[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11081-11103]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT OF 2009

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the bill 
(H.R. 1913) to provide Federal assistance to States, local 
jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for 
other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 372, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill, modified 
by the amendment printed in House Report 111-91, is adopted and the 
bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 1913

       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 2009''.

     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 a 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 tribal 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, or tribal 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, or tribal 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, or tribal law enforcement agency 
     has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, nongovernmental 
     violence recovery service programs that have experience in 
     providing services to victims of hate crimes; and
       (iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this 
     subsection will be used to supplement, not supplant, non-
     Federal funds that would otherwise be available for 
     activities funded under this subsection.
       (4) Deadline.--An application for a grant under this 
     subsection shall be approved or denied by the Attorney 
     General not later than 180 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, 2011, 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 2010 and 2011.

     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 2010, 2011, and 2012, 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, a dangerous 
     weapon, 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, a dangerous weapon, 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--

[[Page 11082]]

       ``(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.

       ``(3) Additional federal nexus for offense.--Whoever, in 
     the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the 
     United States, or in Indian country, engages in conduct 
     described in paragraph (1) or in paragraph (2)(A) (without 
     regard to whether that conduct occurred in a circumstance 
     described in paragraph (2)(B)) shall be subject to the same 
     penalties as those provided for offenses under those 
     paragraphs.
       ``(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.--
       ``(1) In this section--
       ``(A) the term `explosive or incendiary device' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;
       ``(B) the term `firearm' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 921(a) of this title; and
       ``(C) the term `State' includes the District of Columbia, 
     Puerto Rico, and any other territory or possession of the 
     United States.
       ``(2) For the purposes of this chapter, the term `gender 
     identity' means actual or perceived gender-related 
     characteristics.
       ``(d) Statute of Limitations.--
       ``(1) Offenses not resulting in death.--Except as provided 
     in paragraph (2), no person shell be prosecuted, tried, or 
     punished for any offense under this section unless the 
     indictment for such offense is found, or the information for 
     such offense is instituted, not later than 7 years after the 
     date on which the offense was committed.
       ``(2) Death resulting offenses.--An indictment or 
     information alleging that an offense under this section 
     resulted in death may be found or instituted as any time 
     without limitation.
       ``(e) 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 Constitution.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Debate shall not exceed 1 hour and 20 
minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, each of whom may 
yield control of blocks of that time.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith) each will control 40 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 to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield control of 
10 minutes of the debate to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Mark Kirk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Members of the House, the measure before us enables the Department of 
Justice to come to the aid of State and local law enforcement agencies 
in investigating and prosecuting bias-based brutality and helping defer 
the costs when they overwhelm State and local resources. And when 
necessary--and if approved by the highest, Senate-confirmed Department 
officials--it authorizes the Department to step in and prosecute at the 
Federal level.
  What we are doing here today is expanding existing Federal hate 
crimes law beyond the confines of protecting access to a limited set of 
specified protected activities. What we do is add to the current list 
of group characteristics deservedly recognized for protection, the 
reason being due to their being well-known targets for bias-based 
violence. So we add new ones that also clearly belong on the list, and 
this is after careful scrutiny and hearings on this issue--they are 
sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability.
  These crimes of violence are directed not just at those who are 
directly attacked; they are targeting the entire group with the threat 
of violence. So the groups in the bill differ from other groups that 
some have been trying to add on--and I understand some of their reasons 
for that--but which do not share the same kind of history of being 
targeted over a period of time for hate-based violence.
  Our approach is consistent with the judgment made by the States that 
have hate crimes laws--45 of them. They have made the same judgment as 
we have made for Federal law, that these many other groups should be 
protected elsewhere in the law, not in hate crimes law.
  I close by reminding Members that under Lyndon Johnson in 1968 we 
first started the hate crimes bill under the church arson bill. The 
President called us into the White House with the governors of southern 
States to advise them that the burning of churches, the arson, the 
cross burnings were so out of control in many States that there was no 
other remedy except by Federal statute. The Federal Government would 
have to be authorized to intercede where they invited them to do so. 
From that has grown this bill, based on law that has been tested in the 
Supreme Court and many other lower courts.
  And so we come before you with a bill that does not encroach upon the 
First Amendment, or the Fourth Amendment, or the part of the 
Constitution that leaves all other powers to the States. I urge your 
continued careful consideration of it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, every year thousands of violent crimes are committed out 
of hate, but just as many violent crimes, if not more, are motivated by 
something other than hate--greed, jealousy, desperation or revenge, 
just to name a few. An individual's motivation for committing a violent 
crime is usually complex and often speculative.
  Every violent crime is deplorable, regardless of its motivation. 
Every violent crime can be devastating, not only to the victim and 
their family, but also to the larger community whose sense of safety 
has been violated. That's why all violent crimes should be vigorously 
prosecuted.
  Unfortunately, this bill undermines one of the most basic principles 
of our

[[Page 11083]]

criminal justice system--equal justice for all. Under this bill, 
justice will no longer be equal. Justice will now depend on the race, 
gender, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status of the 
victim. It will allow different penalties to be imposed for the same 
crime. This is the real injustice.
  One of the most troublesome aspects of this bill is that it divides 
America. It divides America by race, again, gender, sexual orientation, 
disability, or other status. We should focus on the opposite, uniting 
America, not dividing our country.
  The bill also could have a chilling effect on the words of religious 
leaders or members of religious groups. For example, religious 
individuals who feel strongly about some values may hesitate to discuss 
their personal beliefs about homosexuality or gay marriage for fear of 
criminal investigation.
  Some of my colleagues on the other side claim that the bill protects 
religious speech. But religious leaders could still be subjected to 
criminal investigations and be reluctant to preach the teachings of 
their faith as a result of this bill.
  In addition, the bill itself is probably unconstitutional and will 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 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 extend 
to ``noneconomic, violent criminal conduct'' that does not cross State 
lines.

                              {time}  1430

  Nor is the proposed legislation authorized under the 14th and 15th 
Amendments. Those amendments extend only to State action and do not 
cover the actions of private persons who commit violent crimes.
  While the 13th Amendment reaches private action such as individual 
criminal conduct, it is difficult to argue that one's religion or 
national origin constitutes a ``badge'' or ``incident'' of slavery, the 
subject of the 13th Amendment.
  Also this bill purports to federalize crimes that are being 
successfully prosecuted by our States and local governments. 
Furthermore, FBI statistics show that the incidence of so-called hate 
crimes has actually declined and substantially declined over the last 
10 years. In 2007, for example, of the approximately 17,000 homicides 
that occurred in the U.S., only nine of the 17,000 murders were 
determined to be motivated by bias.
  This legislation blurs the lines between violent belief, which is 
constitutionally protected, and violent action, which is not. If we go 
down this road, where does it end? With speech monitors and thought 
police?
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and would recognize the 
work of President Bush 19 years ago when he signed the first hate 
crimes information bill into law. That law allowed us to collect data 
showing two hate crimes in my district, 191 in the State of Illinois, 
and 7,600 in America.
  This legislation is backed by the National Sheriffs' Association, the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National District 
Attorneys Association, and 26 State Attorneys General.
  Much of this bill may not have been needed in the earlier days of our 
country when we were, frankly, much less diverse. But unlike those 
earlier times, we have now built the freest country on Earth, with the 
largest economy and also the most diverse population.
  This bill provides Federal help to fight violent crime. It can be 
important, especially to suburban police departments like Palatine, 
Illinois, that could be overwhelmed as two groups squared off, 
overwhelming the resources of a small suburban police department.
  While this bill does provide modest Federal support to help preserve 
order against violent crime, in my heart I support this bill for a 
different reason. We have witnessed diverse societies in other 
countries crack up and go through much pain and anguish and suffering 
when one group attacks another simply because of their membership or 
identity.
  In the United States military, I saw this most clearly in Bosnia and 
Kosovo. Part of the modern Yugoslavia, well-entrenched in Western 
European values, they thought their diverse society would always remain 
calm and peaceful with different groups relating to one another. In 
those societies, the arrogance of that idea was laid bare and the 
countries cracked up and we saw the darkest part of the human heart 
open, only a few hundred miles from the capitals of Europe where we 
draw our own cultural heritage. It would be the height of arrogance to 
say something like this could never happen in the United States of 
America, and it is the job of this Congress to make sure that never 
happens.
  We see violence in other countries, like in Mexico, attempt to come 
across into this country. We see various groups try to bring their 
struggles from Asia or the Middle East to the United States. Our job is 
to make sure not just big city police departments, but also suburban 
and rural police departments, have what they need to quickly respond 
and make sure that a kind of identity violence that has plagued so many 
other countries who may have thought that they were immune can never 
come to our shores.
  If this bill in any way tried to interfere with the First Amendment 
or other speech of this country, I would not support it. But, instead 
it is directed against violent crime, and that is why I support it.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), a former chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee and now the ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. 
The motivation behind this bill is extremely well-intentioned. We 
should punish violent crime. We should punish violent crime where the 
animus is motivated by hate against an individual or against a group 
because of characteristics that they may have.
  But this is the wrong way to go about it. What we should be doing is 
we should be insisting on sentence enhancements for those who are 
convicted of a violent crime, a murder, an aggravated battery, a simple 
battery, an assault. The reason we should do it that way is that way we 
make sure that those who are guilty of a violent crime which is 
motivated by hate against an individual or a group to which he belongs 
gets punished more severely.
  What can happen under this bill by setting up a separate hate crime 
is that someone could be indicted for the violent crime and the hate 
crime simultaneously. At the first trial, the person is acquitted of 
the violent crime, and at the second trial the person is convicted of 
the hate crime, meaning what the defendant says during the commission 
of that crime. And that ends up criminalizing free speech, because the 
actual act of violence the jury determined that the defendant was not 
guilty, but because of what the defendant said during the commission of 
the crime aimed at the victim, the person is convicted of saying that.
  That is where we have the First Amendment slippery slope. And I think 
if this ever happens, you will find this bill declared to be 
unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment in the blink of 
an eye.
  Now, I know that there are a lot of groups that are strongly in favor 
of this type of legislation. One of our jobs here in the Congress of 
the United States, and particularly on the Judiciary Committee, is to 
make sure that what we consider and what we ask the House of 
Representatives to pass is well thought out and does not have this 
glaring gap that I have just described.

[[Page 11084]]

  I would hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle who have 
been pushing this legislation would stop and think about what happens 
to this legislation if a defendant is acquitted of the crime of 
violence and then convicted for what that person says while committing 
the crime for which he was acquitted. Please think about that and come 
back with sentence enhancements, because that is the way to deal with 
this problem, not this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished majority leader, himself a longtime member of the bar and 
a supporter of civil rights, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I am pleased to follow the distinguished gentleman who just spoke 
because what he said was he agrees with the objectives of this 
legislation. One could argue, I suppose, about the means, but really it 
is the objective that is the most important, and the objective is to in 
this country make a statement that violence against individuals because 
of the group of which they are a member or their nationality or their 
race or their religion or their sexual orientation, whatever the 
distinction might be, we in America have said that we believe all 
people ought to be treated equal.
  This legislation, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention 
Act, is a powerful statement, I suggest to you, of some of our most 
important American values, Mr. Kirk spoke of those just a little 
earlier; tolerance, respect for differences, and accountability for 
those who are driven to violence by hate.
  I disagree with my friend from Illinois when he said perhaps we 
didn't need this earlier in our history. Yes, we have become more 
diverse, but in our early history, those whose skin was black were 
subjected to violence not because of their character, not because of 
anything they had done, but because of the fact that their skin was 
black, and because violence was visited against them, all who were 
similarly situated were put in fear. That is why this crime is 
different from simply violence animated, as the distinguished ranking 
member indicated, so many of our crimes are. He is right. But this is a 
particular character of crime that not only puts the victim at risk, 
but puts all members of the group to which that victim belongs at risk 
and at fear.
  This bill allows us to expand the existing Federal hate crimes law, 
which was enacted nearly 40 years ago, and, as was pointed out, was 
signed by one of our previous Republican presidents. Under existing 
law, Federal jurisdiction over hate crime 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.
  My friends, if America stands for anything, it stands for equality 
under the law; of inclusion; of not making arbitrary and capricious 
distinctions based on factors other than American citizenship, endowed 
by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are 
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
  What hate crimes do is to put that at risk. What hate crimes do is 
adopt the premise that somehow there are some citizens less than the 
rest of us because of the group to which they belong.
  That is what this bill is all about, the basic fundamental tenet of 
America that all men and women are created equal. God does not see the 
distinctions sometimes that we see, arbitrary, capricious, and, yes, 
tragically sometimes hateful, that then lead to violence and injury and 
death.
  This legislation broadens this provision to cover all violent crimes 
motivated by race, religion or national origin, as I said. It also 
expands current law to prohibit the same conduct when motivated on the 
basis of a victim's gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or 
disability.
  ``All men and women.'' No parentheses, ``except . . . '', no comma, 
``not these . . . '', no further comma, ``but we don't mean these 
Americans . . . ''. ``All,'' our Constitution and Declaration of 
Independence say. The principle is the same. Hate crimes sow fear and 
division in our communities, no matter what group is targeted.
  Expanding the protections of the law responds to the reality in 
America today. For instance, hate crimes motivated by sexual 
orientation are almost as equally common as hate crimes motivated by 
religion. The gentleman from Illinois suggests there are less crimes, 
and we are pleased about that, but one is too many.
  This bill would also allow the Federal Government to provide 
assistance to State and local law enforcement officials to investigate 
and prosecute hate crimes. Why? Because it is not simply a local 
threat. It is a threat to all Americans everywhere in every State if 
the group to which they belong, the distinction that is made because 
they are in that group is applied because of that membership. It 
clarifies the conditions under which such crimes would be federally 
investigated and prosecuted.
  I have spoken to why this legislation is necessary, because hate 
crimes motivated by race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual 
orientation and identify or disability not only injure individual 
victims, as I have said, but also terrorize entire segments of our 
population and tear at our Nation's social fabric.
  That is why this legislation, in my view, is so fundamental to what 
America is and means to our own citizens and to people around the 
world. This legislation does not affect, does not affect, does not 
affect free speech. It is actions, not speech, that is the object of 
this legislation.

