House Report 111-86 - LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT OF 2009

[House Report 111-86]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

111th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 111-86

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

LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT OF 2009

_______

April 27, 2009.--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. 1913]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 1913) 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.............................................. 4
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 5
Hearings......................................................... 17
Committee Consideration.......................................... 18
Committee Votes.................................................. 18
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 31
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 31
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 32
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 34
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 34
Advisory on Earmarks............................................. 34
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 34
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 35
Dissenting Views................................................. 38

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 2009''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.

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

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

(a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance.--
(1) In general.--At the request of a State, local, or
Tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide
technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of
assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any
crime that--
(A) constitutes a crime of violence;
(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or
Tribal laws; and
(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual
or perceived race, color, religion, national origin,
gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or
disability of the victim, or is a violation of the
State, local, or Tribal hate crime laws.
(2) Priority.--In providing assistance under paragraph (1),
the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed by
offenders who have committed crimes in more than one State and
to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the
extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or
prosecution of the crime.
(b) Grants.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General may award grants to
State, local, and 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
violence recovery service programs that have
experience in providing services to victims of
hate crimes; and
(iv) certify that any Federal funds
received under this subsection will be used to
supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds
that would otherwise be available for
activities funded under this subsection.
(4) Deadline.--An application for a grant under this
subsection shall be approved or denied by the Attorney General
not later than 30 business days after the date on which the
Attorney General receives the application.
(5) Grant amount.--A grant under this subsection shall not
exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any 1-year
period.
(6) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2011, the Attorney
General shall submit to Congress a report describing the
applications submitted for grants under this subsection, the
award of such grants, and the purposes for which the grant
amounts were expended.
(7) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011.

SEC. 4. GRANT PROGRAM.

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

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

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of
Justice, including the Community Relations Service, for fiscal years
2010, 2011, and 2012, such sums as are necessary to increase the number
of personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations of section
249 of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 7 of this Act.

SEC. 6. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.

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

``Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

``(a) In General.--
``(1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color,
religion, or national origin.--Whoever, whether or not acting
under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any
person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, 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.--
``(1) In this section--
``(A) the term `explosive or incendiary device' has
the meaning given such term in section 232 of this
title; and
``(B) the term `firearm' has the meaning given such
term in section 921(a) of this title.
``(2) For the purposes of this chapter, the term `gender
identity' means actual or perceived gender-related
characteristics.
``(d) Rule of Evidence.--In a prosecution for an offense under this
section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may
not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence
specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section
affects the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections at
the beginning of chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new item:

``249. Hate crime acts.''.

SEC. 7. SEVERABILITY.

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

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be
construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal
prohibition by, or any activities protected by the Constitution.

Purpose and Summary

H.R. 1913 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 certain assaults against persons of defined
groups a crime.

