[House Report 110-113]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



110th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    110-113

======================================================================



 
        LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT OF 2007

                                _______
                                

 April 30, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Conyers, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1592]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 1592) to provide Federal assistance to States, local 
jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and 
for other purposes, having considered the same, reports 
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the 
bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
The Amendment....................................................     2
Purpose and Summary..............................................     5
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     6
Hearings.........................................................    17
Committee Consideration..........................................    17
Committee Votes..................................................    17
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................    31
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................    31
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................    31
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................    33
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................    33
Advisory on Earmarks.............................................    34
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................    34
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    35
Dissenting Views.................................................    39

                             The Amendment

  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

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

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.

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

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

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

SEC. 5. GRANT PROGRAM.

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

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

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

SEC. 7. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.

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

``Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

    ``(a) In General.--
            ``(1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, 
        religion, or national origin.--Whoever, whether or not acting 
        under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any 
        person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive 
        or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any 
        person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, 
        religion, or national origin of any person--
                    ``(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, 
                fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
                    ``(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or 
                for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, 
                if--
                            ``(i) death results from the offense; or
                            ``(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an 
                        attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or 
                        an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, 
                        or an attempt to kill.
            ``(2) Offenses involving actual or perceived religion, 
        national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, 
        or disability.--
                    ``(A) In general.--Whoever, whether or not acting 
                under color of law, in any circumstance described in 
                subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any 
                person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an 
                explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause 
                bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or 
                perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual 
                orientation, gender identity or disability of any 
                person--
                            ``(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 
                        years, fined in accordance with this title, or 
                        both; and
                            ``(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of 
                        years or for life, fined in accordance with 
                        this title, or both, if--
                                    ``(I) death results from the 
                                offense; or
                                    ``(II) the offense includes 
                                kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, 
                                aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt 
                                to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or 
                                an attempt to kill.
                    ``(B) Circumstances described.--For purposes of 
                subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this 
                subparagraph are that--
                            ``(i) the conduct described in subparagraph 
                        (A) occurs during the course of, or as the 
                        result of, the travel of the defendant or the 
                        victim--
                                    ``(I) across a State line or 
                                national border; or
                                    ``(II) using a channel, facility, 
                                or instrumentality of interstate or 
                                foreign commerce;
                            ``(ii) the defendant uses a channel, 
                        facility, or instrumentality of interstate or 
                        foreign commerce in connection with the conduct 
                        described in subparagraph (A);
                            ``(iii) in connection with the conduct 
                        described in subparagraph (A), the defendant 
                        employs a firearm, explosive or incendiary 
                        device, or other weapon that has traveled in 
                        interstate or foreign commerce; or
                            ``(iv) the conduct described in 
                        subparagraph (A)--
                                    ``(I) interferes with commercial or 
                                other economic activity in which the 
                                victim is engaged at the time of the 
                                conduct; or
                                    ``(II) otherwise affects interstate 
                                or foreign commerce.
    ``(b) Certification Requirement.--No prosecution of any offense 
described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, 
except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the 
Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any 
Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General 
that--
            ``(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to 
        believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, 
        national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, 
        or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying 
        the alleged conduct of the defendant; and
            ``(2) such certifying individual has consulted with State 
        or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution 
        and determined that--
                    ``(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does 
                not intend to exercise jurisdiction;
                    ``(B) the State has requested that the Federal 
                Government assume jurisdiction;
                    ``(C) the State does not object to the Federal 
                Government assuming jurisdiction; or
                    ``(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to 
                State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the 
                Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated 
                violence.
    ``(c) Definitions.--In this section--
            ``(1) the term `explosive or incendiary device' has the 
        meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;
            ``(2) the term `firearm' has the meaning given such term in 
        section 921(a) of this title; and
            ``(3) the term `gender identity' for the purposes of this 
        chapter means actual or perceived gender-related 
        characteristics.
    ``(d) Rule of Evidence.--In a prosecution for an offense under this 
section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may 
not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence 
specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section 
affects the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.''.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The 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. 8. DUTIES OF FEDERAL SENTENCING COMMISSION.

    The United States Sentencing Commission shall study the issue of 
adult recruitment of juveniles to commit hate crimes and shall report 
the Commission's findings back to the Congress not later than 180 days 
after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 9. STATISTICS.

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

SEC. 10. 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. 11. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

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

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 1592 would provide assistance to state and local law 
enforcement in the investigation and prosecution of hate 
crimes, and would amend chapter 13 of title 18, United States 
Code, to make violent crimes against a person motivated by bias 
against characteristics for which there is a history of such 
bias-motivated violence a felony. It would also amend the Hate 
Crime Statistics Act to require the collection of data on 
violent crimes motivated by bias against the victim's perceived 
gender or gender identity, as well as data on crimes committed 
by and directed against juveniles.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

                                OVERVIEW

    Hate crimes involve the purposeful selection of victims for 
violence and intimidation based on bias against their perceived 
attributes. These crimes are distinguished from, and go far 
beyond, mere expression of belief, which would be protected 
under the first amendment. They materially and unacceptably 
interfere with the full participation of all Americans in the 
fundamental liberties enjoyed in our democratic society.
    As with most criminal activity, bias crimes are 
investigated and prosecuted at both the Federal and State/local 
levels, depending on the facts of the case and the needs of the 
investigation. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has 
the best national data on reported hate crimes, though the 
reporting program is voluntary.\1\ Since 1991, the FBI has 
received reports of more than 113,000 hate crimes. For the year 
2005 (for which the most current data are available), the FBI 
received reports from law enforcement agencies identifying 
7,163 bias-motivated criminal incidents. Law enforcement 
agencies identified 8,795 victims arising from 8,373 separate 
criminal offenses. For the year 2005, the most current data 
available, the FBI compiled reports from law enforcement 
agencies identifying 7,163 bias-motivated criminal incidents. 
Law enforcement agencies identified 8,795 victims arising from 
8,373 separate criminal offenses. As in the past, racially-
motivated bias accounted for more than half (54.7%) of all 
incidents. Religious bias accounted for 1,227 incidents 
(17.1%), sexual orientation bias accounted for 1,017 incidents 
(14.2%), followed by ethnicity/national origin bias with 944 
incidents (13.7%). While these numbers are disturbing enough, 
indications are that hate crimes are significantly under-
reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Approximately 4,000 police agencies across the nation--
including two of the top ten largest cities in America, New York City 
and Phoenix--did not participate in this Hate Crimes Statistics Act 
data collection effort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 1592, the ``Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes 
Prevention Act,'' is intended to address deficiencies in the 
principal current Federal hate crime statutes: 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 245 (Interference with Federally Protected Activities) and 
42 U.S.C. Sec. 3631 (Interference with Housing). Enacted in 
1968, these statutes prohibit a limited set of hate crimes 
committed on the basis of race, color, religion, or national 
origin.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3631 also punishes violent intimidation with 
housing activities when the victims are selected based on sex, 
handicap, and familial status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There are two deficiencies with current law that have 
limited the Federal Government's ability to work with State and 
local law enforcement agencies in the investigation and 
prosecution of hate crimes, and led to acquittals in several of 
the cases in which the Department of Justice has determined a 
need to assert Federal jurisdiction to ``backstop'' local 
efforts. First, it provides no coverage for violent hate crimes 
committed because of the victim's perceived sexual orientation, 
gender, gender identity, or disability. Second, it requires 
proof that the crime was committed with the intent to interfere 
with the victim's participation in one of six specifically 
defined federally protected activities.
    To address the jurisdictional limitations under existing 
law, H.R. 1592 creates a new section 249 in the Criminal Civil 
Rights Chapter (chapter 13) of title 18 of the United States 
Code. New section 249 establishes two criminal prohibitions. In 
cases involving violence because of the victim's race, color, 
religion or national origin, section 249(a)(1) prohibits the 
intentional infliction of bodily injury (or certain attempts) 
without regard to the victim's participation in specific 
enumerated activities. In cases involving certain violent 
crimes motivated by hatred based on the victim's actual or 
perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or 
disability, section 249(a)(2) prohibits the intentional 
infliction of bodily injury if the incident has a nexus, as 
defined in the bill, to interstate commerce.\3\ Section 249 
expands the reach of the Federal criminal laws to address both 
sets of limitations. It provides the Federal Government the 
tools to effectively pursue the significant Federal interest in 
eradicating bias-motivated violence by assisting States and 
local law enforcement and by pursuing Federal charges where 
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ The approach taken in this legislation is identical to that 
taken in the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996, which also amended 
chapter 13 of title 18. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 247.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is important to emphasize that State and local 
authorities currently investigate and prosecute the 
overwhelming majority of hate crimes and will continue to do so 
under this legislation.\4\ Under current law, concurrent 
Federal jurisdiction is necessary in the hate crimes context to 
permit the devotion of Federal resources to assist State and 
local law enforcement in the investigation and prosecution of 
hate crimes. In limited circumstances, however, it is necessary 
to use the Federal criminal civil rights statutes to 
``backstop'' State and local efforts. Such backstop is 
necessary, for example, where the State does not have an 
appropriate statute, or otherwise declines to investigate or 
prosecute; where the State requests that the Federal Government 
assume jurisdiction; or where actions by State and local law 
enforcement officials leave demonstratively unvindicated the 
Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Since 1991, for example, the FBI has received reports of almost 
114,000 hate crimes. During that period, however, the Department of 
Justice has brought fewer than 100 cases under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 245. See 
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 CURRENT LAW AND THE NEED FOR EXPANDED JURISDICTION TO FULFILL FEDERAL 
       RESPONSIBILITIES OF SUPPORT, COOPERATION, AND BACKSTOPPING