                              {time}  1445

  It only seeks to punish violent acts. Enacting these important 
additions to current law will send a very powerful message. Crimes 
committed against any American, simply because of who he or she is, are 
a threat to all Americans and will be dealt with as such.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation because it embodies 
the essential American values of tolerance, equality and justice.
  I congratulate the chairman for his leadership. I thank the ranking 
member, notwithstanding his disagreement on this issue, for 
facilitating this bill coming to the floor.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who is the vice ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, we all agree that every violent crime is 
deplorable, despicable, regardless of its motivation and regardless of 
who the victim is. However, this bill, no matter how well-intended, 
undermines basic principles of our criminal justice system and raises 
significant constitutional and federalism concerns.
  Under the provisions of H.R. 1913, justice will no longer be equal 
but will depend on the race, sex, sexual orientation, disability or 
other protected status of the victim. In my view, all victims should 
have equal worth in the eyes of the law.
  Why should other groups like senior citizens, veterans, children and 
pregnant women not also receive the added protections under this bill?
  The distinguished majority leader says that this is not about thought 
crime; it's about conduct. But the fact of the matter is that the 
identical crime, be it a murder, a rape, an assault, a battery, 
whatever it might be, conducted against one of the protected classes 
will receive additional penalties, compared to that pregnant woman or 
senior citizen or veteran or child, simply based upon the thought 
process of the perpetrator of the crime. Every victim is entitled to 
the same fair treatment under the law.
  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 use any unpopular statements they make against them in 
the future.
  The bill raises the real possibility that religious leaders or 
members of religious groups could be criminally prosecuted based on 
their speech or protected activities. No one should be put in fear that 
their constitutionally

[[Page 11085]]

protected free speech about controversial issues will be subject to 
efforts by prosecutors attempting to link that speech to violent action 
taken by others.
  There is no evidence that States are not fully prosecuting violent 
crimes involving hate. In fact, 45 States and the District of Columbia 
already have specific laws punishing hate crimes.
  I abhor acts of violence against any citizen, including crimes 
motivated by bias against certain groups, and I believe that such 
crimes should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. 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.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.
  Mr. KIRK. I would now like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Cao).
  Mr. CAO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1913, the Local 
Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act.
  The sharp increase in crimes in Orleans and Jefferson Parishes since 
Hurricane Katrina is on the minds of my constituents in every corner of 
our district. Because of this serious matter, I am focused on giving 
our law enforcement officials the tools they need to fight crime and 
return safety to our streets.
  All violent criminals must be fully prosecuted. Crimes committed 
against individuals based upon their actual or perceived race, color, 
religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity 
or disability are particularly insidious.
  This is a Nation of acceptance, where every individual is protected 
by the Constitution. This promise enables them to pursue their dreams 
free of persecution and attack. I, as a minority, am acutely aware of 
freedoms and protections offered by the laws of this land and what is 
expected of my fellow citizens.
  The provisions of this bill will assist prosecutors in enforcing the 
rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It allows law enforcement 
officials to hold those committing violent crimes accountable for their 
actions. This is what this bill does.
  What this bill does not do is restrict free speech. Freedom of speech 
and freedom of association guaranteed by the first amendment are 
respected by the language of this bill. Despite concerns to the 
contrary, this bill will not subject anyone to prosecution of what they 
think, say or preach.
  Mr. Speaker, I am supporting this bill because hate crimes are an 
assault on a person's dignity and humanity. They represent a type of 
behavior that has no place in our dignified society, and it is our 
responsibility to enable prosecution of these heinous crimes to the 
fullest extent of the law.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), a member of the Judiciary Committee and a 
former ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to pound the podium or yell 
and scream about this legislation, but I'd just say to the Speaker that 
sometimes all the spin that we hear in here about a particular piece of 
legislation during debate, or sometimes our getting down into the 
specifics of the semantics of the legislation or arguing about what the 
courts say it will or will not do, causes us to do what the average 
citizen at home does not do, and that is to miss the common sense and 
the rightness of a piece of legislation.
  The distinguished majority leader came to the floor a while ago and 
stated two principles: that all people ought to be treated equally, and 
if America stands for anything, it stands for equality under the law. 
And that's what this legislation does not do.
  Mr. Speaker, just a short time ago there was a pageant in the United 
States, the Miss USA pageant. One of the contestants, Ms. California, 
went up there, and she was asked a question by one of the judges, who 
is an openly gay judge, about her beliefs in marriage. And she stated 
what her beliefs were. That judge lambasted her over and over again in 
blogs, calling her the most vile names, spewing out hostility and hate, 
and even made the statement that if she had won, he would have stormed 
on the stage and snatched the tiara off her head. And other bloggers 
who had his same orientation and, therefore, were driven to the same 
hatred of this young girl, had similar things in their blogs.
  Had he done that, had he done what he said he would do and stormed 
that stage and pulled that tiara off her head and had bodily harmed 
when he did it, there would not have been 1 ounce of protection under 
this piece of legislation for that young girl.
  But after he did it, if she had, in response, made a statement back 
about the very sexual orientation that had led him to his hatred and 
dislike for her, and if she had responded by slapping him or any 
physical injury, she would have had the potential of a 10-year Federal 
piece of legislation coming against her.
  If her father, sitting in the audience, had gone on that stage to 
stop this kind of hatred and orientation that drove him to have this 
feeling against that young girl and he had made a statement and he had 
responded with any kind of physical action, he could have had a 10-year 
Federal piece of legislation that would have come against him.
  And, Mr. Speaker, I know you have the votes for this legislation. I 
know you have the resources to drive the message and you have the media 
to do it, but the weight of all that combined can't do one solitary 
thing, and that is make this piece of legislation right, and that's why 
I'll vote against it.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Constitution 
Committee on the Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler of New York.
  Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, this House faces a historic 
test. Will we act decisively to deal with some of the most destructive 
crimes in our society, violent assaults against victims who are singled 
out solely because someone doesn't like who they are?
  Whether committed because of the actual or perceived race, color, 
religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity 
or disability of the victim, these violent acts are particularly 
reprehensible because they target not just an individual but an entire 
group. These crimes do, and are often intended to, spread terror among 
all members of the group. They're intended to say to members of a 
group, don't be who you are. Don't go where you're not wanted. Do not 
exercise your civil rights to be yourself, to speak publicly, to go 
wherever you want.
  This bill enables the Federal Government to intervene, so as to 
punish such crimes and protect the rights of individuals and of groups 
unpopular in some quarters.
  Do not believe the scare tactics. This bill does not criminalize 
thoughts or speech. No one will be prosecuted because of what they say 
or think. No preacher need worry about a sermon. Only crimes of 
violence are punishable under this bill.
  The law routinely looks to the motivation behind a criminal act and 
treats the more heinous of them differently. Manslaughter is different 
from premeditated murder, which is different from a contract killing. 
We punish crimes differently if they are terrorist acts, defined as 
violent crimes that ``appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce the 
civilian population.''
  Existing civil rights laws take a similar approach. A person who uses 
force to interfere with someone's federally protected rights such as 
voting, working, attending school and the like, commits a Federal 
crime. And that's been the law for many years. We treat an act of 
violence more seriously if the intent is to deny someone his or her 
civil rights.
  The only question this bill presents to Members is whether we believe 
people assaulted violently because of their identity deserve Federal 
protection.
  For many years Congress refused to adopt antilynching laws. Those 
were not proud times in our Nation's history. We now have the 
opportunity to do the right thing. I hope we do.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McClintock).

[[Page 11086]]


  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, it comes down to this: Free societies 
punish acts. Authoritarian regimes punish opinions and thoughts.
  Now, the supporters of this bill speak of punishing violent acts, but 
we already punish those violent acts, as well we should. This measure 
calls for additional punishment, not for the violent act, but for the 
opinion behind the act.
  Before we embarked down this path, the opinions of the criminal were 
irrelevant. It was the act that we proscribed, and it was the act that 
we punished. Many civil libertarians warned us then that if we place in 
the hands of government the ability to define what opinions it likes 
and doesn't like, and then to punish those opinions on top of the acts 
themselves, then we've started down a very dangerous and slippery 
slope.
  That opinion, I think, was clearly illustrated when the committee 
voted down an amendment to include veterans, for example, under these 
protections under the hate crimes law. Now, the supporters of this 
measure made it very clear that they're actively involved in singling 
out particular opinions with special protection and for special 
prosecution.
  Mr. CONYERS. I am pleased now to recognize a senior member of the 
House Judiciary Committee, the gentlelady from Texas, Sheila Jackson-
Lee, for 2 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for your 
leadership and your persistence, and I thank my good friends for this 
vigorous debate.
  I almost don't know where to start. But again, I would like to 
emphasize to my friends and colleagues what this legislation is about. 
It is about the assistance and the ability to help States in their 
prosecution of heinous hate crimes. And, as a very championed citizen 
of the State of Texas, I hesitate to make ourselves a poster child.

                              {time}  1500

  But having lived through the heinous crime of the dismemberment of 
James Byrd, I cannot help relating this legislation to what is real.
  This will not bring down injustice on a person of faith who chooses 
to go into their pulpit or stand on a street corner and say that the 
wrath of the person they believe in will come down on those who 
practice lifestyles that they don't agree with, or a certain race or 
religion. They will go even further by saying the sword of justice, the 
sword of the Lord will come down and slay you.
  That is not what this bill is about, but it is about individuals who 
would attack a person of color--in this instance, an African American 
male--in the dark of night, tie him to a pickup truck, and drag his 
human, alive body through the streets of Jasper, Texas. When they were 
finished, he was dismembered, his arms and legs and head were left 
along the bloody road. It was this heinous crime that led a State like 
Texas to pass its own hate crimes bill. But yet, hate crimes have gone 
on since that time, and State legislatures have noted, why haven't 
these cases been tried in this State?
  This bill will help those instances.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Poe), a former judge and now the deputy ranking member 
of the Crime Subcommittee.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, in a courthouse in Houston, Texas, where I worked 8 
years as a prosecutor and 22 as a judge, there is a statement that 
says, ``Equal justice for all.'' I guess now we need to change that, 
but to the phrase, ``but more justice for some.''
  This bill makes some victims more important than other victims. If 
someone is in a legislated protected class--as this bill does--and a 
crime is committed against them, the defendant is treated harsher than 
if the crime is committed against a victim in a nonprotected class. 
This legislation discriminates against victims that are not special 
people. It reminds me of the satire in the book ``Animal Farm'' where 
it says, ``all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than 
others.'' Likewise, this bill makes some victims of crime more equal 
than others. In my opinion, that denies nonspecial victims equal 
protection under the law, according to the 14th Amendment of the 
Constitution.
  The question is, is it fair to treat some victims of crime better 
under our law than other people who are not special? This bill makes 
classes of victims; first-class victims and second-class victims.
  No question about it, Mr. Speaker, motive for a crime has always been 
admissible in a court of law. In my experience at the courthouse, 
courts and juries nail offenders to the wall that commit crimes based 
upon racial hatred. Perfect example is the example that my friend, 
Sheila Jackson-Lee, just referred to in the Jasper killing. Without a 
hate law in Texas, the individuals that committed that crime against 
that individual, Mr. Byrd, two of them got the death penalty--and 
unlike some States, we execute folks in Texas--they have been executed, 
and the other person got a life sentence. No question about it, motive 
is admissible in all crimes in all courtrooms. However, this 
legislation is not the answer. It will chill free speech, while making 
some victims less important than others.
  American law has always punished the act. This law changes that to 
punish the thought process of individuals and does make some people 
more special than others when it comes to being victims of crime, and 
that ought not to be.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like now to yield 2 minutes to a 
senior member of the Judiciary Committee, who is also a chairperson of 
another subcommittee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. 
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I wonder if our friends on the other side of the aisle 
would be singing the same offensive tune if we were talking about hate 
crimes based on race or religion. It seems to me that it is the 
category of individual that they are offended by rather than the fact 
that we have hate crimes laws at all.
  We have already heard the powerful story of Matthew Shepard. His 
mother, Judy, addressed our caucus this week. As the Speaker noted, we 
are all inspired by Judy Shepard's 10-year quest to turn her pain and 
tears into change because these cases are tragic and real.
  Ryan Skipper was a 25-year-old gay man from Polk County, Florida. 
Like Matthew, Ryan's body was found murdered and dumped along the side 
of the road about 2 years ago. Ryan's body had been stabbed 20 times 
and his throat was slit. His car was found abandoned nearby and 
contained the fingerprints of his two killers. One of his killers told 
the police his conduct was justified to rebuff unwanted sexual 
advances. Because there was no hate crime law with which to charge 
Ryan's killer in Florida, only one of Ryan's attackers has been 
convicted, and that was of a lesser charge.
  Why do we need a hate crimes law? Because hate crimes do more than 
threaten the safety and well-being of individuals. Hate crimes do more 
than inflict incalculable pain and suffering on individual victims. 
Hate crimes target groups and terrorize communities. Left unpunished, 
hate crimes send powerful messages of intolerance. Hate crimes leave 
both the victim and others in their group feeling isolated, vulnerable, 
and unprotected.
  I am proud to cosponsor this legislation again this Congress. I want 
to commend my colleague, Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, and my 
committee colleague, Tammy Baldwin, for their leadership in bringing 
this issue forward again this year.
  Let's announce here and now that we will not tolerate this kind of 
terror in America. Let's vow that we will not turn a blind eye to 
hatred and violence in America. And let us pledge to give police and 
prosecutors all the resources they need to stamp out this scourge.
  Mr. Speaker, Matthew Shepard and Ryan Skipper may be gone, but we can 
honor their lives today. I urge my colleagues to support this important 
legislation.

[[Page 11087]]


  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee 
and the deputy ranking member of the Court Subcommittee.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Our Founding Fathers asserted the self-evident truth 
that all men are created equal. For the last two centuries, Americans 
of all backgrounds have worked toward the ideal of ``equal justice for 
all,'' but the majority's Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention 
Act doesn't eliminate inequalities in our justice system; instead, it 
creates inequalities. It gives special protected status to a small 
group of individuals based on their lifestyle choices. It increases 
criminal penalties not based on the criminal act itself, but based on 
the thoughts and beliefs of the person who committed the act. It 
requires the government to investigate and scrutinize the religious 
groups and other organizations with which we might freely associate 
under the First Amendment. For these reasons, and a number of others, I 
believe this bill is unconstitutional and must be rejected.
  In the United States of America, we can all agree that any violent 
crime should be deplored. We all should be equally free from violence, 
regardless of our background or beliefs. We all should expect our 
government officials to provide equal protection under the law. But 
this hate crimes bill says some Americans are more equal than others 
and deserve special treatment. And religious leaders and others who 
hold traditional values of morality and decency should be careful not 
to speak too vocally about their beliefs or risk being held accountable 
for the actions of those who might overhear and then later commit a 
violent crime.
  During our Judiciary Committee markup of this bill, when it became 
clear that the Democrats planned to report it despite these objections, 
my Republican colleagues sponsored amendment after amendment seeking 
equal treatment under this bill for senior citizens, men and women of 
the Armed Services, pregnant women, and unborn children. All were 
rejected by the Democrats.
  It is unbelievable to me that the sponsors of this bill think those 
who have chosen a different personal lifestyle should enjoy greater 
protection under the Federal law than those who have chosen a lifestyle 
of service to our country--as our men and women in the military have 
done--or that they deserve more protection under the Federal law than 
pregnant mothers.
  No violent crime should be condoned, and no one on either side of 
this issue believes it should. But selectively protecting some while 
punishing others more severely based on their thoughts and beliefs is 
unequal, unjust, and un-American.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this affront to the Constitution 
and to our Nation's heritage and traditions of freedom to think and 
believe according to the dictates of our own conscience.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to Steve 
Cohen, a State legislator and lawyer for more than 24 years.
  Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Chairman Conyers. I appreciate the opportunity 
to speak on this bill of which I am a sponsor.
  The gentleman who just spoke, who I respect, talked about the 
Founding Fathers and what has happened to our country. Well, it is a 
great country and I love our country, and it was a great country when 
it was founded. But when it was founded, women didn't have the right to 
vote and African Americans weren't citizens.
  It takes time to perfect your law and to become a more perfect Union, 
and that is what this law is doing. It is taking an effort to perfect 
and make better our laws to reflect the society we have today and the 
thinking and the mindset that we have and the understanding of what 
happens in law.
  If we go all the way back to always the Founding Fathers, we would 
have slaves, we would have second-class citizens--which are women--and 
we wouldn't have any rights for anybody that wasn't a white male who 
owned property.
  Times have changed, and thank God they are changing today, Mr. 
Speaker. The fact is, this has no effect on anybody that speaks about 
hate crimes. It doesn't affect any minister that speaks from the 
pulpit. We have had hate crimes in this country in State legislatures, 
and Federal law as well, for decades, and no preacher or person using 
the spoken Word has ever been prosecuted or charged with a crime, and 
never would.
  This law goes further than any law ever because it specifically says 
that no First Amendment rights or rights guaranteed through freedom of 
speech will be abridged or, because of the exercise thereof, have any 
charge brought against a person who exercises those rights. Never 
before has that been in a law that we have had here.
  So more rights are given to people, even though it is unnecessary to 
give them because there is no problem, it is basically simply to 
guarantee and assure people, to calm their concerns.
  People talk about people not being able to preach against people 
being gay. The fact is they can do it, and the fact is the Ten 
Commandments tell you not to bear false witness. And people who submit 
that preachers could be arrested for preaching against homosexuality, 
which they do today, that they could be arrested, there is a 
commandment about that, ``Don't bear false witness.'' This is a good 
law.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Will the gentleman yield?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I want a clarification, Mr. Speaker, for a point of 
order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. GOHMERT. The gentleman said that there was a commandment against 
bearing false witness, as if that is what one does when they say 
someone can be prosecuted, and I would ask for a ruling from the Chair 
on whether that violates the rule of this body.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a point of 
order.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), former judge, and now the ranking member of 
the Crime Subcommittee.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Well, unlike my friend from Tennessee, I am not going to 
allege that anyone on the other side of this issue is trying to bear 
false witness.
  I believe the motivation is good, but we even heard the majority 
leader say this bill stands for equality under the law. I don't believe 
he meant to misstate the truth, but the truth is this bill sets out 
different classifications that are more special than others. Someone 
suggested that perhaps people would be happy if we just said, I'll tell 
you what. If you assault a white male, then you just get half the 
sentence of assaulting someone else.
  We want equal justice under the law; that's what we are supposed to 
have. I have a letter here from the National Black Church Initiative 
that was sent to Senator Leahy 2 years ago. It is signed by one, two, 
three, four, five, six, seven--well, I can't count them all. There are 
four pages of names. But the first is Anthony Evans, President of the 
D.C. Black Church Initiative. But it says things including, ``The 
National Black Church Initiative is a coalition of 16,000 churches.'' 
``We have 18,000 sister churches.'' They are located in virtually every 
congressional district in America. ``If the U.S. Senate passes this 
bill and thus codifies sexual orientation as a protected legal class, 
it will open up a constitutional war between the church and the radical 
gay community. We know the gay community plans to use this piece of 
legislation to try to legally force the church to recognize their 
abominable lifestyle''--some very strong statements there.
  I have just received a letter dated April 29 from the United States 
Commission on Civil Rights. ``We write today to urge you to vote 
against the proposed Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention 
Act.'' They said, ``We believe the bill will do little good and a great 
deal of harm.'' They say some suggest it will only apply to hate 
crimes. But they point out, It is sufficient if he acts because of 
someone's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, 
gender, sexual

[[Page 11088]]

orientation, gender identity or disability. Consider, rapists seldom 
are indifferent to the gender of their victims. They are virtually 
always chosen because of their gender. A robber might well steal from 
women or the disabled. Why? Because they perceive them to be weaker and 
more vulnerable.
  Moreover, they say, The objective meaning of the language and 
considerable legal scholarship would certainly include these being 
covered. So all of these things would now become Federal crimes.

