statute.
  It should also be noted that the bill respects and protects First 
Amendment rights. It will not bar or punish name-calling, verbal abuse 
or expressions of hatred toward any person or group--it deals only with 
violent criminal actions--and includes a provision explicitly stating 
that conduct protected under the speech and religious freedom clauses 
of the First Amendment is not subject to prosecution. In short, the 
bill does not criminalize speech or advocacy, and its enactment will 
not jeopardize anyone's right to associate, to denounce, to hold fast 
to a religious belief, or to do anything else protected by the 
Constitution's First Amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, crimes motivated by bias are not as rare as many of us 
would like to think. Since 1991 the FBI has received reports of more 
than 113,000 hate crimes. In 2005, the latest year for which data are 
available, the FBI received reports from law enforcement agencies 
identifying 7,163 bias-motivated criminal incidents, with more than 
half being racially-motivated and others reflecting religious bias 
(17.1 percent), sexual orientation (14.2 percent) and ethnicity/
national origin bias (13.7 percent). And, unfortunately, Colorado is 
not immune--in 2005 our state reported 59 crimes based on racial bias, 
22 reflecting religious prejudice, 16 related to sexual orientation, 27 
involving ethnic bias, and 1 involving a person's disability, and there 
have been more since then.
  These sobering statistics demonstrate that the legislation before us 
is appropriate and necessary--especially because it is generally 
understood that hate crimes are often not reported as such.
  Accordingly, I support the bill and urge its passage.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1592, 
the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.
  As Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, I know 
that Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders have faced a long history of 
hate crimes, from the 1880 lynching of Chinese in Denver's Chinatown, 
to the brutal killing of Vincent Chin in 1982, to post-September 11 
violence against Arabs, Sikhs, and Muslims, including the murder of 
Balbir Sigh Sodhi, and more recently, the killing of Cha Vang, a Hmong 
individual, in Wisconsin just this year.
  Hate crimes are under-reported and under-prosecuted. The Local Law 
Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act provides the resources necessary 
for all levels of government to investigate and prosecute hate crimes 
based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, gender 
identity, sexual orientation, and disability.
  Hate crimes are unique in that they are motivated by hostility toward 
an entire community, and are oftentimes rooted in a wider public 
sentiment of discrimination, xenophobia, and intolerance. The passage 
of this Act is a step in the right direction in promoting tolerance in 
our intgrated society.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, today I was proud to stand up for the equal 
protection of all Americans by opposing H.R. 1592, the so called ``Hate 
Crimes Bill.'' I abhor bigotry and discrimination, and I look forward 
to an America where no one is physically harmed for any reason. 
However, creating a special protected class within this country is poor 
public policy and contrary to the founding principle that all Americans 
are equal in front of the law.
  First, this bill is unnecessary. State and local laws already provide 
criminal penalties for the violence addressed by the new Federal crimes 
defined in H.R. 1592. Many of the current state and local laws carry 
stricter penalties than the proposed language in H.R. 1592. State and 
local law enforcement agencies and courts already have the capability 
to enforce those penalties and are doing so effectively. The proof is 
that the most recent FBI Uniform Crime Report shows that bias-motivated 
crimes are decreasing. In fact, less than 17% of all law enforcement 
agencies reported a single hate crime in 2005. No evidence exists that 
states and localities are failing to prosecute hate crimes under 
existing statutes. There is simply no need for the Federal government 
to impinge on the manner in which state and local agencies are 
attacking these concerns.
  Second, there are Constitution questions concerning this bill. The 
14th Amendment affords equal protection under the law to all citizens. 
H.R. 1592 defies this principle by ranking victims according to 
nebulous categories like ``sexual orientation'' and ``gender identity'' 
that are based on behavior and are not easily definable. All violent 
crimes are unacceptable, regardless of the victim, and should be 
punished firmly.
  It is ironic that this bill came to the floor on the National Day of 
Prayer. I am worried that this bill will unfairly target people of 
faith. Under this bill, Christians and clergy may be targets for 
prosecution if their traditional teachings on sexuality are considered 
an inducement to violence of people based on ``sexual orientation'' or 
``gender identity'' whether real or perceived. Typically, members would 
have the opportunity to offer amendments to fix omissions such as this. 
Unfortunately, the Democrat leadership railroaded this bill through the 
floor with absolutely no opportunity to offer amendments, denying us 
the opportunity to protect traditional American values.
  Instead of passing laws which violate long-standing principles of 
good government, we must instead continue in our efforts to make sure 
that criminals understand their behavior