    Section 245(b) of title 18 has been the principal Federal 
hate crimes statute since its enactment in 1968. It prohibits 
the use of force, or threat of force, to injure, intimidate, or 
interfere with (or to attempt to injure, intimidate, or 
interfere with) ``any person because of his race, color, 
religion or national origin'' in his or her participation in 
any of six ``federally protected activities'' specifically 
enumerated in the statute.\5\ To prove a violation of section 
245(b), the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt two 
intents on the part of the accused: first, that the crime of 
violence was motivated by racial, ethnic, or religious hatred; 
and second, that it was committed with the intent to interfere 
with the victim's participation in one or more of the specified 
federally protected activities. Even in the most blatant cases 
of racial, ethnic, or religious violence, an accused has 
committed no Federal crime in violation of section 245(b) 
unless he is proved to have possessed both these intents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ The six enumerated ``federally protected activities'' are: 
``(A) enrolling in or attending any public school or public college; 
(B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, 
program, facility or activity provided or administered by any State or 
subdivision thereof; (C) applying for or enjoying employment, . . . ; 
(D) serving . . . as grand or petit juror; E) traveling in or using any 
facility of interstate commerce, . . . ; (F) enjoying the goods [or] 
services [of certain places of public accommodation].'' 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 245(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This limited reach of section 245(b), cabined in particular 
by the ``federally protected activity'' requirement, has 
limited the ability of Federal law enforcement officials to 
work with State and local officials in the investigation and 
prosecution of many incidents of brutality and violence 
motivated by prejudice. Moreover, this intent requirement has 
led to acquittals in several of the cases in which the 
Department of Justice has assumed Federal jurisdiction and 
brought prosecutions under section 245(b), even where the proof 
of racially motivated violence was not in doubt. Expanding the 
circumstances under which certain hate crimes may be prosecuted 
by removing the ``federally protected activity'' requirement, 
and permitting prosecution for bias-motivated crimes of 
violence that cause bodily injury (or a class of specified 
attempts) based on the victim's race, color, religion or 
national origin, will permit the Federal Government to provide 
assistance to State law enforcement in a wider range of 
circumstances, and criminalize instances of vicious bias-
motived crimes that presently fall outside the reaches of the 
Federal criminal laws.
    Permitting the Federal Government to Assist States and 
Local Law Enforcement. As to the first of these reasons, when 
Federal jurisdiction has existed in the limited circumstances 
covered by section 245(b), the Federal Government's resources, 
forensic expertise, and experience in the identification and 
proof of bias-motivated violence and criminal networks have 
often provided an invaluable investigative complement to the 
familiarity of local investigators with the local community and 
its people and customs. Through this cooperation, State and 
Federal law enforcement officials have been able to bring the 
perpetrators of hate crimes swiftly to justice.
    The investigation conducted into the death of James Byrd in 
Jasper County, Texas, is an excellent example of the benefits 
of an effective Federal/State investigative partnership in a 
high-profile hate crime case. Mr. Byrd was targeted to be 
tortured and killed solely because of his race. From the time 
of the first reports of Mr. Byrd's death, the FBI collaborated 
with local officials in an investigation that led to the prompt 
arrest and indictment of three men on State capital murder 
charges. The resources, forensic expertise, and civil rights 
experience of the FBI and the Department of Justice provided 
assistance of great value to local law enforcement officials. 
The fact that the crime at issue appeared to violate 
established Federal criminal civil rights law was critical in 
the FBI's decision as to its legal authority to lend assistance 
to the State prosecution.
    It is also useful to consider the work in the mid-1990's of 
the National Church Arson Task Force, which investigated and 
prosecuted violations of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 247. Section 247, which 
was enacted in 1988 and amended in the mid-1990's, does not 
have limitations analogous to the ``federally protected 
activity'' requirement of section 245(b)(2). Created to address 
a rash of church fires across the country, the Task Force's 
Federal prosecutors and investigators from the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the FBI collaborated with 
State and local officials in the investigation of every church 
arson that had occurred since January 1, 1995. The results of 
these State/Federal partnerships were extraordinary. Thirty-
four percent of the joint State/Federal church arson 
investigations conducted during the 2-year life of the task 
force resulted in arrests of one or more suspects on State or 
Federal charges, an arrest rate that was more than double the 
normal 16% rate of arrest in all arson cases nationwide (most 
of which are investigated by local officials without Federal 
assistance). More than 80% of the suspects arrested in joint 
State/Federal church arson investigations during the life of 
the Task Force were prosecuted in State courts under State 
laws.
    This bill will similarly enhance the ability of the FBI and 
other Federal law enforcement entities to provide assistance to 
and work in partnership with State law enforcement authorities. 
It is expected that this cooperation will result in an increase 
in the number of hate crimes solved by arrests and successful 
prosecutions, in the same way that the devotion of Federal law 
enforcement efforts increased the number of arrests and 
prosecutions in the church arson context. And, as noted, it is 
also believed that a large majority of hate crimes prosecutions 
will continue to be brought in State court under State law.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Hate Crimes Violence: Hearings Before the House Comm. on the 
Judiciary, 106th Cong. 13, 17-18 (1999) (testimony of Eric Holder, 
Deputy Attorney General).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Establishing Appropriate Federal Jurisdiction. In some 
circumstances, the Federal Government needs to be able to go 
beyond being simply an investigative partner of State and local 
law enforcement, and to bring Federal criminal charges. Where 
State and local prosecutors fail to bring appropriate State 
charges, or where State laws or the results of State 
prosecutions are inadequate to vindicate the Federal interest 
in prosecuting hate crimes, it is imperative that the Federal 
Government be able to step in and bring effective Federal 
prosecutions to ``backstop'' local law enforcement. 
Unfortunately, the ``double-intent'' requirement of 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 245(b)(2)--particularly the ``intent to interfere with a 
federally protected activity'' requirement--has precluded the 
Department of Justice from performing an effective backstop 
role with regard to a number of heinous hate crimes.
    In testimony before this Committee, then Deputy Attorney 
General Eric Holder discussed a case in Texas in which the jury 
acquitted three white supremacists of Federal criminal civil 
rights charges arising from unprovoked assaults upon African-
Americans, including one incident in which the defendants 
knocked a man unconscious as he stood near a bus stop. Some of 
the jurors revealed after the trial that although the assaults 
were clearly motivated by racial animus, there was no apparent 
intent to deprive the victims of the right to participate in 
any ``federally protected activity.'' The government's proof 
that the defendants went out looking for African-Americans to 
attack was insufficient in the jurors' minds to satisfy the 
requirements of section 245(b)(2).
    Another section 245(b)(2) case in which the jurors 
explained their verdict involved the prosecution of a notorious 
serial murderer and white supremacist for shooting then-Urban 
League President Vernon Jordan as he walked from a car toward 
his motel room (a place of ``public accommodation'') in Fort 
Wayne, Indiana. Following an acquittal, several jurors advised 
the press that although they were persuaded that the defendant 
committed the shooting because of Mr. Jordan's race, they did 
not believe that the shooting was intended to interfere with 
Mr. Jordan's use of the hotel facilities. The shooter later 
admitted that he targeted Mr. Jordan as part of a crusade to 
eradicate Blacks, Jews, and ``race-mixers.''
    In each of these examples, one or more persons committed an 
heinous act of violence clearly motivated by the race, color, 
religion, or national origin of the victim. In each instance, 
local prosecutors failed to bring State criminal charges, and 
the extra intent requirement of section 245(b)(2)--that the 
hate crime be additionally linked to the victim's participation 
in one of the enumerated federally protected activities--
prevented the Department of Justice from acting effectively.
    Currently, Federal authority can turn on such artificial 
distinctions as whether a racially motivated assault occurs on 
a public sidewalk as opposed to a private parking lot across 
the street, or whether a convenience store at which a racially 
motivated attack occurs has a video game inside that might 
qualify the store as a ``place of entertainment.'' The Federal 
Government's authority to participate in State-Federal 
investigative partnerships, or to step in and play a backstop 
role when necessary, should not hinge upon such arbitrary 
distinctions.
    Thus, in connection with prosecutions of hate crimes based 
on the victim's race, color, national origin, new section 
249(a)(1) appropriately reaches those crimes of violence that 
cause bodily injury, or certain attempts. By so doing, the Act 
strengthens the Federal Government's ability to assist State 
and local law enforcement authorities, and strengthens the 
Federal Government's ability to prosecute such crimes when it 
must do so.

           HATE CRIMES BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER, 
                     GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY

    Behind each hate crime statistic is an individual or 
community targeted for violence for no other reason than race, 
religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, gender 
identity, or disability. As law enforcement authorities and 
civic leaders have learned, a failure to address the problem of 
violent bias crime can lead to widespread tension that damages 
the social fabric of the community at large. The Supreme Court 
recognized this wider harm in Wisconsin v. Mitchell as meriting 
the designation of a hate crime as a specific offense.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ 508 U.S. 47 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The existing general Federal hate crimes laws, however, do 
not prohibit hate crimes committed because of bias based on the 
victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender 
identity, or disability. There is increasing consensus among 
law enforcement officials and policymakers that hate crimes 
motivated by such biases are deserving of prosecution. Notably, 
in 1994, Congress passed legislation directing the United 
States Sentencing Commission to promulgate a sentencing 
enhancement for crimes committed on account of the victim's 
actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, or 
disability.\8\ Since 1994, gender identity has been added to a 
plethora of State and local hate crimes statutes that are based 
on the same analytical understanding of violent prejudice, in 
recognition that criminals target such persons for particularly 
violent assault.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. 
L. No. 103-322 (1994). Section 280003a of this Act provides:

      (a) DEFINITION.--In this section, ``hate crime'' means a 
      crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a 
      victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property 
      that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or 
      perceived race, color, religion, national origin, 
      ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      person.