                              {time}  1515

  There is no epidemic. There are fewer numbers now than 10 years ago. 
There is no nexus. Ryan Skipper and Matthew Shepard's cases keep being 
brought up. For the defendants in those cases, I would have been happy 
to have signed an order for death. They got life. It would not affect 
them.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. GOHMERT. This law would not affect the Matthew Shepard case. It 
would not affect the Ryan Skipper case.
  My friend from Florida brought up the Ryan Skipper case in Florida 
when I was talking in Judiciary and was asking: Is there a case you can 
give me where this would make a difference? That case was brought up. 
We did the research after the hearing. Well, guess what? Two 
defendants. One has already got life plus extra years on top of life. 
The other is about to go to trial. They didn't need a hate crimes law, 
a Federal hate crimes law.
  This divides America. We don't need to divide America. Everybody 
deserves equal justice. The gangs who pick their victims based on 
violence against random targets get acquitted under this bill. They get 
acquitted for acting randomly.
  We've got to vote ``no'' on this.
  Mr. CONYERS. I am pleased to yield now 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Colorado (Ms. Markey).
  Ms. MARKEY of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, Matthew Shepard died in a 
hospital less than 5 minutes from my home in Fort Collins, Colorado. 
The depth of hate that drives such an act of violence leaves all of 
those it touches bereft in the knowledge that such ugliness can exist 
on this Earth.
  Angie Zapata was an 18-year-old transgender woman who was brutally 
murdered in Greeley, Colorado this past July. It took a jury just 2 
hours to convict Angie's killer under Colorado's first application of 
the hate crimes statute earlier this month.
  This bill does not punish speech, thoughts, words or beliefs. It does 
not even punish hate speech. It punishes actions. It provides State and 
local authorities with Federal assistance in investigating and in 
prosecuting hate crimes. In this country, 45 States already have hate 
crimes legislation on the books. Many of these statutes are more robust 
than the current Federal law.
  Matthew Shepard and Angie Zapata were two victims of hate crimes in 
my district. I have a duty to their memories that I take seriously.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, there are two very good reasons to vote ``no'' 
on this bill. This bill is called the hate crimes bill.
  The first major reason to vote ``no'' is that this bill increases 
hatred in America. I will say it again. This bill increases hatred in 
America. How does that happen? It can be easily illustrated. Let's say 
that you're a parent and that you have a number of children but that 
you don't give the children equal laws. Some you favor and some you 
don't. What quicker formula to create animosity between children?
  This law violates the most basic principle of law. Lady Justice is 
always supposed to have a blindfold across her face because, regardless 
of who you are when you appear before Lady Justice--whether you're 
black or white, male or female, rich or poor, fat or skinny--Lady 
Justice does not notice. This bill violates that basic principle. It 
creates animosity by elevating one group over another group; thus, it 
creates hatred. This is counter to everything American law has ever 
stood for, and it will increase hatred in America. For that reason 
alone, there should be a vote of ``no.''
  A second good reason to vote ``no'' on this bill is that our courts 
have a large backlog of various cases. Our judges and juries have to 
take a look at a certain set of facts and must determine whether or not 
somebody did or did not do something that is specifically illegal in 
the law. This law says that now we're going to try and turn them all 
into psychologists and have them figure out whether the criminals had 
good attitudes or not when they did the crimes. That does not make 
sense to waste precious judicial resources in trying to make everybody 
psychologists to determine whether or not some specially protected 
class gets a special privilege.
  It's a good reason, and there are many good reasons to vote ``no.''
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize for 1 minute 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who has been the cochair 
of the Progressive Caucus for many years.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, the Local Law 
Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, is about protecting every 
member of our community from violence.
  We understand that hate crimes don't just affect the victims of these 
horrible acts but that they also threaten and affect the fundamental 
rights of every single one of us. Intolerance and prejudice are still a 
part of our world, but when the bigotry leads to violence, this 
Congress has a responsibility to stand up and say, ``No more.''
  With this bill, we will extend and expand on the protections for 
victims of hate crimes, for victims of crimes based on gender, sexual 
orientation, gender identity, and on disability. All children and their 
families must have the freedom to celebrate who they are, and they 
should be protected under Federal law from personal attacks based on 
bigotry.
  The time has come for Congress to pass this bill in order to send a 
clear message throughout the world that violence and hate are not 
acceptable. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this 
legislation.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of the Local Law Enforcement 
Hate Crimes Prevention Act, H.R. 1913.
  This legislation will provide needed assistance to State and local 
law enforcement agencies, and it will make changes to Federal law to 
facilitate the investigation and prosecution of violent, biased-
motivated crimes against people for no other reason than their 
perceived or actual race, religion, natural origin, sexual orientation, 
gender, gender identity or disability.
  We must work together to protect all Americans from hate-motivated 
violence, which is alarmingly prevalent and so often goes unreported. 
Such crimes of hate have dramatic impacts on individuals, families and 
communities, and they must be subject to comprehensive Federal law 
enforcement assistance and prosecution. While State and local 
governments will maintain principal responsibility, an expanded Federal 
role will help ensure the investigation and prosecution of serious 
forms of hate crimes in cases when local authorities are either unable 
or are unwilling to do so.
  Concerns have been raised that the measure will impinge free speech. 
I would like to reiterate that H.R. 1913 applies only to biased-
motivated, violent crimes, violent actions that result in death or 
bodily injury. It does not restrict speech in any way. In fact, the 
bill 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 clause of, the First Amendment to the 
Constitution.''
  H.R. 1913 is supported by virtually every major law enforcement 
organization in the country as well as by civil

[[Page 11089]]

rights, education, religious, and civic organizations. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting the Local Law Enforcement Hate 
Crimes Prevention Act today.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and 
who is also deputy ranking member of the Administrative Law 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in opposition to 
H.R. 1913, which unfortunately is being debated under a closed rule 
today.
  This bill represents an unconstitutional, unprecedented departure 
from a deeply rooted American principle of equal justice under the law. 
Justice should be blind. It should be equal for all Americans. All 
violent crime is deplorable, and it should be punished to the fullest 
extent. Crimes that are not aimed at a certain class of people are just 
as reprehensible as those committed for other reasons; but this bill 
would treat senseless, random violence less harshly than ``hate'' 
crimes.
  Justice will depend on whether a victim is a member of a category 
deemed worthy of protection under this bill--a list, for the record, 
that does not include the unborn, pregnant women, the elderly, and 
others who are among society's most vulnerable.
  In fact, during committee markup, I offered an amendment to add the 
unborn to this list. The amendment was ruled nongermane on the 
outrageous grounds that the unborn are not ``persons.'' So much for 
defending our most defenseless.
  In addition, this bill raises the very real possibility that 
religious teachers of every faith could be prosecuted on what they say 
in the pulpit, on what they preach, by permitting legal action against 
anyone who willfully causes an act to be done by another person. It is 
not hard to imagine charges being filed against a pastor if a 
prosecutor believes that the pastor's message caused someone to commit 
an act of violence. Subjecting pastors' sermons to prosecutorial 
scrutiny in this way would have a chilling effect on the rights of all 
individuals to freely practice their religion.
  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 certain 
values. Crimes committed against one citizen should not be punished any 
more or any less than crimes committed against another.
  I would urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to give 2 minutes to the Crime 
Subcommittee chairman for many years, Bobby Scott of Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, bias crimes are disturbingly prevalent and pose a 
significant threat to the full participation of all Americans in our 
democratic society. Despite the deep impact of hate violence on 
communities, current law limits Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes 
to incidents directed against individuals only 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. Further, the statutes do not permit Federal involvement in a 
range of cases where crimes are motivated by bias against the victim's 
perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability.
  We need to change the law so that the Federal Government will have 
the authority to be involved in investigating and in prosecuting these 
cases when the State authorities cannot or will not do so.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill is narrowly drawn. It only applies to bias-
motivated, violent crime, and it has specific protections to ensure 
that it does not impinge on public speech, religious expression or on 
writing in any way. In fact, the only way that expressions could 
involve the defendant in this crime is if the language were such that 
it would already qualify as something like inciting a riot or other 
violent crimes.
  Mr. Speaker, law enforcement authorities and civic leaders have 
learned that a failure to address the problem of bias crime can cause a 
seemingly isolated incident to fester into widespread tension that can 
cause damage to the social fabric of a community.
  This problem cuts across party lines, and so I hope we will pass the 
bill on a bipartisan basis just as we did last year.

                                   Washington, DC, April 27, 2009.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of thousands of clergy 
     members, pastors, and African American community leaders 
     within our African American Ministers In Action (AAMIA) 
     network of People For The American Way, I urge you to support 
     the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 
     (LLEHCPA)--H.R. 1913.
       As people of color, we are well aware of the hideous nature 
     of race-based violence, and understand the importance of 
     legislation that protects Americans who are victims of hate 
     crimes. We also are not blind to the fact that violent hate 
     crimes are motivated not just by racism. Knowing this, as 
     clergy members and pastors who affirm the humanity of every 
     person, we fully understand and embrace the call to advocate 
     for an inclusive federal law that will extend protection to 
     victims of hate crimes based on disability, sexual 
     orientation, gender, or gender identity. H.R. 1913 is the 
     bill that will make equal protection under the law for 
     victims of hate crimes a reality and not just an American 
     dream.
       Unfortunately, propaganda and lies have prevented the 
     protections that H.R. 1913 proposes from becoming law. One 
     such falsehood is that this bill will eliminate churches' 
     first amendment rights; that this legislation will ``muzzle 
     our pulpits'' or dictate what we as clergy or religious 
     communities can or cannot say. This is not true. In fact, 
     H.R. 1913 protects freedom of speech and freedom of religion. 
     It only punishes violent acts like assault and murder, not 
     religious beliefs. The law makes clear that it cannot be used 
     to prohibit any ``expressive conduct'' or ``activities 
     protected by the Constitution.''
       The AAMIA is passionate about protecting the civil rights 
     of all Americans, especially those that protect people who 
     are discriminated against because of who they are. Victims of 
     violent hate crimes often come to our churches in search of a 
     safe haven from enduring assaults, and they are in need of 
     federal protections. Thus from our houses of worship to your 
     house of policy, we trust that we can count on your support 
     for the protection of American citizens from violent hate 
     crimes. Please vote in favor of H.R. 1913.
           Sincerely,

                                             Timothy McDonald,

                                                Founder and Chair,
     African American Ministers In Action.
                                  ____


                         Hate Crimes Fact Sheet

       The African American Ministers in Action has joined those 
     urging Congress to expand the current federal law to protect 
     victims of hate crimes based on disability, sexual 
     orientation, gender, or gender identity. As believers who are 
     called to love our neighbors as ourselves, we do not support 
     VIOLENCE against any human being.


   About the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009

       We support The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention 
     Act of 2009 (H.R. 1913) because it does in fact protect 
     individuals against 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. The legislation also provides 
     strong first amendment protections ensuring that the 
     religious liberty and free speech rights of pastors, such as 
     ourselves, and others are protected.
       H.R. 1913 is crucial to protecting the rights of all 
     Americans. This can be accomplished by strengthening law 
     enforcement and closing loopholes in the current law, and is 
     overwhelmingly supported by the civil rights community, law 
     enforcement, and many religious organizations. As we work to 
     secure the rights of women and minorities worldwide, we must 
     also act to secure the rights of all Americans here at home.


                        Incidence of hate crimes

       Crimes against people based upon their disability, sexual 
     orientation, gender, or gender identity are all too common. 
     According to the most recent hate crimes statistics from the 
     FBI (available at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/index.html), 
     there were 9,535 victims (defined as persons, businesses, 
     institutions, or society as a whole) of hate crimes in 2007. 
     Of these, 1,512 were victims of hate crimes based on sexual 
     orientation, and 84 were victims of hate crimes based on 
     disability. Hate crimes legislation seeks to extend federal 
     hate crimes protections to these and other (gender and gender 
     identity) groups of people.


                           Religious liberty

       H.R. 1913 protects free speech and religious liberty. The 
     First Amendment of the Constitution will always protect 
     preaching or

[[Page 11090]]

     other expressions of religious belief--even name-calling or 
     expressions of hatred toward a group. This legislation 
     punishes only violent actions that result in death or bodily 
     injury.
       There is strong language in the legislation that explicitly 
     says that evidence of expression or associations that are not 
     specifically related to a violent hate crime may not be used 
     as evidence.
                                  ____


                     Hate Crimes Myths of the Right

       MYTH: Hate crimes legislation is a threat to religious 
     liberty and will ``criminalize Christianity'' by restricting 
     what pastors and other religious leaders are able to preach. 
     Pastors will be arrested for preaching against homosexuality.
       FACT: H.R. 1913 protects freedom of speech and freedom of 
     religion. It only punishes violent acts like assault and 
     murder, not religious beliefs. The law makes clear that it 
     cannot be used to prohibit any ``expressive conduct'' or 
     ``activities protected by the free speech or free exercise 
     clauses of the First Amendment.''
       MYTH: Hate crimes legislation will lead to prosecution for 
     ``thought crimes.''
       FACT: This legislation does not restrict anybody's First 
     Amendment rights. The law doesn't create something called a 
     ``thought'' crime for a particular group of people. H.R. 1913 
     strengthens law enforcement's ability to fight violent 
     crime--not vigorous debate, not sermons against 
     homosexuality, not hateful speech, not the spreading of 
     misinformation that thrives on constitutionally protected 
     right-wing television, radio, and blogosphere, not even the 
     infamous ``God hates fags'' protesters.
       MYTH: Hate crimes legislation gives ``special rights'' to 
     some people.
       FACT: Freedom from violence isn't a ``special right.'' It's 
     a human right. No one should be assaulted or killed because 
     of who he or she is.
       H.R. 1913 punishes only violent crimes and the hateful 
     motivation directly related to such crimes. Distinctions like 
     this are common place in our criminal justice system. For 
     example, the intent of a suspected killer determines the 
     difference between a first and second-degree murder charge.


            What Can You Do to Help End Violent Hate Crimes?

       Contact your Representative and Senators and tell them that 
     you want all Americans, regardless of their race, religion, 
     national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender, 
     or gender identity, to enjoy freedom from violence. Urge them 
     to support hate crimes legislation, such as H.R. 1913, so 
     that no American is treated as a second-class citizen. Sign 
     up for People For the American Way action alerts, and we will 
     keep you updated on new developments concerning this issue.

  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).
  Mr. LANCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, which 
provides needed assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies 
and allows the Department of Justice to investigate crimes committed on 
the basis of the victim's race, color, religion, national origin, 
gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.
  This legislation mirrors laws passed in 28 States, including in the 
State of New Jersey. We in New Jersey are proud of the legislation we 
have enacted in this regard. Violence based on prejudice is a matter of 
national concern. Federal prosecutors should be empowered to help 
States.
  Mr. Speaker, on the wall of the national memorial honoring Franklin 
Roosevelt, the following words are written: ``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.'' This 
statement is as true today as when Franklin Roosevelt spoke it nearly 
70 years ago.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I 
look forward to its passage and, I hope, to its signature into law this 
year.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), who is also the chairman of the Values 
Action Team.
  Mr. PITTS. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1913, the hate crimes 
legislation.
  This bill would be more appropriately termed the ``thought crimes 
act,'' as it seeks to criminalize certain types of thoughts. Our legal 
structure was established to punish actions, not thoughts or beliefs, 
and this bill would set a dangerous precedent.