[[Page 11186]]

will not be tolerated. Individuals caught committing a crime must 
understand that conviction will be certain, sentencing will be swift 
and punishment will be severe. Creating classes of victims, as this 
bill surely does, based on broad indefinable categories makes certain 
citizens more equal than others, substitutes a federal mandate for 
local expertise, and fails to protect traditional American values.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 1592, The Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
  This important legislation is about protecting the fundamental rights 
of the most vulnerable in our society.
  The fact is, hate toward people in our country who are deemed 
different remains copious and persistent.
  What is not fact, however, is the campaign of mistruths right-wing 
extremists with a megaphone have instigated against this bill. They 
claim, for instance, that passage of this bill will be used to 
persecute anti-gay churches. To which I say, I don't know of any pastor 
or minister who would advocate tying a man to a split-rail fence, 
beating him brutally, and leaving him to die in the cold of the night 
for no reason other than he was gay.
  This legislation addresses long overdue deficiencies in current 
federal hate crimes law. It extends protections to even more groups of 
targeted minorities. And it ensures that when states are unwilling or 
unable to prosecute hate crimes, justice will be served.
  Violent acts committed against a member of a targeted minority do not 
merely beleaguer the individual. They deprave an entire group and 
society as a whole by promoting a culture of fear among our diverse 
communities and perpetuating stereotypes and hate. I have hopes that 
someday such legislation will no longer be necessary. But the reality 
is that in this day and age it still is. It is evident in the 
resurgence of organized white supremacist movements such as the KKK 
over the past year.
  Without the passage of this critical legislation, an alarming amount 
of hate crime perpetrators around the country will continue to escape 
punishment under federal law. Such as the assailants who shot 
frequenters of a gay bar in New Bedford, Massachusetts earlier this 
year. And the four white male assailants who left Bill Ray, a mentally 
challenged African American, severely and errantly brain damaged. And 
the assailants of Michael Sandy, a gay man who was beaten, chased into 
traffic, hit by a car, and then dragged off the road and attacked a 
second time.
  Until the day comes when there is no need for such legislation, we 
will continue to have a moral obligation to ensure these victims of 
hate crimes have access to just recourse.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.
  This legislation provides protection to all Americans, and is 
consistent with our proud history as a Nation whose founding principle 
is that all people are created equal. Growing up on a tenant farm in 
rural North Carolina, I learned basic values that say that you treat 
all people with respect. These are the values that America stands for. 
Hate crimes--violent crimes motivated by bigotry against race or creed, 
hatred against nationality or disability, or intolerance for 
difference--have no place in a country that holds fast to those values.
  Mr. Speaker, hate crimes exhibit exceptional circumstances where a 
federal role is appropriate and necessary because the crime is intended 
to intimidate Americans beyond the individual victim or jurisdiction 
where the crime occurs. The bill that the House is considering today 
provides vital support for the prosecution of these most heinous acts 
of violence. It gives local and state law enforcement vital resources 
to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. These resources are 
desperately needed, as small rural police departments sometimes cannot 
afford lengthy and complicated investigations. The funding provided in 
this bill will ensure crimes do not go unresolved due to lack of 
funding.
  This bill appropriately targets crimes that are motivated by hatred 
or bigotry, not the hatred or bigotry itself. While we must work 
towards a world free of racism and prejudice, it is not the place of 
the government to tell people how to think or feel, or what to believe. 
What we can and must do, however, is work to sow the seeds of justice, 
freedom, and equality. We must protect all of our citizens from crime, 
and ensure that justice prevails when hatred leads to violence.
  I support this bill, and I oppose the Republican motion to recommit 
H.R. 1592 because it is a parliamentary maneuver intended to kill this 
legislation.
  This bill is a step towards a more just, more equal, and more free 
society. It provides state and local law enforcement crucial federal 
resources they need, and makes sure that these terrible crimes are 
fully investigated and prosecuted.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snyder). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 364, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


            Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Smith of Texas

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I do oppose it, in the current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Smith of Texas moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1592 to 
     the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House promptly with the following 
     amendments:
       Page 12, line 5, after ``orientation,'' insert ``status as 
     a senior citizen who has attained the age of 65 years, status 
     as a current or former member of the Armed Forces,''.

  Mr. SMITH of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is 
straightforward. It seeks to protect America's senior citizens and 
those who serve in our Armed Forces.
  My colleagues on the other side contend that a new law is needed to 
cover crimes against persons based on race, gender, national origin, 
sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. The motion to 
recommit makes sure that seniors and our military personnel are added 
to the list of protected groups.
  We all care greatly about the safety and security of our senior 
citizens. We all understand that they are particularly vulnerable to 
crime. Criminals who prey on our senior citizens because they are 
senior citizens should be vigorously prosecuted and punished.
  The statistics paint a disturbing picture of violence against senior 
citizens in our country. A recent Justice Department study found that 
each year over the last 10 years, for every 1,000 persons over 65, four 
are violently assaulted. This includes rape, sexual assault, robbery 
and aggravated assaults. Approximately 65 percent of these crimes 
against senior citizens are committed by strangers or casual 
acquaintances. In my hometown, the San Antonio police report rising 
crime against the elderly, with over 6,200 crimes just this last year.
  We were all horrified by the recent videotaped robbery in New York 
City committed against 101-year-old Rose Morat. Rose was leaving her 
building to go to church when a robber, who pretended to help her 
through the vestibule, turned and delivered three hard punches to her 
face and grabbed her purse. He pushed her and her walker to the ground. 
Rose suffered a broken cheekbone and was hospitalized. The robber got 
away with $33 and her house keys. Police believe the same man robbed an 
85-year-old woman shortly after beating Rose.
  These are horrible crimes that strike fear into the hearts of 
America's senior citizens and make them wonder whether they will be 
victimized next.
  This motion to recommit also adds the category of current or former 
members of the Armed Forces to the list of groups in this bill. We 
honor our men and women of the military because of their patriotism, 
their commitment to protecting our freedom and their service to our 
country. In times of controversy surrounding the use of our military, 
we have seen unfortunate acts by those who use their hostility towards 
the military to further their political agenda.

[[Page 11187]]