      (b) SENTENCING ENHANCEMENT.--Pursuant to section 994 of 
      title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing 
      Commission shall promulgate guidelines or amend existing 
      guidelines to provide sentencing enhancements of not less 
      than 3 offense levels for offenses that the finder of fact 
      at trial determines beyond a reasonable doubt are hate 
      crimes. . . .
    The following facts support an extension of Federal 
jurisdiction to cover bias crimes committed on the basis of 
these prejudices.
    Sexual Orientation. Statistics gathered by the Federal 
Government and private organizations indicate that a 
significant number of hate crimes based on the sexual 
orientation of the victim are committed every year in the 
United States. According to 2005 FBI statistics, hate crimes 
based on sexual orientation constituted the third highest 
category reported (1,017 incidents) and made up 14.2% of all 
reported hate crimes. From 1991 through 2005--the last year for 
which data exists--there have been more than 15,000 reported 
hate crimes based on sexual orientation. In 1991, the FBI 
reported 425 hate crimes based on sexual orientation. In 2000, 
that number had grown to 1,299, an increase of more than 200%. 
And even these statistics may significantly understate the 
number of hate crimes based on sexual orientation that actually 
are committed in this country.
    Many victims of anti-lesbian, anti-gay, and anti-
transgender incidents do not report the crimes to local law 
enforcement officials. In fact, according to Austin, Texas 
Police Commander Gary Olfers, hate crimes are the ``number 1 
under-reported crime in the state.'' And ``[d]espite under-
reporting, the trend in State statistics shows that gays and 
lesbians are increasingly the targets of crime.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Hate-crimes experts say statistics don't tell story: Many cases 
unreported; special law rarely used, Dallas Morning News, Nov. 8, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite the prevalence of violent acts committed against 
persons because of their sexual orientation, such crimes are 
not covered by section 245 unless there is also another basis 
for Federal jurisdiction, such as race-based bias. Accordingly, 
the Federal Government has been without authority to work in 
partnership with local law enforcement officials, or to bring 
Federal prosecutions, when gay men or lesbians are the victims 
of murders or other violent assaults because of bias based on 
their sexual orientation.
    The murder of Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyoming is an 
instructive example of the limitations in current law. Despite 
the clear evidence that the murder of Mr. Shepard was motivated 
by animus based on Mr. Shepard's sexual orientation, the 
Federal Government lacked jurisdiction to act as a full partner 
with State and local officials in the investigation of this 
horrifying crime, or to bring Federal hate crime charges. As a 
result, according to Commander David O'Malley, the chief 
investigator in the Shepard murder case, ``the Albany County 
Sheriff's office had to furlough five investigators because of 
soaring costs'' associated with handling the case without any 
financial or investigatory support from the Federal 
Government.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Excerpts of press statement by Commander David O'Malley, Sept. 
12, 2000. In a November 11, 1999, letter to Speaker Dennis Hastert, 
Sheriff James Pond and detective Sergeant Robert DeBree of the Albany 
County Sheriff's Department wrote: ``We believe justice was served in 
this case [Shepard], but not without cost. We have been devastated 
financially, due to expenses incurred in bringing Matthew's killers to 
justice. For example, we had to lay off five law enforcement staff.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The situation confronting the Albany County Sheriff's 
office in the Shepard case stands in stark contrast to what 
occurred in the Jasper, Texas, case mentioned above. Because 
the murder of James Byrd, Jr. was covered under the Federal 
hate crimes statutes, the local law enforcement agency in 
Jasper received forensic assistance and nearly $300,000 from 
the Federal Government to help cover the costs associated with 
successfully prosecuting Mr. Byrd's killers.
    Gender. Although acts of violence committed against women 
traditionally have been viewed as ``personal attacks'' rather 
than as hate crimes, a significant number of women are exposed 
to terror, brutality, serious injury, and even death because of 
their gender. Indeed, Congress, through the enactment and 
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) 
recognized that some violent assaults committed against women 
are bias crimes rather than mere ``random'' attacks.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Sen. Rep. No. 103-138 (1993) (testimony of Prof. Burt 
Neuborne).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The majority of States do not have statutes that 
specifically prohibit gender-based hate crimes. Although all 50 
States have statutes prohibiting rape and other crimes 
typically committed against women, only 24 States and the 
District of Columbia have hate crimes statutes that include 
gender among the categories of prohibited bias motives. H.R. 
1592's amendment to title 18 would make Federal hate crimes 
laws more consistent with the Federal position taken in VAWA, 
allowing Federal officials to work together with State and 
local law enforcement officials in the investigation and 
prosecution of violent gender-based hate crimes.
    H.R. 1592 will not result in the Federalization of all 
rapes, other sexual assaults, or acts of domestic violence. 
Rather, the legislation has been drafted to ensure that the 
Federal Government's investigations and prosecutions of gender-
based hate crimes will be strictly limited to those crimes that 
are motivated by gender-based animus and, thus, implicate the 
greatest Federal interest.
    Gender Identity. Transgender people are often targeted for 
hate violence based on their non-conformity with gender norms, 
their perceived sexual orientation, or both. Hate crimes 
against transgender people tend to be particularly violent. 
Compounding the challenges with prosecuting these crimes, 
transgender people are frequently mistrustful of local law 
enforcement authorities because police often lack training and 
understanding of transgender people. This lack of understanding 
illustrates the need for a Federal backstop for State and local 
authorities, particularly in cases where the local law 
enforcement authorities exhibit intolerance, or fail to 
investigate or prosecute cases of transgender hate crimes.
    The murder of Brandon Teena, dramatized in the movie ``Boys 
Don't Cry,'' is illustrative of the plight of this community. 
Mr. Teena was raped and later killed after the discovery of his 
biological gender by two acquaintances. Prior to his murder, he 
reported his rape and beating, but the Richardson County 
Nebraska, Sheriff (who referred to Teena as ``it'') would not 
allow an arrest. Five days later he was stabbed and beaten to 
death by the same perpetrators. In the civil suit brought by 
his mother, the court found that the county was partially 
responsible for Teena's death, and characterized the Sheriff's 
behavior as ``extreme and outrageous.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Omaha World-Herald, Apr. 21, 2001; Assoc. Press, Oct. 5, 2001; 
N.Y. Times, April 21, 2001; Chi. Trib., Apr. 21, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Currently, ten States include protections for transgender 
individuals in their hate crime laws. Additionally, six States 
and 71 local jurisdictions do so in their anti-discrimination 
laws. There has also been explicit coverage of gender identity 
in the anti-discrimination policies of leading 
corporations.\13\ According to a poll commissioned by the Human 
Rights Campaign Foundation in 2002, sixty-eight percent of 
Americans believe that the Federal Government needs laws to 
protect against anti-transgender hate crimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ This list includes 53 of the Fortune 500 companies, including 
AT&T, IBM and Toys ``R'' Us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Disability. Congress has shown an enduring commitment over 
the past decade to protecting persons with disabilities from 
discrimination. In the 1988 amendments to the Fair Housing Act, 
as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 
Congress extended civil rights protections to persons with 
disabilities in many traditional civil rights contexts. 
Congress amended the Hate Crimes Statistics Act in 1994 to 
require the FBI to collect information about incidents crimes 
of violence based on bias against the disabled from State and 
local law enforcement agencies. Currently, 24 States and the 
District of Columbia have specific criminal statutes directed 
at disability-based hate crimes of violence.

                             LEGAL ANALYSIS

Federalism
    The bill is carefully drafted to ensure that the Federal 
prosecution of hate crimes motivated by animus directed at the 
newly added characteristics are limited to cases that implicate 
the greatest Federal interest and present the greatest need for 
Federal intervention. This bill is not intended to federalize, 
for example, all rapes, sexual assaults, acts of domestic 
violence, or other gender-based crimes.
    The express language of new section 249(b) limits Federal 
involvement is several important ways. First, the bill requires 
proof that offenses in the four new categories be motivated by 
animus based prejudice against a person's actual or perceived 
sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. 
Second, the bill requires a nexus to interstate commerce for 
these hate crimes. Third, the bill limits the prohibitions to 
acts of violence involving bodily injury or death, and a 
limited set of attempts to cause bodily injury or death, there 
are no misdemeanor provisions which would permit Federal 
involvement in prosecuting minor offenses with no bodily 
injury.
    Finally, the bill requires certification, by the Attorney 
General or other specified high-ranking Department of Justice 
official, before any prosecution of an offense described in 
section 7 of the Act may be undertaken. The certifying 
individual must have ``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.'' The certifying individual must also 
have consulted with State or local law enforcement officials 
regarding the prosecution and determined that: (1) the State 
does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise 
jurisdiction; (2) the State has requested the Federal 
Government to assume jurisdiction; (3) the State does not 
object to the Federal Government assuming jurisdiction; or (4) 
the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left 
demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in 
eradicating bias-motivated violence.
    This heightened certification requirement is intended to 
ensure that the Federal Government will assert the new hate 
crimes jurisdiction in a principled and properly limited 
fashion, consistent with procedures under the current Federal 
hate crimes statute. Additionally, based upon the testimony of 
Department of Justice officials, the Committee anticipates that 
general Department-wide prosecutorial policies will have the 
effect of further limiting the cases prosecuted by the Federal 
Government.
Constitutionality
    The bill is consistent with a long history of Federal 
involvement in combating crimes of violence based on prejudice. 
As the Department of Justice articulated in a 2000 Statement of 
Administration Position,\14\ the 13th amendment broadly 
authorizes Congress to regulate acts of violence committed on 
the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin, 
providing ample constitutional basis for section 7(a) of the 
bill, which addresses bias crimes in those categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Statement of Administration Position, June 13, 2000 (Assistant 
Attorney General Robert Raben).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With respect to section 7(b) of the bill, the Commerce 
Clause provides Congress the authority to prosecute acts of 
violence motivated by animus based on actual or perceived 
sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability, 
where the crime has the requisite connection to interstate 
commerce. To avoid possible constitutional concerns arising 
from the decision in United States v. Lopez,\15\ the bill 
requires that the government prove beyond a reasonable doubt, 
as an element of the offense, a nexus to interstate commerce in 
every prosecution brought under one of the newly created 
categories of offenses in new section 249(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This interstate commerce element was drafted with customary 
breadth so as to reach all cases within the scope of Congress's 
powers under the Commerce Clause. Pursuant to section 
249(a)(2), the Government must prove, in hate crimes 
prosecutions involving conduct motivated by animus based on 
actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender 
identity, or disability, that in connection with the offense, 
the defendant ``[traveled] across a State line of national 
border;'' ``use[d] a channel, facility or instrumentality of 
interstate or foreign commerce;'' ``employ[ed] a firearm, 
explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has 
traveled in interstate or foreign commerce;'' ``interfere[d] 
with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim 
[was] engaged at the time of the conduct;'' or ``otherwise 
affect[ed] interstate or foreign commerce.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ This is notably more restrictive than the interstate commerce 
proof required in the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 
2007 (H.R. 137) and the amendment to H.R. 1592 during the Committee's 
markup of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The interstate commerce nexus is analogous to that required 
in many other Federal criminal statutes. The Church Arson 
Prevention Act of 1996,\17\ for example, makes it a crime to 
destroy religious property if the offense ``is in or affects 
interstate commerce.'' \18\ Section 249 is drafted to comport 
with Supreme Court guidance in Lopez \19\ and U.S. v. 
Morrison.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ 18 U.S.C. Sec. 247.
    \18\ 18 U.S.C. Sec. 247(b).
    \19\ 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
    \20\ 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (setting forth outer reaches of commerce 
power in invalidating civil provisions of Violence Against Women Act)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, to the extent that there may be open questions 
regarding the precise contours of the range of circumstances 
under which the enforcement provision of the 13th amendment 
authorizes Congress to criminalize hate crimes committed on the 
basis of religion, the legislation has included hate crimes 
based on religious beliefs in both section 249(a)(1) and 
section 249(a)(2).\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ The scope of the 13th amendment, and Congress's power to 
regulate thereunder, was considered by the Supreme Court in Saint 
Francis College v. Al-Khazraii, 481 U.S. 604, 613 (1987) and Shaare 
Tefila Congregation v. Cobb, 481 U.S. 615, 617-18 (1987). In those 
cases, the Court held that civil anti-discrimination statutes enacted 
under the 13th amendment during Reconstruction apply to religions, at 
least to the extent that such religions were seen as ``races'' at the 
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis for Addition of New Categories of Bias
    The new classifications of sexual orientation, gender, 
gender identity, and disability are being added to those 
receiving Federal legal protection on the basis of accumulated 
evidence, reflected in jurisprudence \22\ and other Federal and 
State laws.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ See, e.g., R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992); 
Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 47 (1993).
    \23\ See also the Allport Scale, devised by psychologist Gordon 
Allport and cited widely by the Federal judiciary. See, e.g., City of 
Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 464 (1985) 
(Marshall, J. dissenting) (home for mentally ill); Castaneda v. 
Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 503 (1977) (Marshall, J. dissenting) (grand jury 
composition); Dukes v. Waitkevich 429 U.S. 932 (1976) (Marshall, J. 
dissenting) (effect of rape/miscegenation allegations); Frazier v. 
Heebe, 788 F.2d 1049, 1058 (5th Cir. 1986) (residence requirement for 
bar admission); Stevens v. Dobs, Inc., 483 F.2d 82 (4th Cir. 1973) 
(housing discrimination); U. S. ex rel. Haynes v. McKendrick, 481 F.2d 
152, 157 (2d Cir. 1973) (prejudice in jury selection); Miller v. U.S., 
320 F.2d 767, 772 (D.C. Cir. 1963) (inferences of guilt), providing a 
``Scale of Prejudice'' based on various indicia of prejudice in 
escalating severity of manifestation. Gordon Allport, The Nature of 
Prejudice (Addison-Wesley 1954).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Speech
    H.R. 1592 is carefully crafted so as to distinguish crimes 
of violence based on bias from religious or other expression 
protected under the first amendment. The legislation does not 
prohibit name-calling, verbal abuse, or other forms of negative 
or hateful expression; it prohibits only violent actions that 
result in death or bodily injury. An amendment offered by Mr. 
Davis, accepted by voice vote, adds a rule of construction that 
further clarifies that freedom of religious and other 
expression protected under the first amendment is in no way 
impaired.
    In furtherance of this protection, new section 249(d) 
prohibits introducing evidence of association or expression to 
prove that a crime has been committed, unless it specifically 
relates to the offense. Otherwise, such evidence may be used 
only for impeachment purposes. This provision recognizes that 
evidence that a person has expressed, for example, religious or 
philosophical beliefs that some might characterize as hateful 
or intolerant, or that a person belongs to an organization, 
including a religious organization, that holds or professes 
beliefs consistent with the crime charged, with little or no 
other evidence of the person's culpability in the charged 
offense, can be unfairly prejudicial. Thus, evidence of an 
accused's expressions or group memberships could be admitted at 
trial only where they can be shown to be specifically linked to 
the person's involvement in the charged offense.
    This provision requires the district court to employ a 
heightened version of the customary relevance test, taking into 
account the policy values associated with protecting the rights 
of free religious expression, free speech, and free association 
and considering the potential prejudice if the evidence at 
issue consists of unpopular speech or association with an 
unpopular group.
    This provision also recognizes, however, that evidence of 
an accused's speech, expression, or association may be properly 
relevant and not unfairly prejudicial if such evidence can be 
shown to be related to the crime at issue. An isolated racial 
slur remote in time to the charged offense, or merely 
incidental to the motive of the charged offense (for example, a 
racial slur uttered in the conduct of a robbery where robbery 
is manifestly the motive), or mere participation in an 
organization that holds and professes strong and negative views 
toward a given group, would presumably be excluded. In 
contrast, an accused's violence-themed set of statements 
displaying animus toward the victim's group, or statements 
evidencing hatred of a given group, persisting over a lengthy 
period, especially if close in time to the alleged offense, may 
indicate the motivation for the offense and properly be 
admissible as evidence--if there is other independent evidence 
of the accused's participation in the crime. This careful 
weighing of relevance against prejudice will help ensure an 
individual is not prosecuted simply for holding and expressing 
views, no matter how abhorrent.
    This provision will not provide a license for a witness or 
the accused to commit perjury. If a witness, for example, were 
to deny knowing the accused, the witness could be impeached by 
showing they belonged to the same organization and were in each 
other's company. If an accused were to deny having animus 
toward the victim's group, he or she could be impeached by 
prior statements the accused has made that expressed such 
animus--even if they had been excluded in the government's case 
in chief because they were remote in time. This comports with 
the overarching goals of the Federal Rules of Evidence that 
deny a witness safe harbor to commit perjury by unfairly 
limiting a party's ability to impeach a witness.
    Finally, doubts about the constitutionality of hate crimes 
laws were squarely addressed by the Supreme Court in the early 
1990's in two cases, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul \24\ and 
Wisconsin v. Mitchell.\25\ In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the 
Supreme Court made clear that the first amendment does not 
prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to establish the 
elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent. These cases 
clearly demonstrate that a hate crimes statute may consider 
bias motivation when that motivation is directly connected to a 
defendant's criminal conduct. By requiring this connection to 
criminal activity, this legislation does not chill protected 
speech and does not violate the first amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ 505 U.S. 377 (1992).
    \25\ 508 U.S. 47 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Hearings