                              {time}  1530

  It will threaten our most basic right to free speech established 
under the First Amendment. Religious groups who hold certain 
convictions based on their faith could, in fact, be targeted by this 
law. In Sweden, a pastor was convicted by a trial court and sentenced 
to jail time for a hate crime after preaching a sermon that discussed 
biblical views of homosexuality. And in New York, the State hate crimes 
laws were used to justify taking down billboards on sexual immorality 
that a local pastor had paid to post.
  This legislation seeks to create categories of citizens who are 
either more or less protected under the law depending on what category 
they fall into. This framework flies in the face of one of the most 
fundamental principles of our justice system. Chiseled in stone across 
the front of the Supreme Court building are the words ``Equal Justice 
Under Law.'' This means that all citizens, regardless of sexual 
identity or anything else, are to receive equal protection from the 
law. I support this basic principle that has long guided our Nation's 
system of justice.
  But this bill undermines that principle. It seeks to establish 
different groups of citizens with different levels of protection under 
the law. And the bottom line is that this legislation simply isn't 
necessary.
  If someone commits a violent crime, they should be punished to the 
full extent of the law regardless of who the victim is.
  I urge you to preserve equal justice under the law and oppose H.R. 
1913.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York, Eliot Engel.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, my good friend from Michigan, for yielding me this 
time. And as a proud cosponsor of this bill, I am proud that it's on 
the floor today.
  This bill is a carefully crafted measure that would provide 
desperately needed resources to State and local governments for the 
investigation and prosecution of violent crimes based on sexual 
orientation, gender identity and disability. It is a bill long, long 
due to add sexual orientation and the others, including gender, to the 
list of hate crimes.
  To my friends on the other side of the aisle who say that we are 
creating a special class, well, by that logic, right now we have race, 
color, religion and national origin protection. So by that logic, we 
should eliminate those as well. It's ridiculous.
  To those who say, ``Why should we protect people who have chosen a 
different personal lifestyle?'' our gay and lesbian friends don't 
choose this lifestyle. They are what they are and they should be 
protected just like anybody else who has a religion, who has a gender 
obviously, color, religion or national origin.
  This bill does not violate free speech or First Amendment 
protections. Nothing in this bill would prohibit the lawful expression 
of one's religious beliefs. This bill only punishes violent crimes 
motivated by bias. Congress is saying clearly, unequivocally, that the 
people of this country reject and condemn all forms of hate violence. 
That's why this bill is here.
  Today, we uphold the principles that are considered the foundation of 
American democracy that all people are created equal and that all 
people are entitled to equal protection under the law. It includes gays 
and lesbians and includes everybody.
  Pass this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the 
ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership 
in opposition to this issue and for yielding.
  The gentleman, the previous speaker, just said this bill only 
punishes violent crimes. I take you to the language from the bill. 
Here's the definition of a crime of violence. It means an offense that 
has, as an element, the threatened use of force against the property of 
another. If one threatens to use force

[[Page 11091]]

against the property of another--this is verbatim from the section that 
is referenced in the existing code--property crimes are included in 
this, threats against property crimes are included in this. Hate 
crimes, the definition of hate crimes in the Federal statutes means a 
crime when the perpetrator selects property because of the property 
owner's actual or perceived sexual orientation.
  This isn't just violent crimes. It is in some of the Federal segment 
of it but not in the assistance that goes to local governments. And in 
local governments it also states in the bill that any local 
jurisdiction's hate crimes ordinance or legislation can be supported by 
supporting the prosecution of the local hate crimes legislation that's 
there.
  And so whatever local jurisdiction may determine is a hate crime is 
covered under this bill. It might be a city, a county, a municipality; 
it might be a parish, it might be a State. It might be San Francisco's 
ordinance that says, Thou shalt not discriminate against the short, the 
fat, the tall, or the skinny. That is hate crimes ordinances that could 
be prosecuted with Federal assistance under this bill. The short, the 
fat, the tall, the skinny. That will cover some regular people, I 
think.
  And so I would ask this: Why are you dividing us? Why are you pitting 
Americans against Americans? That's a rhetorical question, Mr. Speaker. 
This divides us and pits Americans against Americans. And the 
definitions in this bill are broad, ambiguous and undefined anywhere 
with any consensus, even among the professionals that deal with this on 
a daily basis.
  In the committee, I asked specifically the question, ``What is the 
definition for sexual orientation?'' The answer that I got back from 
the gentlelady from Wisconsin was, ``This bill only covers 
homosexuality and heterosexuality.'' Now it presumably excludes 
bisexuality, but in the rule debate, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings) said, ``No, no. Here's what we have,'' and he read through a 
whole list of philias, he called it.
  There are 547 specific paraphilias that are listed by the American 
Psychological Association. About 30 of them have been read into this 
Record. I've got a list of these 30 philias. Among them pedophilia--the 
obsession with children--which specifically was excluded from the bill 
when I offered the amendment by the Judiciary Committee.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we're going down the path here of no one really 
knows. Am I going to buy into the statement made by the very senior 
member of the Rules Committee who says I want to protect all philias 
whatsoever no matter what the proclivity? And many of them are 
perversions, Mr. Speaker. We're going to grant that protected status to 
people who are actually breaking the law if they act on their 
particular sexual orientation, or are we going to limit it to--as the 
gentlelady from Wisconsin says--homosexuality and heterosexuality, not 
bisexuality.
  I tried to explain this to the press as they asked me questions. And 
finally my answer became, ``If this sounds confusing and gibberish, it 
is.'' And it leaves it open to any judge, any lawyer, anyone for 
anything that is in their head or might be their plumbing or might be 
in the perception of the perpetrator as well as, and/or, the perception 
of the alleged victim.
  There is no precedent for this in law, this broad, broad idea that 
we're going to punish what is in the head of the perpetrator by 
dividing what may or may not have been in the head of the victim. 
That's where this legislation takes us.
  Why are they dividing us, Mr. Speaker?
  I oppose this legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, would you advise us with regard to how much 
time remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 11\1/2\ 
minutes. The gentleman from Texas has 8\1/2\ minutes. The gentleman 
from Illinois has 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chaka Fattah. 
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman for the time and for his work on 
this legislation. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, 
H.R. 1913, is a long overdue effort to address the scourge of bias 
motivated crimes in communities across the country. This is not simply 
about criminalizing violent acts, those are already illegal. This is 
about recognizing that these crimes affect more than just the 
individual involved, they are meant to instill fear in whole 
communities.
  Hate crimes in this country have a terrible history. For decades 
African Americans, particularly those who spoke out for justice and 
equality, were brutally lynched in communities across the country while 
law enforcement officials and upstanding members of the community stood 
by. Murder was illegal then too, but it took the brave efforts of 
citizens, including Ida B. Wells, for the problem to be addressed. 
These murders were meant to send a signal to newly freed men and women 
and often targeted veterans returning from war.
  Our Jewish neighbors have been subjected to campaigns of terror with 
property destruction and symbols of hate sprayed across synagogues and 
community centers. Irish, Italian, Catholic, Latino, Muslim and Asian 
Americans have all seen ``disagreements'' and ``displeasure'' expressed 
with barbaric crimes meant to convey the message that they were 
unwelcome in this nation of immigrants.
  Opponents have suggested that this legislation will affect what can 
and cannot be said in houses of worship. This is false. H.R. 1913 
explicitly recognizes the right of individuals to be ignorant, narrow-
minded, or malicious whether motivated out of faith, conscience, or 
generic hatred. This bill will have no effect on any interpretation of 
the Bible or religious tradition. They say that they worry there will 
be a ``chilling effect'' on religious speech. This is nonsense. This 
bill is about criminal acts, those that are already illegal, and 
enables law enforcement to carry out responsibilities they already have 
under current law.
  The man whose name is now associated with this bill, Matthew Shepard, 
was tortured and killed because he was gay. This crime wasn't about him 
as an individual, it was about what he represented. Every day there are 
smaller incidences in neighborhoods around the country. Individuals are 
targeted coming out of certain bars, wearing certain clothes, or 
walking with too much flair. This is a systemic problem that requires a 
systemic approach. This bill will go a long way in allowing local law 
enforcement to do their job and providing Federal assistance where it 
belongs. It is about time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I now recognize the distinguished gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Al Green) for 1 minute.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
Declaration of Independence. All persons are created equal, endowed by 
their Creator, with certain inalienable rights, among them life, 
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not some people, not people of a 
particular race, not people who just happen to be heterosexual; all 
persons are created equal.
  And for the record, I support the rights of gay people. Gay people 
have the same rights as any other Americans, and they have the right to 
pursue happiness. I support this--the Declaration of Independence 
speaks of it--and but for the grace of God, we all ought to realize, 
There go I. Any one of us could become the victim of a hate crime 
regardless of your race, your creed, or your color. We should support 
people and the rights of people.
  For those who say that we are creating a separate class of people, we 
already have a class that we've distinguished in the State of Texas for 
peace officers. If you assault a police officer, your punishment is 
going to be enhanced.
  That is what this is all about: enhancement of punishment.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the 
distinguished gentlelady from Maryland, an attorney herself, Donna 
Edwards, for 1 minute.
  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
of the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act 
of 2009, H.R. 1913.
  This really is about civil rights. Now, in an ideal world, I wouldn't 
be standing here speaking here before you now

[[Page 11092]]

because we wouldn't need legislation like this. But this is anything 
but an ideal world. And sadly, violent hate crimes are still an 
unfortunate reality in our society. Last year there were 150 reported 
hate crimes in my home State of Maryland, and local law enforcement 
estimates that the actual numbers are higher due to reporting 
discrepancies.
  Now, recent statistics also say there were more than 9,000 reported 
hate crimes. So the time to do something about this is now. And as a 
long-time violence prevention advocate, I believe we have to do 
everything in our power to eradicate violence in all its forms.
  By passing this legislation, we're saying that acts of violence 
motivated by hate will simply not be tolerated, not for any person, not 
for any reason.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank you and I thank the leadership of the Matthew 
Shepard family for keeping us on mark about what it means to protect 
people.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, under this legislation, criminals who kill certain 
people will be punished more harshly than people who kill a police 
officer, a member of the military, a child, or a senior citizen.
  Is a murder motivated by hatred for something other than the victim's 
membership in a particular group any less devastating or tragic? All 
crime victims should have equal worth in the eyes of the law. 
Ordinarily, criminal law does not concern itself with motive, why a 
person acted, but rather with intent, whether the perpetrator intended 
or knew that they would cause harm. If someone intends to harm a 
person, no motive makes them more or less culpable for their conduct.
  This legislation will force law enforcement officials and prosecutors 
to gather evidence about the offender's thoughts and words regardless 
of the criminality of their actions.
  When the government starts to punish thoughts, this is a dangerous 
road to travel. And where does it end? With thought police?
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot legislate away hate, nor should we criminalize 
a person's thoughts, no matter how much we might disagree with them. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 
to control the remainder of the time that I previously yielded to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to recognize the 
gentlelady from Wisconsin who has served ably on the Committee on the 
Judiciary for a number of years, Tammy Baldwin, for 5 minutes.
  Ms. BALDWIN. I want to thank Chairman Conyers for the time and for 
your diligent work on this measure. It has been an honor and a 
privilege to work closely with you.
  Today, by passing the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention 
Act, the House has a historic opportunity to reinforce the principles 
of equal rights and equal protection embodied in our Constitution.
  Hate crimes are acts of violence motivated by prejudice and committed 
against individuals that end up victimizing entire groups of people.
  In 1968 in response to horrific hate-based violence in our country, 
cross burnings, lynchings, fire bombings and the like, we acted to 
protect people who were victimized on the basis of their race, color, 
religion or national origin. Today, we strengthen our response to this 
form of domestic terrorism by adding protections for people targeted 
for violence because of their gender, disability, gender identity, or 
sexual orientation.
  We add these characteristics to the hate crimes legislation not 
because they deserve special protection, but because of a history and 
pervasive pattern of heinous violent crimes committed against 
individuals because of these characteristics.
  Some opponents of this legislation are disseminating misinformation 
in order to derail this bill. But make no mistake--this legislation we 
pass today has been carefully crafted to protect our First Amendment 
rights to free speech, expression, and association.
  The First Amendment protects these freedoms, but it does not protect 
violence. This is not a hate thought bill. This is not a hate speech 
bill. This is a hate crimes bill that will provide needed Federal 
resources to local law enforcement authorities when they confront 
violent crimes motivated by prejudice and hate.

                              {time}  1545

  I want to share with you a few reasons why I believe the passage of 
this legislation is so urgently necessary.
  I'm thinking today of Angie Zapata, an 18-year-old transgender woman 
who was brutally murdered in Greeley, Colorado, last summer. Angie's 
killer beat her to death with his fists and a fire extinguisher when he 
learned that she had been born a male. Thankfully, Angie's killer was 
brought to justice under a State hate crimes law. But we know that with 
staggering frequency, those who commit similar acts of violence and 
murder based on hate are not.
  I think of Lawrence King, a 15-year-old in Oxnard, California. Larry 
had suffered harassment from his peers and then was killed by a 14-
year-old classmate because of his sexual orientation and gender 
identity.
  Americans across the country, young and old alike, must hear Congress 
clearly affirm that hate-based violence targeting gays, lesbians, 
transgender individuals, women, and people with disabilities will not 
be tolerated.
  I think today of Matthew Shepard, who was brutally attacked by his 
homophobic assailants and left to die on a fence in Wyoming 10 years 
ago. Matthew's death generated international outrage by exposing the 
violent nature of hate crimes and the horrific effect on the targeted 
community.
  I think of Judy Shepard, Matthew's mother, who is here with us today, 
still courageously advocating for the passage of this legislation more 
than 10 years after losing her son.
  The passage of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act 
will not make all hate crime go away. But this bill gives State, local, 
and Federal law enforcement authorities the necessary resources and 
tools to combat violent crimes based on hate and bias.
  Mr. Speaker, the arguments have been made, the evidence has been 
proffered, and, sadly, the lives have been lost that more than justify 
the passage of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to pass this 
bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), who is also chairman of the 
Republican Conference.
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I especially thank 
the ranking member of this committee for his strong and principled and 
thoughtful opposition to H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate 
Crimes Prevention Act.
  Mr. Speaker, those who know me, including my colleagues on this 
committee and the distinguished chairman of this committee, know that I 
abhor discrimination. I have associated myself throughout my career in 
Congress with efforts to advance the interests of minorities, and I 
will continue to do so. People who know me back home know that I have 
no tolerance for unkindness or disrespect to any individual for any 
reason, but most especially any disrespect or discrimination that is 
based on race, creed, or color is anathema to me. So I don't question 
the motives of those who would advance this legislation. I think I know 
the heart of many and understand it.
  But I rise in opposition to this legislation for three reasons:
  Number one, I believe that we should not treat thought the same way 
we treat action before the law. Number two, I believe this legislation 
is unnecessary when a careful examination of State prosecutions and the 
work that's being done at State levels is examined. And lastly and most 
ominously, I fear this legislation, intentionally or unintentionally, 
could have a chilling effect