  With the rising debate over the Iraq war, we are seeing increasing 
threats to Iraqi war veterans. Recently, a Syracuse woman pleaded 
guilty to spitting in the face of a Fort Drum soldier at an airport.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to make it clear to everyone that we 
honor our veterans and current members of our Armed Forces. Congress 
can make the message clear that hate of our Armed Forces will be 
punished at a heightened level, just like the other groups under this 
act.
  If Congress rejects this motion to recommit, who will explain to the 
thousands of victims who are senior citizens or military victims that 
their injuries are less important than those of others protected under 
the hate crimes law? Are we really prepared to tell seniors and our men 
and women in uniform across our country that crimes committed against 
victims because of race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, 
gender identity or disability are, as a rule, more worthy of punishment 
than those committed against seniors and military personnel?
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the distinguished gentleman 
from Texas, Mr. Smith, would he yield for a unanimous consent request 
that the bill be amended as follows: Page 12, line 5 after 
``orientation'' insert ``status as a senior citizen who has attained 
the age of 65 years; status as a current or former member of the armed 
services.''
  Would the gentleman yield for a unanimous consent request on that?
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman does not yield.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, 
the proponent of the motion to recommit, yield for a unanimous consent 
request that the motion be amended by striking the word ``promptly'' 
and inserting the word ``forthwith?''
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I also object to that request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas does not yield for 
that purpose.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I notice that the motion being offered by 
the gentleman provides the bill be reported back to the House 
``promptly'' rather than reported back ``forthwith.''
  Is it true, as I believe to be the case, that the effect of the word 
``promptly'' is that the House is not being asked to amend this bill, 
but to send it off the Floor and back to the Judiciary Committee?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The adoption of a motion to recommit with 
instructions to report back ``promptly'' sends the back bill back to 
committee, whose eventual report, if any, would not be immediately 
before the House.
  Does the gentleman from Michigan seek time in opposition to the 
motion to recommit?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I do.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Michigan yield for a 
parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am not inclined to at this time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized 
for 5 minutes in opposition to the motion to recommit.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the motion 
to recommit, which would not operate as a simple amendment, but, listen 
to me, would instead send the bill back to the Committee on the 
Judiciary, in essence killing the bill for the remainder of the 
Congress.
  The categories of individuals included in the amendment, seniors and 
members of the armed services, are entitled to protection under the 
law, and in point of fact they have protection under the law at both 
Federal and State levels. I note that it is already a Federal crime to 
kill or attempt to kill any member of the armed services under 18 
U.S.C. 1114.
  We also have programs in the law to provide assistance to prosecutors 
and law enforcement in the enforcement of crimes against elders, as 
well as a variety of senior services that will help them in their 
homes, safety and elder care.
  The purpose of the bill is to protect classes of individuals who have 
been and are the group-wide victims of systemic violence: hanging a man 
because of his race, dragging someone to death because they are 
disabled. These are crimes that are designed to target and intimidate 
entire groups of individuals, and we all know it. That is why they are 
labeled hate crimes and why this legislation is before us.
  As much as any Member here, I believe we can and should do more to 
protect other members of society. That is why our Committee on the 
Judiciary approved a COPS bill yesterday, reauthorizing a program to 
provide for 100,000 local police on the beat and other safety 
officials. That is why I have in the past pushed for an Elder Justice 
Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the 
distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished chairman.
  This motion, my colleagues, reeks with the stench of cynicism. Let me 
tell you why. The distinguished chairman rose and asked for unanimous 
consent to add the protections to members of our Armed Forces who are 
either serving or have served, and he then asked to protect our senior 
citizens. He asked for unanimous consent to do that, and the gentleman 
from Texas objected, so it was not added.
  Then the chairman rose and asked that we substitute ``forthwith'' for 
``promptly'' so their amendment could be immediately adopted, and the 
gentleman from Texas objected.
  How cynical can you be to offer an amendment, I tell my friend, which 
in its own framework will kill the very proposition you are making? For 
if this amendment prevails, what will happen is, the bill will be 
killed and the protection of the Armed Forces that he seeks, the 
protection of the seniors that he seeks, will be killed.
  My friends on this side of the aisle, this is a political game. The 
American public knows it is a political game. Let's reject this cynical 
political game and pass this legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Isn't it true, Mr. Speaker, that under the 
motion to recommit there is nothing that precludes the Judiciary 
Committee from dealing with the bill when it goes back to the committee 
and sending it back to the floor of the House?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The adoption of a motion to recommit with 
instructions to report back ``promptly'' sends the bill back to 
committee, whose eventual report, if any, would not be immediately 
before the House.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage of the bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 189, 
nays 227, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 298]

                               YEAS--189

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)

[[Page 11188]]


     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Porter
     Putnam
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--227

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Engel
     Fattah
     Gingrey
     Graves
     Hastert
     Hunter
     Johnson, E. B.
     Lampson
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Radanovich
     Tancredo
     Tanner


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes remaining on the vote.

                              {time}  1338

  Messrs. HOBSON, GARRETT of New Jersey and BUYER changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Frank of Massachusetts). The question is 
on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237, 
nays 180, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 299]

                               YEAS--237

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--180

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers

[[Page 11189]]


     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Engel
     Fattah
     Gingrey
     Graves
     Hastert
     Hunter
     Johnson, E. B.
     Lampson
     McMorris Rodgers
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Radanovich
     Tancredo
     Tanner


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2 
minutes remain to vote.

                              {time}  1346

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on H.R. 1592 
I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________