    The Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security held 1 day of hearings on H.R. 1592 on April 
17, 2007. Testimony was received from Mark L. Shurtleff, 
Attorney General of the State of Utah; Timothy Lynch, Director, 
Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute; Frederick M. 
Lawrence, Dean, the George Washington University Law School; 
David Ritcheson, Harris County, Texas; Brad W. Dacus, 
President, Pacific Justice Institute; and, Jack McDevitt, 
Associate Dean, Northeastern University.

                        Committee Consideration

    On April 24, 2007, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 
and Homeland Security met in open session and ordered the bill 
H.R.1592 favorably reported by voice vote, a quorum being 
present.
    On April 25, 2007, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered the bill H.R. 1592 favorably reported with amendments, 
by a rollcall vote of 20 to 14, a quorum being present.

                            Committee Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the 
following rollcall votes occurred during the Committee's 
consideration of H.R. 1592:
    1. A motion by Mr. Nadler to table the appeal of the ruling 
of the Chairman that an amendment by Mr. Jordan designating 
``unborn child'' status, under certain circumstances, for 
coverage under the Act was not germane. Defeated 17 to 17.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Meehan......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman.....................................................              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Mr. Davis.......................................................
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................              X
Mr. Ellison.....................................................              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             17              17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. A motion by Mr. Sensenbrenner to adjourn. Defeated 20 to 
17.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................                              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................                              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................                              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................                              X
Ms. Waters......................................................                              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................                              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................                              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................                              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................                              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................                              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman.....................................................                              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................                              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................                              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Mr. Davis.......................................................
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................                              X
Mr. Ellison.....................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Mr. Issa........................................................              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................              X
Mr. Franks......................................................              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             17              20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. An appeal by Mr. Chabot of the ruling of the Chairman 
that the amendment by Mr. Jordan was not germane. Chairman's 
ruling upheld 21 to 17.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman.....................................................              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Mr. Davis.......................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................              X
Mr. Ellison.....................................................              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             21              17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. An amendment by Mr. Gohmert to remove from the bill's 
coverage crimes committed based upon animus associated with 
sexual orientation or gender identity. Defeated 18 to 13.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................                              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................                              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................                              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................                              X
Ms. Waters......................................................                              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................                              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................                              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................                              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................                              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman.....................................................                              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................                              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................                              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Mr. Davis.......................................................
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................                              X
Mr. Ellison.....................................................
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Lungren.....................................................              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................              X
Mr. Franks......................................................
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             13              18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. An amendment by Mr. Forbes to cover crimes based upon 
animus associated with the victim's status as a member of the 
armed forces. Defeated 16 to 12.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................                              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................                              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................                              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................                              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................                              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................                              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman.....................................................                              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................                              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................                              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Mr. Davis.......................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................                              X
Mr. Ellison.....................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Lungren.....................................................              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................
Mr. Feeney......................................................              X
Mr. Franks......................................................              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             12              16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. An amendment by Mr. Feeney to require that the conduct 
to be outlawed substantially affect interstate or foreign 
commerce. Defeated 19 to 12.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................                              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................                              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................                              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................                              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................                              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................                              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................                              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................                              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman.....................................................                              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................                              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................                              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Mr. Davis.......................................................                              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................                              X
Mr. Ellison.....................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Lungren.....................................................              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................
Mr. Feeney......................................................              X
Mr. Franks......................................................
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             12              19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. An amendment by Mr. Pence to provide as a rule of 
construction that nothing in the criminal provisions of the Act 
limit the religious freedom of any person or group under the 
Constitution. Defeated 20 to 15.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................                              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................                              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................                              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................                              X
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................                              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................                              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................                              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................                              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................                              X
Mr. Sherman.....................................................                              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................                              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................                              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Mr. Davis.......................................................                              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................                              X
Mr. Ellison.....................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Lungren.....................................................              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Mr. Issa........................................................              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................
Mr. Feeney......................................................              X
Mr. Franks......................................................              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             15              20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. An amendment by Mr. Goodlatte to cover crimes based upon 
animus associated with the victim's status as a senior citizen 
who has attained the age of 65 years. Defeated 16 to 12.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................                              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................                              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................                              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................                              X
Ms. Waters......................................................                              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................                              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................                              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman.....................................................                              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................                              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................                              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Mr. Davis.......................................................                              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Ellison.....................................................
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Cannon......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................
Mr. Franks......................................................
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             12              16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. An amendment by Mr. Goodlatte to cover crimes based upon 
animus associated with the victim's status as a pregnant woman. 
Defeated 16 to 15.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................                              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................                              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................                              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................                              X
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................                              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................                              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman.....................................................                              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................                              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................                              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Mr. Davis.......................................................                              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................                              X
Mr. Ellison.....................................................
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Mr. Issa........................................................              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................
Mr. Franks......................................................              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             15              16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. An amendment by Mr. Chabot to cover crimes based upon 
animus associated with the victim's status as a witness in a 
judicial proceeding. Defeated 20 to 15.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................                              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................                              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................                              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................                              X
Ms. Waters......................................................                              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................                              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................                              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................                              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................                              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................                              X
Mr. Sherman.....................................................                              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................                              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................                              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Mr. Davis.......................................................                              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................                              X
Mr. Ellison.....................................................
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Mr. Issa........................................................              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................
Mr. Franks......................................................              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             15              20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. An amendment by Mr. Chabot to cover crimes based upon 
animus associated with the victim's status as a victim of a 
prior crime. Defeated 20 to 15.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................                              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................                              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................                              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................                              X
Ms. Waters......................................................                              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................                              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................                              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................                              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................                              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................                              X
Mr. Sherman.....................................................                              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................                              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................                              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Mr. Davis.......................................................                              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................                              X
Mr. Ellison.....................................................
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Mr. Issa........................................................              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................
Mr. Franks......................................................              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             15              20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. An amendment by Mr. Issa to amend the bill to state 
that the terms ``person,'' ``persons,'' ``victim,'' or 
``victims'' as used in the bill shall not include unborn 
children at any stage of development. Defeated 33 to 0.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................                              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................                              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................                                           Pass
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................                              X
Ms. Waters......................................................                              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................                                           Pass
Mr. Wexler......................................................                              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................                              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................                              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................                              X
Mr. Sherman.....................................................                              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................                              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................                              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................
Mr. Davis.......................................................                              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................                              X
Mr. Ellison.....................................................
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                                           Pass
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................              0              33        3 (Pass)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. An amendment by Mr. Gohmert to prohibit evidence of 
religious expression or association as substantive evidence at 
trial. Defeated 20 to 16.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................                              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................                              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................                              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................                              X
Ms. Waters......................................................                              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................                              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................                              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................                              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................                              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................                              X
Mr. Sherman.....................................................                              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................                              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................                              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Mr. Davis.......................................................                              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................                              X
Mr. Ellison.....................................................
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Mr. Issa........................................................              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................              X
Mr. Franks......................................................
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             16              20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. An amendment by Mr. Forbes to cover crimes based upon 
animus associated with the victim's status as a child who has 
not attained the age of 18 years. Defeated 21 to 16.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................                              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................                              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................                              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................                              X
Ms. Waters......................................................                              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................                              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................                              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................                              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................                              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................                              X
Mr. Sherman.....................................................                              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................                              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................                              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Mr. Davis.......................................................                              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................                              X
Mr. Ellison.....................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Mr. Issa........................................................              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................              X
Mr. Franks......................................................
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             16              21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. An amendment by Mr. King to replace ``gender'' with 
``sex'' in several places in the bill, strike the definition of 
``gender identity,'' and strike the provision of the bill 
requiring the keeping of statistics of hate crimes based on 
gender and gender identity. Defeated 20 to 15.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................                              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................                              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................                              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................                              X
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................                              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................                              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................                              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................                              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................                              X
Mr. Sherman.....................................................                              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................                              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................                              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Mr. Davis.......................................................                              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................                              X
Mr. Ellison.....................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Mr. Issa........................................................              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................
Mr. Franks......................................................              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             15              20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. An amendment by Mr. King to change the name of the Act 
to the ``Local Law Enforcement Thought Crimes Prevention Act of 
2007.'' Defeated 21 to 13.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................                              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................                              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................                              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................                              X
Ms. Waters......................................................                              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................                              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................                              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................                              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................                              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................                              X
Mr. Sherman.....................................................                              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................                              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................                              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Mr. Davis.......................................................                              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................                              X
Mr. Ellison.....................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Cannon......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................
Mr. Franks......................................................              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             13              21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. H.R. 1592 was ordered favorably reported by a vote of 
20 to 14.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................              X
Mr. Sherman.....................................................              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Mr. Davis.......................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Ellison.....................................................              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             20              14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Pursuant to section 4(b)(7) of the Act, there is authorized 
to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 
2009.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, H.R. 1592, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                    Washington, DC, April 27, 2007.
Hon. John Conyers, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1592, the Local 
Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Mark 
Grabowicz (for Federal costs), who can be reached at 226-2860, 
and Melissa Merrell (for the State and local impact), who can 
be reached at 225-3220.
            Sincerely,
                                           Peter R. Orszag,
                                                  Director.