[[Page 11093]]

on the religious expression and the religious freedom of millions of 
Americans. So let me speak to each of those points.
  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 and his worship, the legislative powers of 
the government reach actions only, not opinions.'' Thomas Jefferson 
again stated the core of my objection to hate crimes legislation as a 
whole, and that is that violent attacks against people or property are 
already illegal regardless of the motive behind them. And it seems to 
me that the wisdom expressed by Thomas Jefferson in that quote is 
wisdom that ought to discipline this legislative body, that we ought to 
focus the reach of government on actions only and not opinions. And 
that remains the core of my objection to hate crimes legislation.
  But even to those who believe, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation is 
appropriate, I must say that it is also important for our colleagues 
and anyone looking in to understand that this legislation is also 
unnecessary. The underlying offense in each of these crimes is already 
fully and aggressively prosecuted in all 50 States.
  This bill designates in particular gender identity for federally 
protected status without, I might add, any evidence of any hate crimes 
occurring against individuals for gender identity. The hate crimes bill 
before us today makes a Federal offense out of any violent crime that 
is alleged to be motivated by gender identity including, for instance, 
people who describe themselves as transsexuals, even though the Hate 
Crimes Statistics Act of 1990, as amended in 1994, never collected any 
data to show that such hate crimes are even occurring. In fact, the 
truth be told, FBI statistics show that the incidents of what are 
described as hate crimes has declined over the last 10 years, for which 
we have data. In 1997 a total of 8,000 what are called ``bias-motived'' 
criminal incidents were reported to the FBI. The data for 3 of the last 
10 years, 2003 through 2005, demonstrated a steady decline in the 
number of those crimes, and the incidents as the present day approaches 
decline even further.
  And, also, lastly, there is zero evidence that States are not fully 
prosecuting violent crimes that are motivated by hate or for any other 
reason. Every State in the Nation prohibits a variety of violent crimes 
that constitute ``willfully causing bodily injury.'' For whatever the 
purpose of the will of causing bodily injury, those crimes are 
prosecuted. And for those who advocate hate crimes legislation, a 
Federalist note: 45 States and the District of Columbia already have 
specific laws punishing hate crimes.
  Which brings me to my last objection to this Federal legislation, and 
that is the concern that I have about the threat to religious freedom 
and religious expression. The gentlewoman who just spoke said, 
memorably, that this is not a hate speech bill, this is a hate crimes 
bill. But because those 45 States already have legislation involving 
hate crimes, we can see how this kind of legislation actually operates 
in practice.
  One case in particular, in 2004 in Philadelphia, 11 individuals were 
arrested at something called OutFest, which is a gay pride festival. 
These individuals held signs that displayed segments of the Holy Bible. 
They were arrested after protesting peacefully. They were charged with 
three felonies and five misdemeanors. Their felony charges included 
``possessions of instruments of crime,'' which apparently was a 
bullhorn; ethnic intimidation, which was apparently their statement 
that they believed as Biblical Christians that homosexuality is a sin; 
and also they were charged with inciting a riot for reading passages 
from the Bible related to that moral practice. Now, whether or not a 
riot occurred involving these Christians was debatable, but they faced 
$90,000 in fines and possible 47-year prison sentences.
  In San Francisco a city council enacted a resolution urging local 
broadcast media not to run advertisements by a pro-family group. In New 
York a pastor who rented billboards posting Biblical quotations on 
sexual morality had them taken down by city officials who cited hate 
crime principles as justification.
  We saw a new colleague today take that oath that we all take, and it 
was a solemn moment, Mr. Speaker. But we swear to support and uphold 
the Constitution, which reads, I remind my colleagues, ``Congress shall 
make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the 
free exercise thereof.''
  We must not pass this hate crimes bill. It is unnecessary and it 
threatens that constitutional obligation that we have.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, who is Chair of the Finance Committee but previously has 
served his entire career on the House Judiciary Committee, and his name 
is Barney Frank.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. My thanks to the gentleman from Michigan, 
who has been such an extraordinary moral force in his leadership in the 
Judiciary Committee and under whom I was proud to serve.
  Let me begin by saying apparently we have in Philadelphia one of the 
longest pending criminal cases in history because the gentleman from 
Indiana mentioned that people were arrested and charged in 2004. But he 
didn't tell us what happened to them. Well, he said it was terrible, 
they were charged. One would assume that people would be interested in 
knowing what happened.
  I will tell the House what happened. The charges were dismissed. Now, 
the gentleman from Indiana apparently forgot to say that. Those arrests 
were false. They should not have taken place. But let me say this: If 
we were to repeal every criminal statute because some police officer 
may have made an improper arrest, things would be pretty anarchic.
  I also do think if you're going to talk about an incident, certainly 
would be my practice, and if you talked about criminal charges and they 
were dismissed that you would say so, that you wouldn't leave people 
wondering. So I do want people who are worried about the fate of those 
poor people in Philadelphia who, if you listened to the gentleman from 
Indiana, these last 5 years have been facing felony charges, please 
don't worry. Those charges should not have been brought and they were 
dismissed. Now, you hear about that often because it's apparently the 
only case we do have. No one has been successfully prosecuted, nor 
should they be, for this.
  Now, I do want to say this: I'm delighted to hear some of the most 
conservative Members of this House expressing support for free speech 
in this context. Only in this context. They have not been conspicuous 
in demanding the right of free speech, but I'll take it when I can get 
it.
  There was a statute proposed here that interfered with the free 
speech of a member of the clergy. Now, he is a lunatic member of the 
clergy named Phelps, and he was going and standing out at cemeteries 
and denouncing them on his religious grounds. I did not think people 
should be allowed to disrupt funerals, but I voted against the bill, 
along with my colleague from Texas (Mr. Paul) and my colleague from 
Oregon (Mr. Wu), and all the rest of these great defenders of free 
speech on the other side said he couldn't stand half a mile from the 
cemetery an hour before with his anti-gay sign. Now, I will confess 
that when he heard that I had come to his defense, that caused him more 
aggravation than anything else; so it was for me a twofer. I got to 
defend free speech and aggravate a lunatic. But I don't remember a lot 
of free speech defenses then because it wasn't popular.
  Now, in addition to free speech, there is one other thing that's very 
interesting. You would think this is the first time hate crimes ever 
came up in American history. There are on the books statutes that 
increase the penalty for crimes depending on the motivation. And people 
say everybody should be treated equally. By the way, I assume Members 
know that there was

[[Page 11094]]

a special statute that makes it particularly egregious in terms of 
sentencing if you assault a Member of Congress.

                              {time}  1600

  I assume nobody knew that on that side because they would have moved 
to repeal it. They apparently are perfectly comfortable getting a 
greater degree of Federal protection against crime than the average 
citizen.
  Did they forget to repeal that? Where was that motion? Mr. Chairman, 
did that come up in the committee? Well, apparently not. But there were 
other categories, age and race.
  Let's be very clear, Mr. Speaker. It is not the concept of hate crime 
protection that is controversial. We have had it and it has been 
administered. It is extending it to people like me, to those of us who 
are gay, to people who are transgender. And the assertion that there is 
no basis for protecting transgender people against violence, that's 
Marxist in its oddity.
  And I mean by that, of course, Chico Marx, who said at one notable 
point when Groucho caught him red-handed, ``Who are you going to 
believe--me or your own eyes?''
  The fact is that crimes against people who are transgender have been 
very serious. I know they are not always prosecuted as well as they 
should have been. But I do want to stress, the notion of hate crimes, 
of increasing the penalty because of the motivation for certain 
characteristics of the victim, has not been controversial on the 
Republican side. They have made no effort to change it.
  If they were really motivated by what they claim to be saying, or 
what they are saying, then they would be for repealing hate crimes in 
general. They would be for repealing hate crimes based on race and age 
and other categories. It's only when it deals with gay people. And 
because in some people's minds saying that it's wrong to assault 
someone who is transgender may mean that you have to show some respect 
for that person.
  Well, let me reassure them. I do think that there ought to be hate 
crimes protection against gay, lesbian and transgender people. By that 
I mean that if there is a physical crime, actions that are otherwise 
criminal, the fact that it is based on that prejudice should count.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the chairman.
  I want to make it very clear. Yes, I do want there to be protection 
against violence committed against people like me, but let me reassure 
those, some on the other side. In asking that transgender people or 
people like me or people like my colleague from Wisconsin be protected 
against violence, I am not seeking your approval. Your approval of the 
way in which I live is not terribly important to me, I would say to 
them, Mr. Speaker, so I do want to differentiate.
  Those of us who think that violence should be prevented are not 
asking for approval from people with whom we are perfectly prepared not 
to associate any more than necessary. This is not a request for 
acceptance. We don't want it. We don't need it from those people. What 
we are talking about is a protection against violence.
  The last point is this. Why a hate crime? Because when someone is 
assaulted as an individual, that individual is put in fear. But when a 
group is assaulted because of race or religion or sexual orientation, 
members who aren't assaulted, if there's a pattern to this, are also 
put in fear. That's the rationale, and it applies here as well as 
elsewhere.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 30 seconds.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank you.
  I would like to congratulate the Members of the House for the debate 
that's occurred on the hate crimes legislation because of the very 
effective way that they have communicated their reservations about the 
way we approached the subject.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 of which I am 
a cosponsor.
  Our country was founded on the bedrock principle of protecting 
individual freedoms. We need to protect the rights of individuals who 
are assaulted because of who they are.
  This bipartisan bill provides local and state law enforcement 
agencies with the resources needed to combat the thousands of hate 
crimes that occur in our country each year. H.R 1913 allows the Federal 
Government to equip our local law offices with the tools they need to 
prosecute hate crimes and provides monetary relief to those agencies 
that have incurred extraordinary expenses associated with the 
investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.
  Our nation thrives because of the freedoms we guarantee each of our 
citizens. Those liberties are at risk if hateful discrimination and 
violence are allowed to flourish and threaten the safety of individuals 
and our communities. Current federal hate crimes law authorizes federal 
aid in cases of violent crimes motivated by the victim's race, color, 
religion, or national origin. H.R. 1913 expands the federal definition 
of hate crime, allowing the Department of Justice to assist local 
authorities in cases of violent crimes committed against persons 
because of their gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or 
disability.
  I am proud to have voted for this legislation, as it will enhance 
civil rights protections and help protect individuals and our 
communities from the terror and anguish that hate crimes inflict.
  Mr. PERRIELLO. Madam Speaker, although I could not cast my vote today 
due to scheduling conflicts, I would like to record my support for the 
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This legislation does 
two important things: it moves our communities one step closer towards 
having the support necessary to ensure that all Americans can live 
without fear and it advances the ongoing struggle to defend human 
rights.
  This bipartisan bill reaffirms our commitment to protecting the 
rights of every individual citizen. It defends the dignity of all 
individuals and recognizes that no one should live in constant fear of 
hatred and discrimination. Importantly, it advances this goal while 
also protecting our Constitutional right to freedom of speech and of 
religious expression. Unlike many nations where individuals may be 
prosecuted for their words and beliefs, the United States remains firm 
in defending our ability to express our opinions and exercise our 
values without fear of legal action. Since the introduction of 
America's first hate crimes laws in 1968, such legislation has focused 
only on acts of violence, never on ideas, and this bill continues that 
commitment to the Constitution by explicitly stating that it cannot be 
used to limit our First Amendment rights, including the rights of faith 
leaders speaking from their pulpits. This legislation is a testament to 
the strength of our Constitution even in times of change.
  The necessity of this bill has recently been highlighted in 
Virginia's 5th District, where several weeks ago an 18-year-old 
University of Virginia student and his friend were physically attacked 
in a parking lot because of their perceived sexual orientation. Such 
incidents remind us that there are still individuals who would use 
violence to intimidate and isolate others simply for who they are, and 
that hate crimes remain a serious and under-addressed problem in our 
communities.
  These crimes not only target individual victims, but also terrorize 
entire communities. All individuals deserve to live free of fear of 
such attacks, and we must not allow violence inspired by hatred to go 
unpunished. Throughout our nation's history, we have been reminded that 
the principles of our founders endure, and so does their charge to us 
to remain vigilant in each generation about expanding those freedoms. 
We continue to emerge from these struggles a stronger and better 
nation, truer to our values and closer to fulfilling our highest 
aspirations.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1913, the 
``Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Preven of 2009.'' As an original 
cosponsor of this legislation, I believe that H.R. 1913 is critically 
important to ensuring that those who commit hate crimes are 
appropriately prosecuted and punished. I want to commend Chairman 
Conyers and the Democratic Leadership for bringing this legislation 
before the House of Representatives early in the 111th Congress so that 
we may finally get this bill to the President's desk.
  Each story is tragic, someone who is assaulted or murdered because of 
nothing more than his or her race, gender, sexual orientation, or 
religion, for example. Someone who may have done nothing other than 
walk down a particular street, attend a certain house of worship, or 
simply be who they are. Today we send the important message that we 
will not

[[Page 11095]]

tolerate these acts of violence by ensuring that local law enforcement 
agencies have the necessary resources to investigate and prosecute hate 
crimes.
  On June 11, 2000, at the annual Puerto Rican Day parade in New York 
City, more than fifty women were sexually harassed and assaulted by a 
group of men. I was outraged not only that the attacks occurred, but 
that according to many of the victims, the police did not take their 
allegations seriously. Unfortunately, women are all too often targeted 
because of their gender.
  Although the bill as reported out of committee does not include 
provisions from legislation that I have introduced, H.R. 823, the 
``Hate Crimes Statistics Improvement Act of 2009,'' I understand that 
this language will be included in future legislation that Chairman 
Conyers intends to bring before the House of Representatives. The 
provisions included in my bill would ensure that hate crimes motivated 
by gender are accounted for by the FBI and local law enforcement 
agencies. Violence against women is a serious problem in this country. 
With accurate data, local communities will be better able to identify 
gender-based hated crimes in their area, ensure that the prosecution of 
such crimes is a priority, and chart their progress toward eliminating 
them.
  H.R. 1913 is landmark legislation that I believe will go a long way 
in reducing violence in communities across this nation. I urge my 
colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to support the Local 
Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act which will help prevent 
violence and ensure that justice is served.
  The special attention that hate crimes require can easily stretch 
local law enforcement beyond their capacity. Many of these crimes go 
unreported, allowing the perpetrators to escape punishment. This is 
unacceptable.
  The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act provides the 
necessary resources to state and local governments for the 
investigation and prosecution of these crimes. This kind of commitment 
to justice is the only way to prevent such random acts of violence from 
occurring in the first place.
  In my home state of Oregon, four hate crimes have been reported this 
year and in 2008, twenty-nine hate crimes were reported. Just last 
month, a man and his boyfriend were on a spring-break trip over the 
weekend when they were beaten unconscious on a beach in Seaside, 
Oregon. Last November, a 20-year-old woman was walking along a street 
in Aloha, Oregon, when the man asked for a cigarette. He asked if she 
was gay and when she said yes, he then started berating her about her 
sexual orientation. Eventually he pushed her and she fell to the 
ground. She tried to defend herself, but he knocked her back down and 
struck her in the head with a rock.
  These violent crimes effectively terrorize the entire community and 
chip away at our freedoms. We must protect all our citizens--whether 
they are black, disabled, Christian, or gay.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of 
H.R. 1913--the Federal Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act 
of 2009. This legislation has had bipartisan support during the 106th, 
108th, 109th and the 110th Congresses.
  Many law enforcement organizations throughout the nation have 
endorsed the bill. We have their support because local police and 
sheriffs' departments will get resources they need to help investigate 
and prosecute violent criminals.
  The bill allows 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.
  Everyone deserves to be protected and to feel safe in their 
communities. African Americans, Hispanics, disabled Americans, 
Christians, members of the GBLT community, and every other American 
deserve this right. And we should give our local law enforcement the 
tools and support necessary to ensure our safety. We are all created 
equal and should be afforded the same freedoms and protections.
  H.R. 1913 will provide assistance to state and local law enforcement 
agencies and amend Federal law to facilitate the investigation and 
prosecution of bias-motivated crimes of violence.
  I ask my colleagues to join me as we pass this much needed civil 
rights legislation.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1913, the 
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 and I am 
pleased to see the bill we reported out of the Judiciary Committee last 
week is on the House floor today.
  I believe we finally have the opportunity to see this legislation 
signed into law and I encourage my colleagues to do the right thing 
today and support this bill.
  We must ensure that all Americans can exercise their civil rights and 
be free from threats of violence against them because of their race, 
color, nationality, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation. It 
is past time to protect gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered 
individuals from hate crimes. We must never again allow an 11-year-old 
child to be so bullied and harassed that he sees no other option to end 
his torture by taking his own life.
  In 2004 in Los Angeles, the 15-year-old son of movie producer Lee 
Caplin and his wife, Gita, received death threats by a group of 
students at his private high school. According to the police complaint, 
some of the messages directed at their son were anti-gay slurs among 
other epithets.
  In 2007 in Los Angeles, a mentally disabled man was beaten to death 
by an unidentified man wielding an aluminum baseball bat. The victim 
was James McKinney, 41, who was walking to the store from his home, a 
mental health care facility. The attack was caught on surveillance 
camera, but the attacker is still at large.
  The most recent data from the FBI is from 2007. It shows that in Los 
Angeles, there were 279 crimes categorized as motivated by bias: 132 
crimes based on race; 50 crimes based on religion; 43 crimes based on 
sexual orientation; and 54 crimes based on ethnicity.
  While I strongly support this bill today, I know that more work is 
needed, particularly in the area of crimes against the homeless. As 
Chair of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing, I can tell you 
that with the housing and foreclosure crisis we are facing, more and 
more Americans are becoming homeless. Sadly, the number of violent 
crimes against the homeless are increasing, and I believe a significant 
portion of these attacks are indeed hate crimes. The State of Maryland 
just recently became the first state in the nation to add homelessness 
to their hate crimes statute. They noted that from 1999 through 2007 
there were 774 acts of violence against homeless men, women and 
children in 45 states and Puerto Rico. These attacks resulted in 217 
deaths.
  I'm looking forward to working with Chairman Conyers and our Crime 
Subcommittee Chairman Scott to get accurate data on violent crimes and 
hate crimes against the homeless. It is important to get this data 
promptly, and then, after an appropriate hearing, we can determine if 
additional legislation is needed.
  In closing, I commend Chairman Conyers for his tireless work on this 
legislation and urge my colleagues to do the right thing today and vote 
to pass this bill.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
support of H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention 
Act. I have been a strong supporter of increased law enforcement 
support and protections against hate crimes for many years, and today's 
vote represents a historic step forward in recognizing and fighting 
against violent bias-motivated crimes.
  Each year there are thousands of individuals who are targets of 
violent crime based solely on their appearance, means, or lifestyle. 
These hate crimes are not only meant to physically harm the victim, but 
degrade all individuals of similar identity and instill a pervasive 
sense of fear amongst that community. While each and every violent 
crime is traumatic, hate crimes are not only devastating for the victim 
and their family, but for all individuals who identify with the victim, 
whether or not they actually knew that person.
  Hate crimes are more prevalent than many may realize. Despite 
significant underreporting, more than 100,000 hate crimes have been 
reported since 1991. In addition, the number of hate groups that exist 
within our country continues to rise; espousing a message of hatred and 
often plans of targeted violence.
  This legislation will allow for much needed federal assistance in the 
prevention and prosecution of hate crimes, and provide money to states 
to develop hate crimes prevention programs. No American deserves to 
feel a threat to their physical safety simply because of who they are 
or how they look.
  While I strongly support the passage of this legislation, I do 
believe there is a strong need to include homeless individuals into 
this bill. Often nameless and faceless victims of violence, homeless 
individuals are amongst the highest targeted groups for hate violence.
  According to statistics collected by the National Coalition for the 
Homeless, there have been 774 violent acts perpetrated against homeless 
individuals since 1999. These attacks occurred in 235 cities throughout 
our country, in 45 states, and in one territory. 217 of these attacks 
resulted in death ranging from these individuals suffering severe 
beatings to being set on fire. Many of these incidents