Background and Need for the Legislation

OVERVIEW

Bias crimes are disturbingly prevalent and pose a
significant threat to the full participation of all Americans
in our democratic society. Hate crimes involve the purposeful
selection of victims for violence and intimidation based on
their perceived attributes; they are a violent and dangerous
manifestation of prejudice against identifiable groups.
As with most criminal activity, violent hate crimes can
properly be investigated and prosecuted at both the Federal and
State/local level, depending on the facts of the case and the
needs of the investigation. The FBI has the most complete data,
through voluntary reporting from law enforcement agencies
around the country. But it is believed that violent hate crimes
are significantly under-reported.
Since 1991, the FBI has identified over 118,000 reported
violent hate crimes. For the year 2007, the most current data
available, the FBI documented 7,624 hate crimes.\1\ Racially-
motivated bias accounted for approximately half (50.8%) of all
incidents, religious bias accounted for 1,400 incidents
(18.4%), sexual orientation bias for 1,265 incidents (16.6%),
and ethnicity/national origin bias for 1,007 incidents (13.2%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\See U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of
Investigations, 2007 Hate Crimes Statistics, available at www.fbi.gov/
ucr/hc2007/incidents.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act is
intended to address two serious limitations in the reach of the
current Federal hate crimes statutes--principally, 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 violent hate crimes in a limited
set of contexts, based on animus against the victim's 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 in these statutes: First, the
statutes are confined to hate-motivated violence in connection
with the victim's participation in one of six narrowly defined
``federally protected activities'' (under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 245)
or in connection with housing (under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3631).
Second, they provide little or no coverage whatsoever for
violent hate crimes committed because of the victim's perceived
sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.
These deficiencies limit the Federal Government's ability to
prosecute certain hate crimes, and its ability to assist State
and local law enforcement agencies in the investigation and
prosecution of many of the most heinous hate crimes.
The bill amends the Criminal Civil Rights Chapter (Chapter
13) of title 18 of the United States Code by creating a new
section 249 to address the limited reach of existing law.
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, the new section 249(a)(2) prohibits the intentional
infliction of bodily injury when the incident has a nexus, as
defined in the bill, to interstate commerce.\3\ By expanding
the reach of the Federal criminal laws to address both sets of
limitations, section 249 provides the Federal Government the
tools to effectively pursue the significant Federal interest in
eradicating bias-motivated violence--both by assisting States
and local law enforcement, and by pursuing Federal charges
where appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\The approach taken in this legislation is similar 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 are fully expected to
continue to do so under this legislation.\4\ Concurrent Federal
jurisdiction enables not only the devotion of Federal resources
to assist State and local law enforcement in the investigation
and prosecution of hate crimes, but also, in limited
circumstances, to bring Federal criminal enforcement resources
to bear as a ``backstop'' to State and local efforts. Such a
backstop is important, 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\From 1991-2005, the FBI has received reports of almost 114,000
hate crimes. During that period, however, the Department of Justice has
brought fewer than 100 Federal cases under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 245. For more
information 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. This section
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'' with the intent to
interfere with his or her participation in any of six
specifically enumerated ``federally protected activities.''\5\
Thus, 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 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 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 Sec. 245(b)--even where the proof of
racially motivated violence was not in doubt. Expanding the
circumstances under which certain hate crimes can 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 thus (1) permit the Federal Government to
provide assistance to State law enforcement in a wider range of
circumstances, and (2) criminalize instances of vicious bias-
motived crimes that presently fall outside the reaches of the
Federal criminal laws.
Permitting the Federal Government to Assist State and Local Law
Enforcement
Where Federal jurisdiction has existed in the limited
circumstances covered by 18 U.S.C. 245(b), the Federal
Government's resources, forensic expertise, and experience in
the identification and proof of bias-motivated violence and
criminal networks has provided an invaluable investigative
complement to local investigators' familiarity with the local
community. Through their cooperation, State and Federal law
enforcement officials have brought a number of perpetrators of
hate crimes 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 selected 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
valuable assistance 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
determination of 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 18 U.S.C. Sec. 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: 34% of the
joint investigations conducted during the 2-year life of the
Task Force resulted in arrests on State or Federal charges,\6\
more than double the 16% national arrest rate in arson cases
generally (most of which are investigated without Federal
assistance). More than 80% of the suspects arrested in joint
investigations during the life of the Task Force were
prosecuted in State courts under State laws.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\See Statement of Eric H. Holder, Jr., Deputy Attorney General,
U.S. Department of Justice, May 11, 1999, available at www.usdoj.gov/
archive/dag/testimony/daghate051199.htm.
\7\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By expanding the reach of Federal criminal law, this bill
will similarly expand the ability of the FBI and other Federal
law enforcement entities to provide assistance to 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 resources increased the
number of arrests and prosecutions in the church arson context.
And as with church arson, it is expected that a large majority
of hate crimes prosecutions will continue to be brought in
State court, under State law.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Hate Crimes Violence, Hearings Before the House Comm. on the
Judiciary, 106th Congress 13, 17-18 (1999) (Testimony of Eric Holder,
Deputy Attorney General).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ensuring that Important Federal Civil Rights Interests are Vindicated
H.R. 1913 will enable the Federal Government to prosecute
hate crimes where there is a significant Federal interest that
is not otherwise being addressed. Where State and local
prosecutors fail to bring appropriate State charges, or where
State laws or State prosecutions are inadequate to vindicate
the Federal interest, it is imperative that the Federal
Government be able to step in and bring effective Federal
prosecutions to ``backstop'' State and local law enforcement.
Juror accounts in several Federal hate crimes prosecutions
resulting in acquittal suggest that the double intent
requirement in section 245(b)(2), particularly the ``intent to
interfere with the specified federally protected activity,''
has frustrated the aims of justice. In testimony before this
Committee, former 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.\9\ 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another section 245(b)(2) case that ended in acquittal
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.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In each of these examples, one or more persons committed a
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. Yet
in each case, the double intent requirement prevented the
Department of Justice from vindicating the Federal interest in
the punishment and deterrence of hate-based violence.
The current Federal hate crimes statute turns on such
arbitrary 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 where such an
assault 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 unnecessary,
anachronistic distinctions. And with the addition of section
249(a)(1) by this legislation this will no longer be the case.