Enclosure

cc:
        Honorable Lamar S. Smith.
        Ranking Member
H.R. 1592--Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.

                                SUMMARY

    H.R. 1592 would establish certain hate crimes as new 
federal offenses and would direct the Department of Justice 
(DOJ) to expand its data collection efforts relating to hate 
crimes. The bill also would authorize the appropriation of:

         L$5 million for each of fiscal years 2008 and 
        2009 for DOJ to make grants to State, local, and tribal 
        governments to investigate and prosecute hate crimes;

         LSuch sums as may be necessary for DOJ to make 
        grants to State, local, and tribal governments to 
        combat juvenile hate crimes; and

         LSuch sums as may be necessary for fiscal 
        years 2008 through 2010 for additional personnel in DOJ 
        and the Department of the Treasury to prevent, 
        investigate, and prosecute hate crimes.

    Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO 
estimates that implementing H.R. 1592 would cost $20 million 
over the 2008-2012 period. This legislation could affect direct 
spending and receipts, but CBO estimates that any such effects 
would not be significant in any year.
    H.R. 1592 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal 
governments.

                ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

    The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1592 is shown in the 
following table. The costs of this legislation fall within 
budget function 750 (administration of justice).

                 By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        2008   2009   2010   2011   2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Estimated Authorization Level             10     10      *      *      *
Estimated Outlays                          2      6      5      4      3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: * = less than $500,000.

                           BASIS OF ESTIMATE

    Based on spending for similar activities in recent years, 
CBO estimates that the bill's authorization for grants to 
combat juvenile hate crimes would cost an additional $5 million 
for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009--the same amount that 
the bill would specifically authorize for grants to State and 
local governments to combat hate crimes. We assume that the 
necessary amounts (a total of $10 million a year for 2008 and 
2009) will be appropriated by the start of each fiscal year and 
that outlays will follow the historical rates for similar grant 
programs.
    Based on trends in federal investigations and prosecutions 
in recent years, CBO expects that the new federal hate crimes 
established by the bill would apply to a small number of cases 
each year. Thus, any increase in costs to DOJ, the Department 
of the Treasury, and the federal judiciary for law enforcement, 
court proceedings, or prison operations would be less than 
$500,000 annually for 2008 through 2010, subject to the 
availability of appropriated funds.
    DOJ currently compiles and summarizes data on hate crimes 
committed in the United States each year. H.R. 1592 would 
require this annual report to include crimes committed on the 
basis of gender or gender identity and hate crimes affecting 
juveniles. CBO estimates that it would cost DOJ less than 
$500,000 each year from appropriated funds to carry out this 
provision.
    Because those prosecuted and convicted under H.R. 1592 
could be subject to criminal fines, the federal government 
might collect additional fines if the legislation is enacted. 
Collections of such fines are recorded in the budget as 
revenues, which are deposited in the Crime Victims Fund and 
later spent. CBO expects that any additional revenues and 
direct spending would be negligible because of the small number 
of cases involved.

             INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE-SECTOR MANDATES

    H.R. 1592 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on State, 
local, or tribal governments. Assuming the appropriation of 
authorized and estimated amounts, those governments would 
receive $20 million to combat, investigate, and prosecute hate 
crimes. The bill also would authorize the Attorney General to 
provide technical, forensic, and prosecutorial assistance to 
those governments. Any costs would be incurred voluntarily as a 
condition of receiving federal assistance.

                         ESTIMATE PREPARED BY:

Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell
Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach

                         ESTIMATE APPROVED BY:

Peter H. Fontaine
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 
1592 is provided to assist State and local law enforcement in 
the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes and to permit 
Federal prosecution of certain hate crimes.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in article 1, section 8, clause 3 of the 
Constitution, and in the 13th and 14th amendments to the 
Constitution.

                          Advisory on Earmarks

    In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, H.R. 1592 does not contain any 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    Sec. 1. Short Title. This section sets forth the short 
title of the bill as the ``Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes 
Prevention Act of 2007.''
    Sec. 2. Findings. This section includes findings relating 
to the problem of violent bias crime and aspects of Federal 
jurisdiction over such incidents.
    Sec. 3. Definition of a Hate Crime. This section defines a 
``hate crime'' as a violent act causing death or bodily injury 
``because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, 
national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or 
disability'' of the victim.
    Sec. 4. Support for Criminal Investigations and 
Prosecutions by State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement 
Officials. This subsection (a) allows the Department of Justice 
to render technical, forensic, or any other form of assistance 
to State and law enforcement agencies to aid in the 
investigation of and prosecution of crimes motivated by 
prejudice based upon the actual or perceived race, color, 
religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender 
identity or disability of the victim or is a violation of State 
or local hate crime law. Priority is given to crimes by 
offenders who acted in more than one State and to rural 
jurisdiction facing extraordinary expenses.
    Subsection (b) creates a grant program under the authority 
of the Department of Justice to assist State and local law 
enforcement agencies in funding the extraordinary expenses 
associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate 
crimes. A grant under this provision shall not exceed $100,000 
for any single jurisdiction in any 1-year period. 
Appropriations are authorized at a level of $5,000,000 for each 
of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
    Sec. 5. Grant Program. This section creates a grant program 
under the authority of the Department of Justice to combat hate 
crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to train law 
enforcement in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and 
preventing bias crimes.
    Sec. 6. Authorization for Additional Personnel to Assist 
State, Local and Tribal Law Enforcement. This section 
authorizes appropriations of sums necessary, if any, to support 
the investigation and prosecution of alleged violations of the 
bill's prohibitions.
    Sec. 7. Prohibition of Certain Hate Crime Acts. This 
section adds a new section 249 to title 18 of the United States 
Code. New section 249(a)(1) prohibits the intentional 
infliction of bodily injury on the basis of race, color, 
religion, or national origin. Unlike current law, codified at 
18 U.S.C. Sec. 245(b)(2), this new provision does not require a 
showing that the defendant committed the offense to interfere 
with the victim's participation in a federally protected 
activity. An offense under new section 249(a)(1) will be 
prosecuted as a felony. It requires a showing either of bodily 
injury or death, or of an attempt to cause bodily injury or 
death through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive 
device.
    New section 249(a)(2) prohibits the intentional infliction 
of bodily injury or death (or an attempt to inflict bodily 
injury or death through the use of fire, a firearm, or an 
explosive device) on the basis of religion, gender, sexual 
orientation, gender identity, or disability. There is no 
``federally protected activity'' requirement as in 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 245, but there is required proof of a commerce clause 
nexus as an element of the offense.
    New section 249(b) requires a detailed, written 
certification from the Attorney General before a prosecution 
may be brought under section 249(a)(1) or (a)(2).
    New section 249(d) establishes that an expression or 
association of the defendant may not be introduced as 
substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically 
relates to that offense. This subsection is not intended to 
amend the Federal rules of evidence, but is intended to ensure 
that the expressions of, for example, religious beliefs or 
unpopular beliefs, or associations with those that express such 
beliefs, in the absence of other evidence of culpability in the 
charged offense, do not form the basis of a prosecution or 
unfairly prejudice an accused at trial, and that such 
expressions or associations may only be admitted at trial where 
they can be shown, either by the content of the statements, the 
nature of the association, or by other independent evidence, to 
specifically relate to the charged offense. Such evidence may 
also be introduced for impeachment or rebuttal.
    Sec. 8. Duties of Federal Sentencing Commission. This 
section requires the United States Sentencing Commission to 
issue a study on the recruitment of juveniles by adults to 
commit hate crimes within 180 days of enactment of this 
legislation.
    Sec. 9. Statistics. This section amends the Hate Crimes 
Statistics Act to require data collection on crimes motivated 
by the victim's perceived gender and gender identity. The 
provision also requires data collection on crimes committed by 
and directed against juveniles.
    Sec. 10. Severability. This section provides that a court 
holding that any provision of the bill is unconstitutional 
shall not affect other provisions of the bill.
    Sec. 11. Rule of Construction. This section provides that 
nothing in the Act shall be construed to prohibit expressive 
conduct or activities protected by the first amendment to the 
Constitution.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is 
printed in italics and existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

                      TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
PART I--CRIMES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                        CHAPTER 13--CIVIL RIGHTS

Sec.
241.    Conspiracy against rights.
     * * * * * * *
249.    Hate crime acts.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