[[Page 11096]]

were committed by groups targeting the homeless, and some were even 
video-taped for future sale and amusement.
  It is important that we recognize these acts as hate crimes at a 
federal level. Many states are currently considering the recognition of 
these violent acts as hate crimes, with Maryland having already done 
so. We cannot continue to ignore the plight of this group, and the fear 
and violence that have been experienced by scores of homeless 
individuals.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following 
letter from four members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights who are 
opposed to H.R. 1913:

                                          United States Commission


                                              on Civil Rights,

                                   Washington, DC, April 29, 2009.
     Re: H.R. 1913

     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Steny H. Hoyer,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. James E. Clyburn,
     Majority Whip, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Eric Cantor,
     Minority Whip, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Speaker and Messrs. Boehner, Cantor, Clyburn and 
     Hoyer: We write today to urge you to vote against the 
     proposed Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act 
     (H.R. 1913) (``LLEHCPA''). Although time does not permit this 
     issue to be presented for formal Commission action, we 
     believe it is important for us to write as individual members 
     to communicate our serious concerns with this legislation.
       We believe that LLEHCPA will do little good and a great 
     deal of harm. Its most important effect will be to allow 
     federal authorities to re-prosecute a broad category of 
     defendants who have already been acquitted by state juries--
     as in the Rodney King and Crown Heights cases more than a 
     decade ago. Due to the exception for prosecutions by ``dual 
     sovereigns,'' such double prosecutions are technically not 
     violations of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. 
     Constitution. But they are very much a violation of the 
     spirit that drove the framers of the Bill of Rights, who 
     never dreamed that federal criminal jurisdiction would be 
     expanded to the point where an astonishing proportion of 
     crimes are now both state and federal offenses. We regard the 
     broad federalization of crime as a menace to civil liberties. 
     There is no better place to draw the line on that process 
     than with a bill that purports to protect civil rights.

       While the title of LLEHCPA suggests that it will apply only 
     to ``hate crimes,'' the actual criminal prohibitions 
     contained in it do not require that the defendant be inspired 
     by hatred or ill will in order to convict. It is sufficient 
     if he acts ``because of someone's actual or perceived race, 
     color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, 
     gender identity or disability. Consider:

       Rapists are seldom indifferent to the gender of their 
     victims. They are virtually always chosen ``because of their 
     gender.

       A robber might well steal only from women or the disabled 
     because, in general, they are less able to defend themselves. 
     Literally, they are chosen ``because of their gender or 
     disability.

       While Senator Edward Kennedy has written that it was not 
     his intention to cover all rape with LLEHCPA, some DOJ 
     officials have declined to disclaim such coverage. Moreover, 
     both the objective meaning of the language and considerable 
     legal scholarship would certainly include such coverage. If 
     all rape and many other crimes that do not rise to the level 
     of a ``hate crime'' in the minds of ordinary Americans are 
     covered by LLEHCPA, then prosecutors will have ``two bites at 
     the apple'' for a very large number of crimes.

       DOJ officials have argued that LLEHCPA is needed because 
     state procedures sometimes make it difficult to obtain 
     convictions. They have cited a Texas case from over a decade 
     ago involving an attack on a black man by three white 
     hoodlums. Texas law required the three defendants to be tried 
     separately. By prosecuting them under federal law, however, 
     they could have been tried together. As a result, admissions 
     made by one could be introduced into evidence at the trial of 
     all three without falling foul of the hearsay rule.

       Such an argument should send up red flags. It is just an 
     end-run around state procedures designed to ensure a fair 
     trial. The citizens of Texas evidently thought that separate 
     trials were necessary to ensure that innocent men and women 
     are not punished. No one was claiming that Texas applies this 
     rule only when the victim is black or female or gay. And 
     surely no one is arguing that Texans are soft on crime. Why 
     interfere with their judgment?

       We are unimpressed with the arguments in favor of LLEHCPA 
     and would be happy to discuss the matter further with you if 
     you so desire. Please do not hesitate to contact any of us 
     with your questions or comments. The Chairman's Counsel and 
     Special Assistant, Dominique Ludvigson, is also available to 
     further direct your inquiries at [email protected] or at 
     (202) 376-7626.

           Sincerely,
     Gerald A. Reynolds,
       Chairman.
     Gail L. Heriot,
       Commissioner.
      Todd Gaziano,
       Commissioner.
      Peter N. Kirsanow,
       Commissioner.

  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.
  This legislation will include penalties in the federal code for 
crimes that are motivated by race, color, religion, national origin, 
gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
  Further, H.R. 1913 allows the Department of Justice to make grants to 
support State and local programs designed to combat hate crimes, 
particularly those committed by juveniles. Finally, the bill supports 
programs to train local law enforcement officers in investigating, 
prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes. In this way, the bill empowers 
state and local officials to investigate and prosecute these crimes 
without limiting their jurisdiction or authority.
  I have heard concerns from some of my constituents that this 
legislation could infringe on the right to free speech. I could never 
support a bill that does that. In fact, Section 10 of the bill contains 
a specific exemption that clarifies that speech, no matter how hateful, 
is not criminalized under this act. Only violent acts by those who 
willfully cause bodily injury are prohibited. I strongly oppose 
attempts to limit anyone's right to free speech or put one class of 
people above another.
  While all acts of violence are deplorable, hate crimes are 
specifically meant to intimidate and frighten an entire group of people 
because of prejudice on the part of the perpetrator. Violent acts that 
are meant to terrorize American citizens should not go unpunished.
  I urge you to support H.R. 1913.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong 
support of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
  This bill will extend federal hate crimes law to protect individuals 
targeted because of their sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, 
or disability. Since the federal government began collecting data in 
1991, over 100,000 hate crimes have been reported by state and local 
officials; but, most analysts believe this data significantly 
underreports the actual number of hate crimes. During this time period, 
approximately 16% of hate crimes were perpetrated because of a person's 
sexual orientation. With 1,265 reported incidents in 2007, sexual 
orientation is the third most common target of hate-based violence, 
trailing only race and religion. This bill is a logical improvement to 
existing federal law and is needed to ensure that the federal 
government has the jurisdiction to assist in all cases of hate-based 
violence.
  In addition to expanding the categories of hate crimes, this 
legislation would allow the Justice Department to aid the investigation 
and prosecution of hate crimes at the local level through technical 
assistance and supplemental funding. The cost of investigating and 
prosecuting these often high-profile cases can be prohibitive for a 
local community, forcing them to spend precious resources on one case. 
In these instances, it is essential for the federal government to be 
able to provide assistance to ensure that justice is served without 
unduly burdening local resources.
  Finally, this bill would require the Justice Department to expand its 
tracking of hate crimes to include crimes based on gender or gender 
identity. The federal government currently collects data on hate crimes 
committed due to sexual orientation and disability, but not for gender 
or gender identity. This expanded resource will provide law enforcement 
officials the information they need to more accurately gauge the 
prevalence of hate crimes and to evaluate efforts to combat this 
violence.
  The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act is an overdue 
step towards addressing all forms of hate-based violence that 
traumatize communities across the country. Hate crimes have a chilling 
effect beyond a particular victim, spreading fear of future attacks 
among the targeted group. Congress cannot prevent hate from motivating 
individuals to commit violence, but we can ensure that the proper laws 
and resources are available to prosecute these cases to the fullest 
extent of the law. That is what this bill does, and I ask all of my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support H.R. 1913, the Matthew Shepard Act.
  Many of my colleagues have already spoken informatively about the 
bill's provisions,

[[Page 11097]]

how it will focus on enhancing resources at the local and state level 
for combating hate crimes, and how it will enable local and state 
officials to prosecute people who commit hate crimes. These are all 
important reasons to vote for this bill.
  I want to tell you the story of a hate crime that happened in my 
community.
  Marcelo Lucero lived in Patchogue, NY and was walking home one 
evening when a car load of teenage boys surrounded, beat and murdered 
him.
  He was walking home, and they were out looking for someone who looked 
Hispanic. One of the defendants later told the police, ``I don't go out 
and do this very often, maybe once a week.''
  Now, what happened to Marcelo Lucero is wrong when it happens to any 
person.
  But what makes a hate crime so disturbing is that it's not simply 
aimed at the victim.
  An entire community gets the message--you are not welcome here. And, 
what makes the story of his attackers so disturbing is the casualness 
of their attitude.
  It reflects a comfortableness that is unacceptable in any community.
  That is why I'm supporting this bill and why I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill: it sends a message back to those who would commit a 
hate crime. And that message is that hate is not welcome in my 
community.
  I would like to thank Chairman Coyers for the time to speak and his 
leadership on this important issue.
  Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a 
cosponsor and strong supporter of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes 
Prevention Act of 2009.
  Ten years have now passed since a University of Wyoming student was 
tied to a fence and fatally beaten just because he was gay. In the time 
since, we've seen a Texas man dragged to his death by a truck just 
because he was black and a woman brutally beaten and killed with a fire 
extinguisher just because she was transgendered. We've even seen young 
children at day camp shot just because they were Jewish.
  Passage of comprehensive federal hate crime legislation that would 
allow the Department of Justice to assist state and local jurisdictions 
unable or unwilling to prosecute violent, bias-motivated crimes is long 
overdue.
  Mr. Speaker, as a former Constitutional law professor at West Point, 
I want to make something perfectly clear. Nothing in this bill impinges 
the right of an individual's freedom of speech as guaranteed under the 
First Amendment of the Constitution. The ability to think or express 
sentiments repulsive to most members of society absent the fear of 
legal recrimination is part of what makes this country great and free. 
The ability to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those who 
cause injury or death to an individual because of who they are or what 
they believe is also what makes this country great and free.
  Ensuring that states and local law enforcement throughout the United 
States have the resources they need to go after the perpetrators of 
these crimes is not just something we owe to the victims and their 
families. It also helps to free the rest of society--particularly 
members of the group to which the victim identified--from being 
intimidated by the hatred of a few.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and send a clear message 
that those who injure or kill another human being because of who they 
are will be brought to justice for their crimes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, hate crimes are fundamentally different from 
other crimes. Hate crimes--violent acts that target victims precisely 
because of who they are, or are perceived to be--aim to terrorize, 
intimidate, and oppress an entire class of people. They are assaults 
not just on those victims, but on an entire community. When the 
perpetrators of these acts are not held accountable, we suffer as a 
nation.
  As a cosponsor of the Matthew Shepard Act, I look forward to its 
enactment into law. Today there are only 11 States that have hate crime 
laws that cover both gender and sexual orientation. By expanding the 
federal definition of a hate crime to include one based on sexual 
orientation, disability, or gender, we take the first step toward 
reducing these violent acts across the country.
  This legislation will provide much-needed federal support for local 
law enforcement so that police can more effectively identify, 
investigate, and prosecute hate crimes. By joining together at all 
levels, we can help build safer and more tolerant communities. I urge 
my colleagues to support this important bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
of H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 
2009. I would like to thank Chairman Conyers of the House Judiciary 
Committee for his leadership in bringing this timely legislation to the 
floor. H.R. 1913 will provide assistance to state and local law 
enforcement and amend federal law to streamline the investigation and 
prosecution of hate crimes. The key element of the bill is its 
expansion of federal jurisdiction to cover crimes motivated by bias 
against a victim's perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender 
identity or disability. This legislation would make tremendous strides 
in garnering the civil and human rights of all Americans. Its passage 
would secure the equal protection of all Americans under the law. It is 
a landmark and long overdue piece of legislation.
  This is an important bill and I have introduced similar legislation 
in this and prior Congresses. While I support this bill and urge my 
colleagues to support this bill I am disappointed that the bill did not 
include my amendment which I offered last Congress.


                   MY AMENDMENT LANGUAGE IN H.R. 1592

  Last Congress, I offered an amendment to H.R. 1592, the legislation 
that was introduced last term. My amendment was accepted by unanimous 
consent by the members of the Judiciary Committee. Specifically, my 
amendment required ``the United States Sentencing Commission shall 
study the issue of adult recruitment of juveniles to commit hate crimes 
and shall report such findings back to the Congress within 180 days.'' 
If this language was included in the present bill, it would only serve 
to strengthen it and make it better. The amendment language was 
intended to gather information on adults that solicit and use youth in 
the commission of hate crimes. This issue arises with respect to hate 
groups such as the Skinheads, Neo-Nazis, KKK, and other similar type 
groups.
  H.R. 1913 is legislation aimed at combating hate crimes. Because the 
bill addresses hate crimes, it is necessary to define the criminal 
actions that constitute a hate crime in the first instance. The 
definition is straightforward. Hate crimes involve the purposeful 
selection of victims for violence and intimidation based upon their 
perceived attributes. Such targeting for violence removes these actions 
from the protected area of free expression of belief and speech as 
enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 
crimes are investigated and prosecuted at both the Federal and State 
and local level, depending upon the facts of the case and the needs of 
the investigation.
  For those individuals that will ask why this law is necessary, let me 
remind of a few incidents that have occurred in recent memory that 
demonstrate that this bill is indeed necessary.
  Texas' violent history dates to the late 19th century when it was 
among the South's most lynch-prone states. At least 355 people, most of 
them blacks, died in Texas mob violence between 1889 and 1918.
  Laws outlawing mob and less lethal hate crimes have since been 
passed, but incidents with possible racial components have continued to 
occur--even in Jasper, a city with a black mayor and a population that 
is 45 percent African-American.
  In Texas, Austin came in fourth among cities in the number of hate 
crimes reported in 2006, according to a FBI compilation that canvassed 
agencies representing 85 percent of the nation's population. Documented 
are 7,722 criminal incidents involving 9,080 offenses resulting from 
bias against race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national 
origin, or physical or mental disability. Of 5,449 ``crimes against 
persons'', intimidation accounted for 46 percent of hate crimes, simple 
assault 32 percent, and aggravated assault 21.6 percent. Three murders 
and six rapes were reported. The report lists offenders as 58.6 percent 
white, 20.6 percent black, 12.9 percent race unknown, and the rest as 
other races.