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

Law enforcement authorities and civic leaders have learned
that a failure to address the problem of hate crimes can cause
a seemingly isolated incident to fester into wide-spread
tension that can damage the social fabric of the community at
large. The Supreme Court recognized this important factual
distinction in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 487 (1993)
as meriting the designation of a hate crime as a specific
offense: ``it is but reasonable that among crimes of different
natures those should be most severely punished, which are the
most destructive of the public safety and happiness.''\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Quoting 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The existing Federal hate crimes laws do not cover hate
crimes committed because of bias based on the victim's actual
or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or
disability. There is an emerging consensus, however, that hate
crimes motivated by such biases are equally 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.\12\ Further, since 1994, gender identity has been
added to numerous State and local hate crimes statutes based on
the same understanding of the corrosive effects of bias-
motivated violence, and in recognition of the the fact that
this particular bias has been behind particularly violent
assaults.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub.
L. No. 103-322, Sec. 280003a, provides:

DIRECTION TO UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION REGARDING
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS FOR HATE CRIMES.

(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. ***.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\See, Hate Crime Laws, Transgender Law & Policy Institute,
www.transgenderlaw.org/hatecrimelaws/index.htm (State survey of legal
policy).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2007 FBI
statistics, hate crimes based on the victim's sexual
orientation--gay, lesbian, or bisexual--constituted the third
highest category reported--1,265 incidents, or one-sixth of all
reported hate crimes.\14\ From 1991 through 2005, there were
over 17,000 reported hate crimes based on sexual orientation.
And as noted previously, this figure is likely to significantly
understate the true number of these crimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\Federal Bureau of Investigations, 2007 Hate Crimes Statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many victims of anti-lesbian and anti-gay violence 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 underreporting, the trend in State statistics
shows that gays and lesbians are increasingly the targets of
crime.''\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Dallas Morning News, Nov. 8, 1999 (``Hate-crimes experts say
statistics don't tell story: Many cases unreported; special law rarely
used'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the prevalence of violent acts committed against
persons because of their sexual orientation, such crimes are
not covered by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 245 unless there happens to be
some recognized basis for Federal jurisdiction, such as bias
against a gay victim's race. 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 a
stark example of the limitations of Federal law. Despite the
clear evidence that the murder of Mr. Shepard was motivated by
animus based on his sexual orientation, the Federal Government
lacked jurisdiction under existing hate crimes law either to
investigate this horrifying crime in partnership with State and
local officials or, if necessary, to bring Federal hate crimes
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.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\Excerpts of press statement by Commander David O'Malley,
September 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 marked contrast to what
occurred in the above discussed Jasper, Texas case. Because the
murder of James Byrd, Jr. was covered under the existing
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.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\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 28, plus the District
of Columbia, have hate crimes statutes that include gender
among the categories of prohibited bias motives.\18\ The bill
will harmonize Federal hate crimes law with the premise of
VAWA, enabling Federal officials to work with State and local
law enforcement officials in the investigation and prosecution
of violent gender-based hate crimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\See Anti-Defamation League, State Hate Crime Statutory
Provisions, www.adl.org/99hatecrime/state_hate_crime_laws.pdf (State
survey of hate crime laws).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to emphasize in this regard that the bill
will not result in the federalization of all rapes, other
sexual assaults, or acts of domestic violence. Rather, as
discussed below in greater detail, 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
Hate crimes against transgender people tend to be
particularly violent, the product of extreme bias against
gender nonconformity. While there are no federally compiled
statistics, advocacy groups have reported that over 400 people
have been murdered due to anti-transgender bias since 1999.\19\
In 2008 alone, there were 21 murders of transgender and gender
non-conforming people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\According to an estimate by the Human Rights Campaign,
transgender Americans face a one-in-twelve chance of being murdered.
Statistics from the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN)
show that in schools 14.2% of transgender students report being
physically assaulted as a result of their gender expression, while
30.4% experienced physical harassment. Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against
Defamation, www.glaad.org/publications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compounding the other challenges with effectively
prosecuting and deterring these crimes, transgender people
frequently distrust local law enforcement authorities, and the
police often lack training and familiarity with transgender
people. This lack of understanding highlights 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.
The murder of Brandon Teena, dramatized in the movie ``Boys
Don't Cry,'' is illustrative of the plight of this community.
Even in cases where the crime is reported, police response is
often inadequate. Teena was raped, and later killed, after the
discovery of his biological gender by two acquaintances. He had
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, Teena was stabbed and beaten
to death by the same perpetrators. In the civil suit brought by