    (a) In General.--
            (1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, 
        color, religion, or national origin.--Whoever, whether 
        or not acting under color of law, willfully causes 
        bodily injury to any person or, through the use of 
        fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, 
        attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because 
        of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or 
        national origin of any person--
                    (A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 
                years, fined in accordance with this title, or 
                both; and
                    (B) shall be imprisoned for any term of 
                years or for life, fined in accordance with 
                this title, or both, if--
                            (i) death results from the offense; 
                        or
                            (ii) the offense includes kidnaping 
                        or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated 
                        sexual abuse or an attempt to commit 
                        aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt 
                        to kill.
            (2) Offenses involving actual or perceived 
        religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, 
        gender identity, or disability.--
                    (A) In general.--Whoever, whether or not 
                acting under color of law, in any circumstance 
                described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes 
                bodily injury to any person or, through the use 
                of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or 
                incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily 
                injury to any person, because of the actual or 
                perceived religion, national origin, gender, 
                sexual orientation, gender identity or 
                disability of any person--
                            (i) shall be imprisoned not more 
                        than 10 years, fined in accordance with 
                        this title, or both; and
                            (ii) shall be imprisoned for any 
                        term of years or for life, fined in 
                        accordance with this title, or both, 
                        if--
                                    (I) death results from the 
                                offense; or
                                    (II) the offense includes 
                                kidnaping or an attempt to 
                                kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse 
                                or an attempt to commit 
                                aggravated sexual abuse, or an 
                                attempt to kill.
                    (B) Circumstances described.--For purposes 
                of subparagraph (A), the circumstances 
                described in this subparagraph are that--
                            (i) the conduct described in 
                        subparagraph (A) occurs during the 
                        course of, or as the result of, the 
                        travel of the defendant or the victim--
                                    (I) across a State line or 
                                national border; or
                                    (II) using a channel, 
                                facility, or instrumentality of 
                                interstate or foreign commerce;
                            (ii) the defendant uses a channel, 
                        facility, or instrumentality of 
                        interstate or foreign commerce in 
                        connection with the conduct described 
                        in subparagraph (A);
                            (iii) in connection with the 
                        conduct described in subparagraph (A), 
                        the defendant employs a firearm, 
                        explosive or incendiary device, or 
                        other weapon that has traveled in 
                        interstate or foreign commerce; or
                            (iv) the conduct described in 
                        subparagraph (A)--
                                    (I) interferes with 
                                commercial or other economic 
                                activity in which the victim is 
                                engaged at the time of the 
                                conduct; or
                                    (II) otherwise affects 
                                interstate or foreign commerce.
    (b) Certification Requirement.--No prosecution of any 
offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the 
United States, except under the certification in writing of the 
Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate 
Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially 
designated by the Attorney General that--
            (1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause 
        to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, 
        religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, 
        gender identity, or disability of any person was a 
        motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the 
        defendant; and
            (2) such certifying individual has consulted with 
        State or local law enforcement officials regarding the 
        prosecution and determined that--
                    (A) the State does not have jurisdiction or 
                does not intend to exercise jurisdiction;
                    (B) the State has requested that the 
                Federal Government assume jurisdiction;
                    (C) the State does not object to the 
                Federal Government assuming jurisdiction; or
                    (D) the verdict or sentence obtained 
                pursuant to State charges left demonstratively 
                unvindicated the Federal interest in 
                eradicating bias-motivated violence.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section--
            (1) the term ``explosive or incendiary device'' has 
        the meaning given such term in section 232 of this 
        title;
            (2) the term ``firearm'' has the meaning given such 
        term in section 921(a) of this title; and
            (3) the term ``gender identity'' for the purposes 
        of this chapter means actual or perceived gender-
        related characteristics.
    (d) Rule of Evidence.--In a prosecution for an offense 
under this section, evidence of expression or associations of 
the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at 
trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that 
offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of 
evidence governing impeachment of a witness.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                       HATE CRIME STATISTICS ACT

  AN ACT To provide for the acquisition and publication of data about 
 crimes that manifest prejudice based on certain group characteristics.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) 
this Act may be cited as the ``Hate Crime Statistics Act''.
    (b)(1) Under the authority of section 534 of title 28, 
United States Code, the Attorney General shall acquire data, 
for each calendar year, about crimes that manifest evidence of 
prejudice based on race, gender and gender identity, religion, 
disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where 
appropriate the crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter; 
forcible rape; aggravated assault, simple assault, 
intimidation; arson; and destruction, damage or vandalism of 
property.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (5) The Attorney General shall publish an annual summary of 
the data acquired under this section, including data about 
crimes committed by, and crimes directed against, juveniles.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                            Dissenting Views

    We oppose H.R. 1592 as an unconstitutional threat to 
religious freedom, freedom of speech, equal justice under law 
and basic federalism principles.
    Justice should be blind to the personal traits of victims. 
Under the Democrats' hate crime bill, H.R. 1592, criminals who 
kill a homosexual, transvestite or transsexual will be punished 
more harshly than criminals who kill a police officer, a member 
of the military, a child, a senior citizen, or any other 
person. Hate crimes legislation hands out punishment according 
to the victim's race, sex, sexual orientation, disability or 
other protected status. The only trait that should matter is 
the victim's humanity.
    We all deplore bias-related violent crimes. Every violent 
crime is a tragedy and we must do everything we can to ensure 
public safety in our communities. Violent crimes committed in 
the name of hatred of a group can be devastating to a victim 
and a community. These crimes must be vigorously prosecuted at 
the State and local level.
    Our criminal justice system has been built on the ideal of 
``equal justice for all.'' If enacted this bill will turn that 
fundamental principle on its head--justice will depend on 
whether or not the victim is a member of a protected category: 
a vicious assault of a homosexual victim will be punished more 
than the vicious assault of a heterosexual victim. A senseless 
act of violence, committed with brutal hatred, will be treated 
as less important than one where a criminal is motivated by 
hatred of specific categories of people. Justice will no longer 
be equal but now will turn on the race, sex, sexual 
orientation, disability or other protected status of the 
victim. All victims should have equal worth in the eyes of the 
law, regardless of race or status.
    By opening the door to criminal investigations of an 
offender's thoughts and beliefs about his or her victims, this 
bill will raise more controversy surrounding a crime. Groups 
now will seek heightened protections for members of their 
respective groups, and require even more law enforcement 
resources to investigate a suspect's mindset.
    Even more dangerous, and perhaps unintended, the bill 
raises the possibility that religious leaders or members of 
religious groups could be prosecuted criminally based on their 
speech or protected activities under conspiracy law or section 
2 of title 18, which makes criminally liable any person who 
aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures the 
commission of the crime, or one who ``willfully causes an act 
to be done'' by another. It is easy to imagine a situation in 
which a prosecutor may seek to link ``hateful'' speech to 
causing hateful violent acts. A chilling effect on religious 
leaders and others who express their beliefs will unfortunately 
result.
    The bill itself is unconstitutional and will be struck down 
by the courts. No matter how vehemently proponents of the bill 
try to defend a Federal nexus--there is simply no impact of 
such crimes on interstate or foreign commerce. The record 
evidence in support of such a claim is transparent and will be 
quickly brushed aside by any reviewing court.
    The Supreme Court, in United States v. Morrison,\1\ struck 
down a prohibition on gender-motivated violence, and 
specifically warned Congress that the Commerce Clause does not 
extend to ``non-economic, violent criminal conduct'' that does 
not cross state lines. Nor is the proposed legislation 
authorized under the 13th, 14th or 15th amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 529 U.S. 598 (2000)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Aside from the constitutional infirmities that riddle this 
bill, the sponsors are seeking to address a problem that is not 
overwhelming our state or local governments. FBI statistics 
show that the incidence of hate crimes has actually declined 
over the last ten years. Of the reported hate crimes in 2005, 6 
were murders and 3 were rapes. Only 6 of approximately 15,000 
homicides in the nation involved so called ``hate crimes''. A 
majority of the crimes reported by the FBI involved 
``intimidation'' with no bodily injury--words or verbal threats 
against a person. There is zero evidence that States are not 
fully prosecuting violent crimes involving ``hate.'' Violent 
crimes are vigorously prosecuted by the States. In fact, 45 
States and the District of Columbia already have specific laws 
punishing hate crimes, and Federal law already punishes 
violence motivated by race or religion in many contexts.
    At the markup, we sought to address these problems with the 
bill--to restore equal justice under law, to protect the 
freedom of expression and religious freedom that is so 
important to our nation, and to ensure that the enumerated 
powers of the Federal Gvernment are not inappropriately 
expanded. The majority defeated our attempts to address these 
problems.

  H.R. 1592 RAISES FIRST AMENDMENT CONCERNS AND OPENS THE DOOR TO THE 
 PROSECUTION AND INVESTIGATION OF SPEECH AND RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES AND 
                                 GROUPS

    The first amendment to the Constitution provides that 
``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' America 
was founded upon the notion that the government should not 
interfere with the religious practices of its citizens. 
Constitutional protection for the free exercise of religion is 
at the core of the American experiment in democracy.
    Hate crimes legislation that selectively criminalizes bias-
motivated speech or symbolic speech is not likely to survive 
constitutional review; hate crimes statutes that criminalize 
bias motivated violence are likely to survive a first amendment 
challenge.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) (striking 
down ordinance that selectively prohibited types of hateful speech); 
and Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993)(upholding hate crime 
enhancement for a violent crime finding that restriction on speech was 
justified when linked to violent act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, hate crimes legislation can have a chilling effect 
on speech and first amendment rights by injecting criminal 
investigations and prosecutions into areas traditionally 
reserved for protected activity. The line between bias-
motivated speech and bias-motivated violence is not so easy to 
draw.
    For example, in prosecuting an individual for a hate crime, 
it may be necessary to seek testimony relating to the 
offender's thought process to establish his motivation to 
attack a person out of hatred of a particular group. Members of 
an organization or a religious group may be called as witnesses 
to provide testimony as to ideas that may have influenced the 
defendant's thoughts or motivation for his crimes, thereby 
expanding the focus of an investigation to include ideas that 
may have influenced a person to commit an act of violence. Such 
groups or religious organizations may be chilled from 
expressing their ideas out of fear of involvement in the 
criminal process.
    Ultimately, a pastor's sermon concerning religious beliefs 
and teachings could be considered to cause violence and will be 
punished or at least investigated. Once the legal framework is 
in place, political pressure will be placed on prosecutors to 
investigate pastors or other religious leaders who quote the 
Bible or express their long-held beliefs on the morality and 
appropriateness of certain behaviors. Religious teachings and 
common beliefs will fall under government scrutiny, chilling 
every American's right to worship in the manner they choose and 
to express their religious beliefs
    Hate crimes laws could be used to target social 
conservatives and traditional morality. Hate crimes laws have 
already been used to suppress speech disfavored by cultural 
elites--indeed this may be their principal effect. Of the 9,430 
``hate crimes'' recorded by the FBI in 1999, by far the largest 
group was labeled ``intimidation.'' The ``intimidation'' 
category does not even exist for ordinary crimes. This vague 
concept is already being abused by some local governments, 
which target speech in favor of traditional morality as ``hate 
speech.'' In New York, a pastor who had rented billboards and 
posted biblical quotations on sexual morality had them taken 
down by city officials, who cited hate-crimes principles as 
justification. In San Francisco, the city council enacted a 
resolution urging local broadcast media not to run 
advertisements by a pro-family group, and recently passed a 
resolution condemning the Catholic Church because of its 
``hateful'' views. No viewpoint should be suppressed simply 
because someone disagrees with it.