                               JAMES BYRD

  Let me remind you of James Byrd. On June 7, 1998, Byrd, 49, accepted 
a ride from three men named Shawn Allen Berry, Lawrence Russell Brewer, 
and John William King. He had already known one of them. Instead of 
taking him home, the three men beat Byrd behind a convenience store, 
chained him by the ankles to their pickup truck, stripped the man 
naked, and dragged him for three miles. Although Lawrence Russell 
Brewer said that Byrd's throat had been slashed before he was dragged, 
forensic evidence suggests that Byrd had been attempting to keep his 
head up, and an autopsy suggested that Byrd was alive for much of the 
dragging and died after his right arm and head were severed when his 
body hit a culvert. His body had caught a sewage drain on the side of 
the road resulting in Byrd's decapitation.
  King, Berry, and Brewer dumped their victim's mutilated remains in 
the town's black cemetery, and then went to a barbecue. A

[[Page 11098]]

wrench inscribed with ``Berry'' was found within the area along with a 
lighter that had ``Possum'' written on it, which was King's prison 
nickname.
  The next morning, Byrd's limbs were scattered across a very little-
used road. The police found 75 places littered with Byrd's remains. 
State law enforcement officials along with Jasper's District Attorney 
Guy James Gray and Assistant Pat Hardy determined that since King and 
Brewer were well-known white supremacists, the murder was a hate crime, 
and decided to bring in the FBI less than 24 hours after the discovery 
of Byrd's remains. One of Byrd's murderers, John King, had a tattoo 
depicting a black man hanging from a tree, and other tattoos such as 
Nazi symbols, the words ``Aryan Pride,'' and the patch for the 
Confederate Knights of America, a gang of white supremacist inmates. In 
a jailhouse letter to Brewer which was intercepted by jail officials, 
King expressed pride in the crime and said he realized he might have to 
die for committing it. ``Regardless of the outcome of this, we have 
made history. Death before dishonor. Sieg Heil!'', King wrote.
  An officer investigating the case also testified that witnesses said 
King referenced The Turner Diaries after beating Byrd.
  Brewer and King were sentenced to death. Berry received life in 
prison.


                            The perpetrators

  John King--accused of beating Byrd with a bat and then dragging him 
behind a truck until he died. King had previously claimed to have been 
gang-raped in prison by black prisoners and, although he had no 
previous record of racism, had joined a white-supremacist prison gang, 
allegedly for self-protection. The testimony phase of his trial started 
in Jasper, Texas on February 16, 1999. He was found guilty of 
kidnapping and murder on February 23 and was sentenced to death on 
February 25.
  Lawrence Russell Brewer--another white supremacist convicted of 
murdering Byrd. Prior to the Byrd murder, Brewer had served a prison 
sentence for drug possession and burglary, and he was paroled in 1991. 
After violating the parole in 1994, he was sent back to prison. 
According to his court testimony, he joined a white supremacist gang 
with King in order to safeguard himself from other prisoners. A state 
psychiatrist testified that Brewer did not appear repentant for his 
crimes. In the end, Brewer was also sentenced to death.
  Shawn Allen Berry--The driver of the truck, Berry was the most 
difficult to convict of the three defendants because there was a lack 
of evidence to suggest that he himself was a racist. He had also 
claimed that his two companions were entirely responsible for the 
crime. Brewer testified that it was Berry who cut Byrd's throat before 
he was tied to the truck, but the jury decided that there was little 
evidence to indicate this. As a result, Berry was spared the death 
penalty and given a life sentence in prison.


                            MATTHEW SHEPARD

  Matthew Wayne Shepard was a student at the University of Wyoming who 
was tortured and subsequently murdered near Laramie, Wyoming. He was 
attacked on the night of October 6-October 7, 1998 and died at Poudre 
Valley Hospital in Colorado, on October 12, from severe head injuries.
  During the trial, witnesses stated that Shepard was targeted because 
he was gay. His murder brought national as well as international 
attention to the issue of hate crime legislation at the state and 
federal levels.
  Russell Arthur Henderson pleaded guilty to felony murder and 
kidnapping, allowing him to avoid the death penalty. Aaron James 
McKinney was convicted of felony murder and kidnapping. Henderson is 
currently serving two consecutive life sentences and McKinney is 
serving the same but without the possibility of parole.
  Matthew Shepard, oldest son of Dennis Shepard and Judy Shepard, was 
born in Casper, Wyoming, on December 1, 1976. Shortly after midnight on 
October 7, 1998, 21-year-old Shepard met McKinney and Henderson in a 
bar. McKinney and Henderson offered Shepard a ride in their car. 
Subsequently, Shepard was robbed, pistol whipped, tortured, tied to a 
fence in a remote, rural area, and left to die. McKinney and Henderson 
also found out his address and intended to rob his home. Still tied to 
the fence, Shepard was discovered eighteen hours later by Aaron 
Kreifels, who at first thought that Shepard was a scarecrow. At the 
time of discovery, Shepard was still alive, but in a coma.
  Shepard suffered a fracture from the back of his head to the front of 
his right ear. He had severe brain stem damage, which affected his 
body's ability to regulate heart rate, body temperature and other vital 
signs. There were also about a dozen small lacerations around his head, 
face and neck. His injuries were deemed too severe for doctors to 
operate. Shepard never regained consciousness and remained on full life 
support. As he lay in intensive care, candlelight vigils were held by 
the people of Laramie.
  He was pronounced dead at 12:53 A.M. on October 12, 1998 at Poudre 
Valley Hospital in Fort Collins. Police arrested McKinney and Henderson 
shortly thereafter, finding the bloody gun as well as the victim's 
shoes and wallet in their truck.
  The two men had attempted to get their girlfriends to provide alibis. 
In court the defendants used varying rationales to defend their 
actions. They attempted to use the ``gay panic defense'', arguing that 
they were driven to temporary insanity by alleged sexual advances by 
Shepard. At another point they stated that they had only wanted to rob 
Shepard and never intended to kill him.
  The prosecutor in the case charged that McKinney and Henderson 
pretended to be gay in order to gain Shepard's trust to rob him. During 
the trial, Chastity Pasley and Kristen Price (the pair's then-
girlfriends) testified under oath that Henderson and McKinney both 
plotted beforehand to rob a gay man. McKinney and Henderson then went 
to the Fireside Lounge and selected Shepard as their target. McKinney 
alleged that Shepard asked them for a ride home. After befriending him, 
they took him to a remote area of Laramie where they robbed him, beat 
him severely (media reports often contained the graphic account of the 
pistol whipping and his smashed skull), and tied him to a fence with a 
rope from McKinney's truck. Shepard begged for his life. Both 
girlfriends also testified that neither McKinney nor Henderson was 
under the influence of drugs at the time. The beating was so severe 
that the only areas on Shepard's face that were not covered in blood 
were those where his tears had washed the blood stains away.
  Henderson pleaded guilty on April 5, 1999, and agreed to testify 
against McKinney to avoid the death penalty; he received two 
consecutive life sentences. The jury in McKinney's trial found him 
guilty of felony murder. As it began to deliberate on the death 
penalty, Shepard's parents brokered a deal, resulting in McKinney 
receiving two consecutive life terms without the possibility of parole.
  Henderson and McKinney were incarcerated in the Wyoming State 
Penitentiary in Rawlins but were transferred to other prisons due to 
overcrowding.
  Wyoming did not have State hate crimes legislation.


                              LOYAL GARNER

  On Christmas Day 1987, Loyal Garner, a Florien, LA., father of six, 
was arrested for drunken driving. Garner protested that he was sober, 
and asked for field sobriety and breathalyzer tests, but police took 
him to the county jail in Hemphill.
  Garner asked to be allowed to telephone his wife. Instead, he was 
taken to the jail detox room and bludgeoned.
  In 1990, Hemphill Police Chief Thomas Ladner and two county deputies, 
Billy Ray Horton and James M. Hyden, were convicted on state murder 
charges and sentenced to prison. Horton's conviction was later 
overturned.


                            KENNETH SIMPSON

  In spring 1988, Kenneth Simpson, a 30-year-old black man arrested for 
the theft of a fountain pen, died in his Cleveland jail cell after 
being beaten.
  Half the city police force was suspended as a result, but later 
returned to their jobs after being acquitted. However, Police Chief 
Harley Lovings remained under public pressure and resigned the 
following year.
  The pen later was found atop a soft drink machine in the police 
station lobby.


                           TROY LEE STARLING

  In August 1987, Troy Lee Starling, 24, of Mount Enterprise was 
fatally shot in the neck by a state highway trooper after a highspeed 
chase in Rusk County.
  Though the trooper was cleared by a grand jury, Starling's family 
filed a civil rights lawsuit against the officer.
  Not all incidents involved bloodshed, but still revealed a sordid 
side of East Texas culture.
  Illustrative was the hostility faced by three black families who 
moved into an all-white public housing project in Vidor in 1994.
  The families were part of the third effort to integrate the project. 
They moved in only after then-Housing and Urban Development Secretary 
Henry Cisneros allocated $3 million to upgrade security.
  But residents were soon frightened by death threats and the obvious 
patrols of Ku Klux Klan members through the projects displaying high-
powered weapons.
  The FBI later investigated alleged Klan death plots against William 
Hale, director of the Texas Commission on Human Rights, and Attorney 
General Dan Morales. Hale's group

[[Page 11099]]

had sued the Klan, accusing it of making threats against those trying 
to integrate the housing project.
  Still, Joe Roy, head of the intelligence project of the Southern 
Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Ala., suggested such crimes, though 
stereotypical of the South, no longer are limited to one region.
  ``I think this is a stark reminder, this case in Texas, of what can 
happen in this country,'' he said. ``Education is not the sole answer, 
but it's one of the cornerstones of correcting it.''
  The tension between the races is fueled by competition between 
economically marginal groups, Roy said.
  ``This episode is a horrendous example of the rage that is out 
there.''


                     OTHER HIGH PROFILE TEXAS CASES

  Vidor, 1994: Civil rights groups sue the Ku Klux Klan, accusing the 
group of making threats to stop the integration of an all-white housing 
project.
  Cleveland, 1988: Kenneth Simpson, a black man arrested for stealing 
an ink pen, dies in his jail cell after struggling with white officers, 
who are eventually cleared in the death. The police chief resigns under 
pressure the next year.
  Hemphill, 1987: Loyal Garner, a black Louisiana truck driver, is 
beaten to death in the Sabine County jail. Hemphill's police chief and 
two county deputies are eventually convicted of murder, although one 
deputy's conviction is overturned.
  Mount Enterprise, 1987: Troy Lee Starling, a 24-year-old black man, 
is fatally shot in the neck by a state trooper after a high-speed chase 
in Rusk County. The trooper is cleared but Starling's family files a 
civil rights suit.
  In December 2005, Chris McKee was beaten by two men. McKee, who is 
gay, said his assailants had followed him after seeing him kiss another 
man, and anti-gay slurs were audible on a 911 call he made. His 
assailants were prosecuted under the State hate crimes legislation but 
they were acquitted.
  In May 2006, Joshua Aaron Abbot, now 23, was acquitted in the 2005 
death of 40-year-old David Wayne Morrison, a gay Denton resident who 
was HIV-positive. Abbott stabbed Morrison more than 20 times in the 
face, neck and chest with a pocketknife.
  Abbott, who is straight, had gone to Morrison's residence for unknown 
reasons, and the pair ended up alone in Morrison's bedroom. At trial, 
Abbot claimed Morrison tried to rape him, and the jury ruled the 
defendant acted in self-defense. The prosecutors failed to prosecute 
the case as a hate crime because it was not clear that Morrison's 
sexual orientation was the sole motivating factor. However, the 
prosecutor admitted that Morrison's sexual orientation and HIV-positive 
status was key.
  Since Texas State hate crimes legislation was passed in 2001, there 
have been few convictions. In 2007, there were only eight convictions.
  These cases provide stark evidence that this bill is needed to 
federalize hate crimes. These crimes are still perpetrated.
  Opponents will argue that this bill abrogates constitutional rights 
of Freedom of Speech or other First Amendment guarantees under the 
Constitution. These arguments have no merit.
  First, all speech is not protected speech. For example, one does not 
have the right to scream ``Fire!'' in a crowded movie theatre.
  Second, nothing in this bill prevents a person from exercising their 
fundamental rights or their First Amendment right to free speech. The 
actionable crime here is crimes that cause bodily injury.
  Third, the bill clarifies that neither this Act, nor the amendments 
made by it may be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct 
protected from legal prohibition, or any activities protected by the 
free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment of the 
United States Constitution. The legislation does not punish, nor 
prohibit in any way, name-calling, verbal abuse, or even expressions of 
hatred toward any group, even if such statements amount to hate speech. 
Because it covers only violent actions that result in death or bodily 
injury nothing in this legislation prohibits lawful expression of 
deeply held religious beliefs. Thus, clergy and other religious persons 
are not prohibited from decrying any acts, lifestyles, or 
characteristics that they deem repugnant or contrary to their beliefs. 
This speech is not actionable under this bill and is in no way 
proscribed.
  The bill specifically provides at Section 8, in its Rule of 
Construction, that ``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 
Constitution.'' Thus, the plain language of the bill makes clear that 
clergy or others exercising their First Amendment right to speech or 
expression will not be penalized by this law. Words or conduct that 
does not result in bodily injury is not actionable under this bill.
  This legislation is needed because hate crimes have been seriously 
underreported. FBI statistics have only documented more than 118,000 
hate crimes since 1991. In 2007, statistics demonstrated 7,624 bias-
motivated criminal incidents, and police agencies identified 9,535 
victims arising from 9,006 separate criminal offenses. Racially-
motivated bias accounted for approximately half (50.8 percent) of all 
incidents; religious bias accounted for 1,400 incidents (18.4 percent); 
sexual orientation bias accounted for 1,265 incidents (16.6 percent); 
and ethnicity/national origin accounted for 1,007 incidents (13.2 
percent).
  H.R. 1913 will address two serious deficiencies in the Federal civil 
rights crimes, in which a limited set of hate crimes committed on the 
basis of race, color, religion, or national origin are prohibited. The 
principal federal hate crimes statutes are 18 U.S.C. sec. 245 and 42 
U.S.C. sec. 3631, this bill expands the application of hate crimes 
legislation.
  In the last forty years, limitations in section 245 have become 
apparent and needed to be addressed. For example, the existing statute 
requires the government not only to prove that the defendant committed 
an offense because of the victim's race, color, religion, or national 
origin, but also because of the victim's participation in one of sex 
narrowly defined protected activities. These activities related to 
enrolling/attending schools, participating in or enjoying a service, 
program, facility, or activity administered or provided by a state or 
local government, applying for or enjoying employment, serving in a 
state court as a juror, travelling in or using a facility of interstate 
commerce, and enjoying the goods or services of certain places of 
public accommodation. This bill extends the application of hate crimes 
beyond these narrow and limited situations.
  The present bill extends hate crimes in another important manner. The 
existing statute provides no coverage for violent hate crimes committed 
because of the victim's perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender 
identity or disability. H.R. 1913 covers these statuses.
  When federal jurisdiction has existed in the limited hate crime 
contexts authorized under 18 U.S.C. sec. 245(b), the federal 
government's resources, forensic expertise, and experience in the 
identification and proof of hate-based motivations has provided an 
invaluable investigative complement to the familiarity of investigators 
with the local community, people and customs. The limitations of 
section 245 have limited the opportunity for such collaboration in many 
incidents of violence.
  As I mentioned out the outset, I understand the urgency and 
importance of passing this bill. I would however like to bring up two 
issues that I would like considered, and that I would like to work with 
leadership to ensure is included, in conference.
  First, the bill adds a certification requirement that is not 
currently found in section. Specifically, it requires a written 
certification from the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, 
the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General that 
the person has reason to believe that a hate crime has occurred and the 
person has consulted with local and state law enforcement.
  This imposes yet another burden upon the Department of Justice and 
might infringe upon its right to bring and try hate crimes. I do not 
see any compelling reason for changing the existing law and adding this 
additional burden.
  Similarly, with respect to the Rule of Evidence in section 7(d) of 
this legislation, it provides the following:
  ``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.''
  Thus, this new rule of evidence alters the relevance standard that 
already exists under the Federal Rules of Evidence. It would seem 
appropriate to use evidence, albeit circumstantial insofar as it is 
relevant. For example, consider the following hypothetical that a hate 
crime is perpetrated but under the current construction of section 
7(d), it would be inadmissible to proffer evidence that the defendant 
collected racist magazine or paraphernalia unless such paraphernalia 
was directly used in the crime or is entered for purposes of 
impeachment. It defies reason that the existence of such paraphernalia 
is relevant and should be admissible to prove that a crime was racially 
motivated. Therefore, I would excise the language in section 7(d). It 
adds restrictions to the rules of evidence that have no place in the 
inquiry.
  Hate crimes are real. The bodily injury, loss of life, and havoc that 
their perpetration wreaks on an individual, a family, community, and 
the country is wholly unacceptable. I urge my colleagues to support an 
end to such hate

[[Page 11100]]

crimes and support this bill. Its passage would make America a fuller, 
freer and more equal society that all accorded equal protection under 
the laws of the United States.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Local Law 
Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H.R. 1913). This bill makes a 
profound statement that this country will not tolerate violence 
motivated by bigotry and ignorance against its citizens. I commend 
Chairman Conyers for bringing this legislation to the floor.
  The message of this bill is clear: the United States will not 
tolerate hate crimes. These crimes are unlike other violent acts of 
randomness. Targeting people because of their race, religion, 
ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender or disability is a form of 
domestic terrorism. Such violent crimes send a chilling message to 
entire communities that they are not welcome and that intolerance and 
ignorance is alive and well.
  Since 1991, the FBI has received more than 118,000 reports of hate 
crimes and we know that crimes of this nature are frequently 
underreported. Current federal law covers crimes committed based on a 
person's race, color, religion, or national origin. H.R. 1913 extends 
federal protection to include hate crimes committed because of a 
person's gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. 
This bill allows the federal government to provide needed federal 
resources to state and local law enforcement officials to prosecute 
hate crimes and also authorizes grants to law enforcement agencies that 
have incurred expenses investigating and prosecuting hate crime cases.
  Some opponents of H.R. 1913 have suggested that this bill legislates 
against thoughts and ideas. This is absolutely false. H.R. 1913 
provides local authorities more effective means to prosecute violent 
acts of hate, not thoughts or speech. In fact, this bill explicitly 
includes First Amendment free speech protections for persons accused of 
acts of hate.
  My first vote as a member of the Minnesota House of Representatives 
was for equal rights on housing and employment for the gay, lesbian, 
bisexual and transgendered (GLBT) community. As a Member of Congress, I 
have now voted for similar federal four times. The Local Law 
Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act must become law so that all 
Americans can fully participate in and enjoy the rights of a democratic 
society.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to declare my strong support for 
H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and to 
urge its swift passage in the House of Representatives.
  This important legislation would expand the federal definition of 
hate-motivated crimes to include gender, sexual orientation, disability 
and gender identity. Violence provoked by prejudice has no place in our 
society. It jeopardizes not only the safety of the victims but also 
their friends and neighbors, and upsets public order by making people 
feel threatened in their communities.
  For example, persons with disabilities are often vulnerable to 
criminal hateful acts because they may seem different or use unfamiliar 
assistive technologies. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia, 
including my home state of Rhode Island, already recognize and 
prosecute these cases as hate crimes. However, there is still no 
uniform recognition on the national level that a disability could make 
a person uniquely susceptible to prejudice. Equally troubling is that 
Rhode Island law enforcement officials reported that nearly 50 percent 
of hate crime victims were targeted because of their sexual 
orientation. Yet even as so many Americans joined together to mourn the 
loss of Matthew Shepard last October, on the tenth anniversary of his 
brutal murder, hate-motivated crimes still go unrecognized under 
federal statute.
  H.R. 1913 has the practical purpose of authorizing training and 
grants for local law enforcement officials to facilitate prevention, 
investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. However, the passing of 
this bill today is equally as important as the civil rights legislation 
that was enacted several decades ago, which enforced the principle that 
our country does not accept targeting any American for violence or 
discrimination based on hatred. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
fighting bigotry that threatens our communities by voting for the Local 
Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. I am a 
cosponsor of this legislation because we must do all that we can to 
protect those who are injured because of their gender, sexual 
orientation, race, religion, or disability.
  Hate crimes can occur in any community--even one as wonderful and 
diverse as mine. On July 4, 1999--when we should have been celebrating 
the welcoming and embracing traditions of our great country, my 
district was rocked by the killing spree of the white supremacist, 
Benjamin Nathaniel Smith. This madman left us grieving for Ricky 
Byrdsong, a former Northwestern University coach, a well-known 
community leader, a deeply religious man, a man who was committed to 
his family. His only crime was the color of his skin--he was African-
American. Smith also murdered Won Joon Yoon, an Asian American student 
from Indiana.
  The bill we are considering today takes an important step toward 
making America a more just society, by closing a glaring loophole in 
our justice system that prevents the Federal Government from 
prosecuting cases where women, gay, transgender or disabled persons are 
victims of bias-motivated crimes for who they are. These crimes not 
only devastate victims and their family and friends, but they devastate 
the community to which the victim belongs by creating fear and 
intimidation. Hate crimes chip away at the very foundations of what it 
means to be an American--that all people are created equal and are 
afforded the same freedoms and protections.
  America must no longer ignore hate crimes of any kind. Everyone, 
regardless of race, sexual, orientation and gender identity, must be 
equal in the eyes of the law. The passage of H.R. 1913 will send the 
powerful message that America stands for tolerance and inclusion, and 
is opposed to prejudice in all its forms. I want to thank my good 
friend, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, and the entire LGBT Equality 
Caucus for their tireless work to get this bill passed and urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' to H.R. 1913.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, while it is an honor to be able to 
participate today's debate, I must say that it gives me feelings of 
both joy and sorrow. Sorrow, because in the year 2009, I would hope 
that we should not have a need for such a bill.
  I find it most ironic that some of the very same voices in the 
community who speak out against this bill are the very same voices that 
question whether racism and prejudice no longer exist simply because a 
person of color has been elected President. Racism, prejudice, and hate 
did not disappear on November 4th, 2008. Nor did they disappear on 
January 20th, 2009.
  Yet it gives me joy that we are able to do something about it. I grew 
up in the Deep South and faced vile hatred up close, and it gives me 
joy to vote ``yes'' on the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention 
Act. Today we proclaim that our country will not stand for, and will 
not tolerate hate crimes.
  This bill is the right thing to do. It protects our citizens, our 
nation; our principles and our values.
  We are all Americans--
  Black Americans, White Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian 
Americans, Native American, Christian Americans, Jewish Americans, 
Muslim Americans, Gay Americans, Straight Americans--all Americans. We 
are one people and one nation, the American nation. This bill will 
bring us one step closer to the Beloved Community, a nation at peace 
with itself.
  A constituent came by my office just yesterday and spoke about her 
son who fought in Iraq. Her son completed two tours in Iraq. Her son 
has said that he was indeed concerned about his safety. But her son 
said that he was even more concerned about the safety of his father--a 
transgender woman, walking the streets of the United States of America 
every day.
  President Obama has talked repeatedly about renewing America's 
promise. Today, I urge my fellow Members to vote ``yes,'' and keep 
America's promise.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud co-sponsor of H.R. 
1913, the ``Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.'' 
According to FBI statistics, 118,000 hate crimes have been reported 
since 1991. During the same period of time, reported bias motivated 
crimes based on sexual orientation has more than tripled, yet the 
federal government currently has no jurisdiction to assist states and 
municipalities in dealing with even the most violent hate crimes 
against gay and lesbian Americans. The FBI's 2007 Uniform Crime Reports 
showed that reported violent crimes based on sexual orientation 
constituted approximately one out of six hate crimes committed in 2007, 
with 1,265 reported for the year.
  The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 will 
provide assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies and 
amend federal law to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of 
violent, bias-motivated crimes. This important legislation is

[[Page 11101]]

backed by a number of major law enforcement organizations, including 
the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National 
District Attorneys Association, and the National Sheriffs Association.
  This bill will strengthen existing federal law by expanding its 
jurisdiction to provide protections for crimes directed at individuals 
because of their gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or 
disability. The bill only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and 
does not impinge public speech or writing.
  This bill includes an explicit First Amendment free speech 
protection. Pastors, Sunday school teachers, and religious leaders 
cannot be prosecuted for the content of their speech. Many religious 
groups have expressed support for the bill, including the Episcopal 
Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the Interfaith 
Alliance, the Presbyterian Church, the United Synagogue of Conservative 
Judaism, the United Methodist Church, and the Congress of National 
Black Churches.
  I am proud to support the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes 
Prevention Act of 2009 because it is grounded in fundamental American 
values: recognizing the dignity of every person, protecting religious 
freedom, and freedom of speech. This legislation protects people from 
violence based on who they are, and has explicit protections to ensure 
that the law does not punish what people think, feel, or believe, but 
rather actions that physically harm others. I urge passage of the Local 
Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I was proud to cast my vote along 
with 249 other members of the House of Representatives in favor of the 
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This legislation will 
protect Americans by expanding the definition of hate crimes and 
providing law enforcement officers with the tools they need to 
prosecute these heinous crimes.
  The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act is not a cure-
all and it will not stop all hate violence, but it will send the 
message that senseless violence is unacceptable and perpetrators will 
be punished. Since law enforcement sometimes lacks the personnel, 
resources or determination needed to properly investigate and prosecute 
hate crimes, this measure will give the appropriate agencies the tools 
they need to combat hate violence in our communities.
  Under current law, the Federal Government can only investigate hate 
crimes motivated by the victim's race, color, religion or national 
origin. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act extends Federal jurisdiction to 
hate crimes motivated by the victim's actual or perceived sexual 
orientation, gender, gender identity or disability. Because such crimes 
are directed at an entire group of people and not just one individual, 
the bill provides assistance to state and local law enforcement to 
streamline the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.
  It is my hope that the Senate will quickly take up and pass this 
important measure. Hate motivated crimes undermine our communities and 
final passage of this bill has been delayed for far too long. I look 
forward to the day when legislation like this will no longer be needed, 
but until that day comes I applaud passage of the Hate Crimes 
Prevention Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 372, 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

  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. GOHMERT. Yes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Gohmert moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1913 to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendments:
       Page 8, line 11, insert ``and shall be subject to the 
     penalty of death in accordance with chapter 228,'' after ``or 
     both,''.
       Page 9, line 11, after ``or both,'' insert ``and shall be 
     subject to the penalty of death in accordance with chapter 
     228,''.
       Page 9, line 4, strike ``or''.
       Page 9, line 4, insert ``, age, status as a current or 
     former member of the Armed Forces, or status as a law 
     enforcement officer'' after ``disability''.
       Page 8, beginning in line 19, strike ``or disability'' and 
     insert ``disability, age, status as a current or former 
     member of the armed forces, or status as a law enforcement 
     officer''.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that there would be 
agreement to dispense with that portion of the motion dealing with the 
armed services.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I would object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Michigan care to 
reserve his point of order?
  Mr. CONYERS. No, sir, I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation is withdrawn.
  The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit is simple and 
straightforward. It adds three categories to the list of groups in this 
bill and provides the death penalty for certain hate crime offenses.
  I would like to address what our friend from Massachusetts has 
indicated when he talked about the people who were arrested for their 
Christian position, nonviolent, and he kept indicating the charges were 
dismissed.
  But as my friend from Massachusetts would surely know, when you can 
arrest people, even if you don't pursue charges, it has a chilling 
effect. Over and over it has a chilling effect.
  And, also, there was some inference in his comments that we may 
believe that transgender individuals who were not worthy of being 
defended under the law or were not victims, I wasn't sure, but the 
truth is every American deserves to be equally protected. That is the 
law. That's the way it should be. That's the way wherever you go in the 
country. You don't find cases that are held up as poster cases for hate 
crimes that justify the hate crimes.
  The James Byrd family, bless their hearts, I grieved with them. And 
based on the evidence that was presented, it was clear that these 
defendants committed a violent crime for which they should have gotten 
the death penalty. The two that did got it appropriately. This bill 
will not affect that case one bit. It will not affect it.
  So we have tried to say, look, please don't divide us. Don't keep 
dividing into different categories and say these deserve more 
protection than these. Treat us all the same. That has fallen on deaf 
ears.
  Every amendment was voted down in committee that we tried to present 
to make it more clear and to treat Americans equally. It's clear the 
majority has the votes to move forward and pass this. So our effort is 
then to add other worthy classes to this.
  For example, in 2004, Private First Class Foster Barton of Grove 
City, Ohio, was brutally beaten. Six witnesses who didn't know Barton 
said the person that beat him up was screaming profanities and crude 
remarks about U.S. soldiers.
  In 2007, a Syracuse woman pleaded guilty for spitting in the face of 
a Fort Drum soldier she didn't know.
  These things happen. My friend from Florida in committee had 
indicated that she was not sure it appeared that the military should be 
added as a protected class under this bill, that not necessarily were 
they victims.
  But I can tell you personally, having been spat at and on, after 
Vietnam, when I was at Fort Riley, Kansas, and we were ordered not to 
wear our uniforms off post in our platoon because of violence that was 
being done to servicemembers. It still happens. It still happens.
  And witness the unseemly events outside some of our military 
hospitals by those who are so very insensitive. Now even the 
administration is targeting returning veterans as potential extremists. 
As the report said, ``Returning veterans possess combat skills and 
experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists.'' Even the 
administration is trying to target veterans. So we would hope that they 
were included.
  And there is absolutely no question that law enforcement officers are 
frequently targeted specifically because of who they are and because 
they are wearing the uniform and attempting to protect all the rest of 
us. We have so many brave public servants. Even in

[[Page 11102]]

this building people have given their lives so that others in the 
building could have theirs. That needs to be honored.
  The statistics show that even though the number of hate crimes, or 
crimes reportedly committed because of bias or prejudice, are lower now 
than they were 10 years ago. Those crimes have increased against law 
enforcement.
  Age is another class that should be protected. The statistics are 
clear, and we have seen film evidence of elderly being attacked because 
they were perceived as elderly and less able to protect themselves. 
They deserve to be protected. These are classes that should be.
  And then we come to another issue, and that is the fact that the hate 
crimes bill, as proposed, will not affect one of the hate crime bills 
held up so far as a poster case. We will add the death penalty so it 
can make a difference in those places where there was a horrible 
heinous crime. This will make a difference.
  Mr. CONYERS. I rise in opposition to this motion, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank you.
  I suppose this is the parliamentary part of the legislative process 
that a motion to recommit has to be entertained, but before I begin my 
discussion about the regrets of it, I still insist on complimenting the 
Members of the House of Representatives who have understood that there 
are particular acts of violence against the law that are intolerable 
and should be dealt with as effectively as possible.
  The question is what is the most effective way.
  Now, what we have been proposing, since 1968, during the civil rights 
era, where there was an inability to seek prosecution of violators of 
civil rights laws at the State level, a southern President, Lyndon 
Johnson, began realizing that there had to be a Federal method of 
dealing with certain crimes that were not only violent to the victims 
but served to send a message of intimidation to others in that same 
class or group. Those groups, we have listed.
  These groups are being denied the most fundamental protection of 
liberty. They are targeted for the most extreme violence by extremists 
who have decided, in their own warped view of how we should exist among 
each other in our society, as people who don't deserve to have life.

                              {time}  1615

  The groups that are on this protected list and are identified as 
where hate crime laws kick in are being protected in the same way that 
has been going on all the way back these many years, since 1968.
  The targets are not only the particular individuals who are attacked, 
but an extension of everyone in the group. The unmistakable intended 
threat to all is that not only are you not welcome, but you are 
despised, and you are not safe, and we are coming after you.
  But this motion seeks simply to ignore these essential facts.
  Let me talk about the three areas mentioned. The armed services, for 
example. While people who are disturbed at governmental policies and 
may direct anger at the military, members of the armed services are not 
victims of bias-based prejudice or hatred. To the contrary, they are 
honored for their service to our Nation, with national holidays in 
their honor, memorials, and other economic benefits, all of which are 
deserved. But they are not in the same situation as the groups we are 
seeking to protect in this bill. Besides, specific protections for 
members of the armed services already exist in the Federal law----it 
makes killing someone in the military a capital crime.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. GOHMERT. 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 185, 
nays 241, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 222]

                               YEAS--185

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Holden
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Richardson
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--241

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono Mack
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Cao
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Massa
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Putnam

[[Page 11103]]


     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Berry
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Granger
     Perriello
     Stark
     Teague

                              {time}  1644

  Messrs. KIND, FARR, BISHOP of Georgia, PETERSON, RUSH, MORAN of 
Virginia, WAMP, CARDOZA, McMAHON, LYNCH and ADLER of New Jersey and 
Mrs. TAUSCHER, Ms. LEE of California, Ms. WOOLSEY, Ms. SPEIER and Ms. 
TITUS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. WILSON of South Carolina, DUNCAN and LUETKEMEYER 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. 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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 249, 
noes 175, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 223]

                               AYES--249

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Bono Mack
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Cao
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--175

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Berry
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Granger
     Miller, George
     Murtha
     Perriello
     Ruppersberger
     Stark
     Teague

                              {time}  1655

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________