          H.R. 1592 IS INCONSISTENT WITH FEDERALISM PRINCIPLES

    The bill raises significant federalism concerns and 
provides protected status to victims based on religion, 
national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or 
disability.
    A Federal law criminalizing violent actions taken because 
of the victim's immutable characteristics would be such an act. 
Such a law criminalizes acts that have long been regulated 
primarily by the states. Under the Federal system, the Supreme 
Court has observed, ``States possess primary authority for 
defining and enforcing the criminal law.'' Brecht v. 
Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 135 (1993) (quoting Engle v. Isaac, 
456 U.S. 107, 128 (1982)). ``Our national government is one of 
delegated powers alone. Under our Federal system the 
administration of criminal justice rests with the States except 
as Congress, acting within the scope of those delegated powers, 
has created offenses against the United States.'' Screws v. 
United States, 325 U.S. 91, 109 (1945) (plurality opinion).
    The Court has viewed the expansion of Federal criminal laws 
with great concern due to their alteration of the balance of 
Federal-State powers. ``When Congress criminalizes conduct 
already denounced as criminal by the States, it effects a 
change in the sensitive relation between Federal and State 
criminal jurisdiction.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 561 n. 3 (quoting United 
States v. Emmons, 410 U.S. 396, 411-12 (1973)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress should not act quickly or without due deliberation 
before it chooses to further federalize yet another area that 
generally lies within the competence of the States. Given the 
principles of federalism that govern the Constitution, Congress 
should not use its powers until it is confident that hate 
crimes are a problem that is truly national scope.

 H.R. 1592 VIOLATES THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND HAS NO SUPPORT 
       UNDER THE THIRTEENTH, FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH AMENDMENTS

    In addition to federalism concerns, the legislation creates 
Federal jurisdiction on tenuous constitutional grounds, relying 
on the Commerce Clause, as well as the 13th, 14th, and 15th 
amendments.
Interstate Commerce Clause
    The Supreme Court, in United States v. Morrison, struck 
down a prohibition on gender-motivated violence, and 
specifically ruled that Congress has no power under the 
Commerce Clause or the 14th amendment over ``non-economic, 
violent criminal conduct'' that does not cross state lines.\4\ 
The Court concluded that upholding the Violence Against Women 
Act would open the door to a federalization of virtually all 
serious crimes as well as family law and other areas of 
traditional state regulation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ 529 U.S. 598 (2000)
    \5\ Id. at 615-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Supreme Court's Morrison decision followed several 
other decisions in which the Court clarified the Constitution's 
restrictions on Congress's exercise of its powers under both 
the Interstate Commerce Clause and section 5 of the 14th 
amendment.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995); see also 
Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Board v. College Savings 
Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (1999); City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 
(1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federal efforts to criminalize hate crimes cannot survive 
the federalism standards articulated by the Supreme Court. Not 
only does much of the hate crime problem go beyond what 
Congress may regulate under the Interstate Commerce Clause, but 
Congress has yet to perform the extensive fact-finding required 
to demonstrate that hate crimes are a national problem that 
requires a Federal solution.
    In cases where Congress uses its enforcement powers under 
section 5 of the 14th amendment, the Court has said, it must 
identify conduct that violates 14th amendment rights, and its 
must tailor the legislative scheme to remedying or preventing 
such conduct. To meet these requirements, Congress must conduct 
fact-finding to demonstrate the concerns that led to the law. 
For example, the Court observed in Florida Prepaid, a challenge 
to the Voting Rights Act, Congress developed an ``undisputed 
record of racial discrimination'' and upheld the statute under 
this standard.\7\ In City of Boerne, however, the Court found 
that Congress had ``little evidence of infringing conduct on 
the part of the States'' in the use of facially-neutral laws to 
infringe religious liberties.\8\ Similarly, in Florida Prepaid, 
the Court found that Congress had found few instances in which 
States had violated Federal patent laws, and so invalidated the 
Patent Remedy Act's abrogation of state sovereign immunity.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Florida Prepaid, 527 U.S. at 640.
    \8\ City of Boerne, 521 U.S. at 530-32.
    \9\ Florida Prepaid, 527 U.S. at 645-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In order to create a case for the constitutionality of a 
law criminalizing hate crimes, Congress must engage in fact-
finding. Unfortunately, in their haste to rush this bill 
through the Committee, the majority has not done any fact 
finding whatsoever. To meet this standard, the Majority failed 
to hold adequate hearings concerning the scope of hate crimes 
in this country, their numbers, and their impact on the 
economy. Until Congress engages in this sort of legislative 
spadework, it will not be able to justify its findings in this 
bill and the factual basis for its action.
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments
    The 14th and 15th amendments do not provide Congress with 
the claimed authority. The 15th amendment forbids the Federal 
Government or a state from denying or abridging the right to 
vote on the basis of an individual's race, color or previous 
condition of servitude. The 14th amendment prohibits the States 
from denying equal protection of the law, due process or the 
privileges and immunities of U.S. citizenship. Both of these 
amendments extend only to state action and do not encompass the 
actions of private persons. Hate crimes by private persons are 
outside the scope of these amendments.
Thirteenth Amendment
    Section 2 of the 13th amendment stands on different 
footing. The amendment proscribes slavery and involuntary 
servitude without reference to Federal, State or private 
action. In order to reach private conduct, i.e. individual 
criminal conduct, Congress would have to find that hate crimes 
against certain groups constitute a ``badge and incidence'' of 
slavery.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ See Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 105 (1971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Court has addressed Congress's power under section 2 in 
only a few cases, the chief of which is Jones v. Alfred H. 
Mayer Co.\11\ In that case, the Court upheld 42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1982--passed originally as part of the Civil Rights Act of 
1866--which was read to bar discrimination against African-
Americans in the sale or rental of property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ 392 U.S. 409 (1968).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unlike the 14th amendment, the Court emphasized, the 13th 
amendment allows Congress to enact laws that operate upon the 
acts of individuals, regardless of whether they are sanctioned 
by state law or not. Section 2 of the amendment ``clothed 
Congress with power to pass all laws necessary and proper for 
abolishing all badges and incidents of slavery in the United 
States.'' \12\ Therefore, the Court observed, ``[s]urely 
Congress has the power under the Thirteenth Amendment 
rationally to determine what are the badges and the incidents 
of slavery, and the authority to translate that determination 
into effective legislation.'' \13\ The Court, however, has not 
provided much guidance beyond Jones on what constitutes ``the 
badges and the incidents of slavery.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Jones, 392 U.S. at 439.
    \13\ Id. at 440.
    \14\ See, e.g., Carpenters, Local 610 v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825 
(1983); Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 (1971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress should tread carefully before it chooses to pass a 
hate crimes statute on the basis of section 2 of the 13th 
amendment. Such a law would have to be utterly clear that it is 
based on the grant of authority to combat slavery. Only vaguely 
asserting that some hate crimes might be linked to vestiges, 
badges, or incidents of slavery or segregation would not be 
enough.
    Although there have been few judicial pronouncements on the 
scope of the 13th amendment, the Jones case was limited to 
discrimination on the basis of race, specifically 
discrimination against African-Americans. Efforts to include 
within a hate crimes prohibition those crimes motivated by 
national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, 
disability and any other factor other than race would amount to 
a congressional effort to interpret the 13th amendment beyond 
that so far permitted by the Supreme Court. The Court will want 
to ensure that, in defining badges and incidents of slavery to 
include hate crimes, Congress has enacted remedial and 
preventative legislation that seeks to end the true effects of 
slavery, rather than attempting to re-define the term 
``slavery'' or ``involuntary servitude'' as it has been 
interpreted by the Supreme Court.

            STATISTICS SHOW THAT HATE CRIMES HAVE DECLINED 
                        OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS

    FBI statistics show that the incidence of hate crimes has 
declined over the last ten years. In 1995, 7,947 hate crime 
incidents were reported. Statistics for the last four years, 
2002 through 2005, have shown a decline in the number of hate 
crimes reported. In 2005, for example, 7,163 hate crimes were 
reported.
    Of the reported hate crimes in 2005, 6 were murders, 3 were 
rapes, and a majority of the crimes were characterized as 
``intimidations'' as opposed to any involving bodily injury. As 
an example, for 2005, there were 1,017 violent incidents based 
on bias for sexual orientation, or approximately 4 incidents 
per million of population. In contrast, the national rate of 
violent crime in 2005 was 1.4 million, or 492 incidents per 1 
million of population.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ The 1990 Hate Crime Statistics Act charged the U.S. Attorney 
General to ``acquire data . . . about crimes that manifest evidence of 
prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, 
including, where appropriate, the crimes of murder, non-negligent 
manslaughter; forcible rape; aggravated assault, simple assault, 
intimidation; arson; and destruction, damage or vandalism of 
property.'' A 1994 amendment added the disabled to the list of groups 
to be tracked. The Attorney General delegated data collection of hate 
crimes principally to the FBI. The FBI appended information on bias 
motivation to the Uniform Crime Report (UCR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fifty-six percent of the crimes involved racial bias; 11 
percent anti-religion bias; 14 percent national origin bias; 
and 14 percent sexual orientation bias. Anti-disability and 
anti-sexual identity bias was less than 1 percent. The Hate 
Crimes Statistics Act does not require collection of hate 
crimes statistics for violent crimes alleged to be motivated by 
``gender identity.''

           STATE PROSECUTIONS ALREADY ADDRESS VIOLENT CRIMES 
                            AND HATE CRIMES

    Hate-crimes laws are unnecessary: the underlying offense is 
already fully and aggressively prosecuted in almost all States. 
There is zero evidence that States are not fully prosecuting 
violent crimes involving ``hate.''
    Moreover, 45 States and the District of Columbia already 
have laws punishing hate crimes, and Federal law already 
punishes violence motivated by race or religion in many 
contexts. In the absence of data that States are unable to 
prosecute or decline to prosecute hate crimes, there is no 
reason for the Federal assertion of jurisdiction or the 
diversion of Federal resources to such investigations and 
prosecutions.
    Some of the most notorious hate crimes were prosecuted 
under state laws, and there is no evidence that States are 
unable or unwilling to prosecute such crimes. Of the 5 states 
with no current hate crime legislation (Georgia, Indiana, 
Arkansas, South Carolina, and Wyoming), Georgia and Indiana 
have both tried to pass legislation pertaining to hate crimes 
in the past two years, and in both cases the legislation has 
been struck down by the courts.

         NEED TO PROTECT MILITARY, CHILDREN, POLICE, ELDERLY, 
                         VICTIMS AND WITNESSES

    In protecting a limited categories of groups, such as race, 
religion, sexual orientation, gender or gender identity, the 
majority rejected our attempts to add other equally meritorious 
groups such as members of the Armed Forces, law enforcement 
officers, children, senior citizens, witnesses, pregnant women, 
and crime victims. We can see no reason to distinguish among 
these groups--all of them deserve heightened protection against 
hate-motivated crimes. The majority has made its priorities 
clear, and has done a disservice to our Armed Forces, police 
officers, children, senior citizens, pregnant women, witnesses 
and crime victims.
Members of the Armed Forces
    We honor our men and women of the military because of their 
patriotism and their commitment to protecting our freedom and 
serving our country. In times of controversy surrounding the 
use of our military, we have seen unfortunate acts by those who 
use their hostility towards the military to further their 
political agenda.
    For example, last year we were faced with the practice of 
groups protesting at military funerals of soldiers killed in 
Iraq. This sick and despicable behavior intruded on the family 
of the lost soldier and the need for privacy and respect. 
Congress acted last year in passing legislation to restrict the 
right of protesters to interfere with military funerals.
    With the rising debate over the Iraqi war, we are seeing 
increasing threats to Iraqi war veterans. In 2005, during a 
peace rally, a war veteran was spit on by a protester at the 
rally. Such incidents were all too commonplace during the 
upheaval surrounding the Vietnam War, when hundreds of threats 
and spitting incidents occurred against Vietnam War veterans.
    We need to make it clear to everyone that we honor members 
of our Armed Forces. Any act of violence against a member of 
the Armed Forces must be met with swift and sure punishment. 
Hate crimes against our Armed Forces must be punished at a 
heightened level just like the other groups that are given 
protection under this Act.
Law Enforcement Officers
    Hate crimes against police officers--because they are 
police officers--occur in far larger numbers than any of the 
hate crimes reported by the FBI. According to the Bureau of 
Justice Statistics, 55 law enforcement officers were 
feloniously killed in the United States in 2005. The previous 
year, 57 officers were killed in the United States. In the ten-
year period from 1996 through 2005, a total of 575 law 
enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of 
duty in the United States, 102 of whom were killed in ambush 
situations--in entrapment or premeditated situations. If not 
for the advent of bulletproof vests, an additional 400 officers 
would have been killed over the last decade.
    More than 57,000 law enforcement officers were assaulted in 
2005, or one in every 10 officers serving in the United States. 
And the numbers have been increasing since 1999, even as other 
crime has decreased or held steady. As the executive director 
of the Fraternal Order of Police noted, ``there's less respect 
for authority in general and police officers specifically. The 
predisposition of criminals to use firearms is probably at the 
highest point in our history.''
    If we are going to provide heightened protection for 
certain groups, we should surely include police officers who 
are attacked, assaulted and killed because of the uniform that 
they wear, the job that they do, and their status as a police 
officers.
Unborn Children
    Partial birth abortion is a barbaric procedure that cannot 
be tolerated in a civilized society. During this procedure, a 
partially-born, living infant is literally ripped from his 
mother's womb and stabbed in the back of the head. As Senator 
Moynihan stated so poignantly, ``this is just too close to 
infanticide. A child has been born and it has exited the uterus 
and, what on Earth is this procedure?''
    On April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court, in Gonzales v. 
Carhart,\16\ ruled constitutional the Federal law banning 
partial birth abortions, finding that the ban on partial birth 
abortions does not place an undue burden on a woman's right to 
an abortion because there are alternative conventional abortion 
procedures that can be used if necessary.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ 127 S.Ct. 1610 (2007).
    \17\ Id. at 1632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During consideration of H.R. 1592, Mr. Jordan of Ohio 
offered an amendment to include unborn children killed by a 
partial birth abortion as a class of protected persons under 
the hate crimes statute. Unfortunately, the chair ruled the 
amendment non-germane based on the erroneous rationalization 
that unborn children are not ``persons'' for the purposes of 
the hate crimes law.
    In response to the chair's ruling, Mr. Issa of California 
offered an amendment to amend the definition of ``person'' 
within the statute to expressly exclude unborn children. Given 
the opportunity to clear up the ambiguity as to whether unborn 
children are persons under the act, the Committee unanimously 
voted not to exclude the unborn from the definition of person, 
essentially turning the chair's earlier ruling on Mr. Jordan's 
amendment on its head. Unfortunately, the ambiguity Mr. Issa's 
amendment attempted to correct persists.
Children
    Hate crimes against children, that is, acts of violence 
perpetrated against them because of their status as children, 
occur in far larger numbers than any of the hate crimes 
reported by the FBI. Our country has been shocked by a series 
of brutal attacks against children. In 2005, our Nation was 
horrified by the kidnapping and murders of the members of the 
Groene family by a convicted sex offender.
    Two well-publicized tragedies that same year in Florida, in 
which 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford and 13-year-old Sarah Lunde 
were murdered by convicted sex offenders, further underscore 
the need for quick congressional action to address the danger 
posed by individuals who prey on children.
    In addition to the widely-reported tragedies that have 
rightly brought this issue to the forefront, the statistics 
regarding the frequency of such heinous crimes are staggering. 
One in 5 girls and 1 in 10 boys are sexually exploited before 
they reach adulthood, yet less than 35 percent of the incidents 
are reported to authorities.
    According to the Department of Justice, 1 in 5 children 
(ages 10 to 17 years old) receive unwanted sexual solicitations 
online. Additionally, 67 percent of the all victims of sexual 
assault are juveniles (under the age of 18), and 34 percent are 
under the age of 12.
    Department of Justice statistics underscore the staggering 
toll that violence takes on our youth. In 2005, over 1550 
children under the age of 18 were murdered, up from the 2003 
figure of 1528. The National Crime Victimization Survey for 
2005 estimates that over 1.5 million violent crimes were 
committed against children between the ages of 12 and 19. The 
national crime survey does not account for victims under the 
age of 12.
    National Incident Based Reports from twelve States during 
the period of 1991 to 1996 show that 34 percent of victims were 
under age 12. One out of every seven victims of sexual assault 
was under the age of 6.
    If we are going to provide heightened protection for 
categories of groups, we should surely include our nation's 
children who are attacked, assaulted and killed because of one 
thing--their innocence as children.
Pregnant Women
    Acts of violence against women are abhorrent, but they are 
especially disturbing when committed against pregnant women. 
When a violent crime causes injury to a pregnant woman that 
results in a miscarriage or other damage to the fetus, we all 
share the desire to ensure that our criminal justice system 
responds decisively and firmly to exact appropriate 
punishment.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Two years ago, Congress passed the Unborn Victims of Violence 
Act, 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1841, and created a separate criminal offense for 
the killing of an unborn child during the commission of a violent crime 
against a pregnant woman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On December 16, 2004, Bobbi Jo Stinnett, in Skidmore, 
Missouri, was 23 years old when she was strangled to death and 
had her unborn child cut from her womb. The killer, Lisa 
Montgomery, who was 36 years old, had met Stinnett in an online 
chat room and met with her at her home under the pretext of 
buying a dog. Montgomery specifically targeted Stinnett because 
she was pregnant. Montgomery had lost a child she was carrying 
prior to murdering Stinnett.
    Just last year, on September 22, 2006, 23-year-old Jimella 
Tuntsall was murdered in East St. Louis her unborn child cut 
from her womb by Tiffany Hall, a woman who frequently babysat 
her 3 other children.
    Autopsy results showed that Tuntsall bled to death after 
having her abdomen cut open by scissors. Tuntsall's three other 
children, ages 7, 3, and 2 were found dead and stuffed into a 
dryer shortly after.
    On September 12, 1996, at Wright-Patterson AFB, Airman 
Gregory Robbins assaulted his wife, Karlene who was eight 
months pregnant with their daughter, Jasmine. He covered his 
fist with a T-shirt and repeatedly struck her in the face and 
abdomen. Due to the assault, Karlene's uterus ruptured and 
expelled Jasmine into the abdominal cavity, killing Jasmine.
    A 2002 GAO report cited estimates from 15 States that 
between 2.2 percent to 6.4 percent of pregnant women had been 
violently attacked. This is intolerable and we should do more 
to protect pregnant women from attack.
Senior Citizens
    Our senior citizens are vulnerable, like our children, to 
violent abuse. Recent events have underscored the harm to our 
senior citizens from violent crime, and the need to make sure 
that hate crimes against our senior citizens do not occur.
    On March 4, 2007, a New York City man was videotaped by a 
surveillance camera mugging a 101 year old woman in the lobby 
of her apartment building. The heartlessness and hatred of this 
attack is clearly conveyed on the videotape when Rose Morat was 
trying to leave her building to go to church. The robber acted 
like he was going to help her through the vestibule and then 
turned and delivered three hard punches to her face and grabbed 
her purse. He pushed her and her walker to the ground. Rose 
Morat suffered a broken cheekbone and was hospitalized. Police 
believe the same suspect robbed an 85 year old woman shortly 
after fleeing from Rose Morat's apartment house. Unfortunately, 
the criminal has not been apprehended.
Crime Victims
    Crime victims who are attacked because they were a victim 
of a prior crime deserve special protection as well. The 
Judiciary Committee considered this bill during the 2007 
National Crime Victims' Rights Week. In honor of every victim, 
we should renew our commitment to protecting crime victims from 
violent acts whether carried out to intimidate or silence them 
as a witness, or for any other motivation because of their 
status as a victim.
Witness Protection
    Witnesses in the judicial system, who are targeted because 
they are a witness, deserve special protection under the hate 
crimes bill. Recently, the Crime Subcommittee held a hearing to 
examine the problem of victim and witness intimidation and the 
need for witness protection services at the state and local 
level. Witness protection services are very expensive. One easy 
way to reduce that cost is to deter the crime--make it a hate 
crime when a criminal attacks someone because of his or her 
status as a witness in a judicial proceeding.
    A Justice Department study in the 1990s concluded that 
``witness intimidation is a pervasive and insidious problem. No 
part of the country is spared and no witness can feel entirely 
free or safe.'' Prosecutors interviewed in this study estimated 
that witness intimidation occurs in 75 percent to 100 percent 
of the violent crimes committed in some gang-dominated 
neighborhoods.
    Prosecutors in Baltimore estimate that 35 percent to 50 
percent of non-fatal shooting cases in the city cannot proceed 
because of reluctant witnesses, and about 90 percent of all 
homicide cases involve some manner of witness intimidation.

                               CONCLUSION

    As outlined above, H.R. 1592 suffers from numerous 
problems. The majority's rush to judgment ensures that, even if 
enacted, the hate crimes statute will be overturned by the 
courts. That will undermine its stated goal of assisting state 
and local law enforcement to reduce bias-motivated violence.

                                   Lamar Smith.
                                   Steve Chabot.
                                   Chris Cannon.
                                   Ric Keller.
                                   Mike Pence.
                                   Tom Feeney.
                                   Trent Franks.
                                   Jim Jordan.