Teena's family, the court found that the county was partially
responsible for Teena's death, and characterized the sheriff's
behavior as ``extreme and outrageous.''\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\Omaha World-Herald, April 21, 2001; Assoc. Press, Oct. 5, 2001;
N.Y. Times, April 21, 2001; Chi. Trib., April 21, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, 13 States include protections for transgender
individuals in their hate crime laws.\21\ Additionally, 13
States and 93 local jurisdictions do so in their anti-
discrimination laws.\22\ There has also been explicit coverage
of gender identity in the policies of leading corporations,
where they have concluded that certain human resources cases
are not purely based on gender or sexual orientation.\23\ These
policies have helped shape public discourse on addressing the
rights of transgender people, along with the rights of lesbian,
gay, and bisexual persons. According to a poll commissioned by
the Human Rights Campaign Foundation in 2002, 68% of Americans
believe that the Federal Government needs laws to protect
against anti-transgender hate crimes.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\See Hate Crime Laws, Transgender Law & Policy Institute. For
the purposes of this legislation, Gender Identity is defined as
``actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.'' See H.R. 1913
Section 6(c). While some States have prosecuted Gender Identity hate
crimes under their gender or sexual orientation jurisdiction, those
definitions provide a somewhat inexact fit for the underlying bias
reflected against transgender persons and necessitate a separate
Federal classification.
\22\See Hate Crime Laws, Transgender Law & Policy Institute.
\23\This list includes 53 of the Fortune 500 including AT&T, IBM
and Toys 'R' Us.
\24\See, www.genderadvocates.org/News/HRC%20Poll.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disability
Congress has shown a consistent and durable commitment,
over more than two decades, to the protection of persons with
disabilities from discrimination based on their disabilities.
Beginning with the 1988 amendments to the Fair Housing Act, and
continuing with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
Congress has extended civil rights protections to persons with
disabilities in many traditional civil rights contexts.
Currently, 24 States plus the District of Columbia have hate
crime statutes that reach crimes of violence motivated by
animus based on the victim's disability.\25\ Concerned about
the problem of disability-based hate crimes, Congress also
amended the Hate Crimes Statistics Act in 1994 to require the
FBI to collect information about such hate-based incidents from
State and local law enforcement agencies.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\See Anti-Defamation League, State hate Crime Statutory
Provisions.
\26\See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 534 note.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1913 would take the important step of making Federal
hate crimes law consistent in this area with the Federal
position taken in other areas of civil rights law, and
harmonizing it with the hate crimes laws of most States.
The Propriety of the Particular Group Designations
Throughout the course of debate on this legislation,
opponents have suggested that the classifications of sexual
orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability do not
merit specific protection under Federal law, or do not share
commonality with other protected classifications. Such
suggestions, however, are inconsistent with the overwhelming
preponderance of historical facts. As noted above, these
classifications are linked by jurisprudence,\27\ and by their
inclusion together in numerous State and Federal criminal and
anti-discrimination law statutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\See, e.g., R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992);
Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 47 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opponents offered a series of amendments during markup of
the bill that would have added coverage for a disparate
collection of groups, ranging from seniors to veterans to U.S.
citizens to everyone who had any characteristic whatsoever. No
evidence was offered, however, to show any record of group-
based violence against these classifications, or even a widely
held societal prejudice. Contrary to suggestions, it is not
difficult to determine whether a particular group faces
substantial societal prejudice that makes it appropriate to
protect against the kinds of hate-based violent crimes covered
by this bill.
One test for manifestation of prejudice is captured by the
widely recognized Allport Scale.\28\ As the logic of the test
demonstrates, the classifications of sexual orientation,
gender, gender identity, and disability share a common history
of being targeted for hate-based violence, along with the
classifications found in 18 U.S.C. 245. Indeed, the
classifications offered by amendments are ones held in wide
esteem; many already have privileged legal status, special
protection under separate criminal statutes, or special
economic recognition. These kinds of classifications clearly
fall outside the scope of legislation that is focused on crimes
of violence motivated by societal hate and prejudice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\The measure was devised by psychologist Gordon Allport and has
been 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).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allport's Scale of Prejudice ranges from 1-5.

Scale 1, Antilocution--Antilocution means a majority group
freely make jokes about a minority group. Speech is in
terms of negative stereotypes and negative images. This is
also called hate speech. It is commonly seen as harmless by
the majority. Antilocution itself may not be harmful, but
it sets the stage for more severe outlets for prejudice.

Scale 2, Avoidance--People in a minority group are actively
avoided by members of the majority group. No direct harm
may be intended, but harm is done through isolation.

Scale 3, Discrimination--Minority group is discriminated
against by denying them opportunities and services and so
putting prejudice into action. Behaviours have the specific
goal of harming the minority group by preventing them from
achieving goals, getting education or jobs, etc. The
majority group is actively trying to harm the minority
(e.g. Jim Crow laws).

Scale 4, Physical Attack--The majority group vandalize
minority group things, they burn property and carry out
violent attacks on individuals or groups. Physical harm is
done to members of the minority group. Examples are
lynchings of blacks, pogroms against Jews in Europe,
tarring and feathering Mormons in 1800's and British
Loyalists in the 1700's.

Scale 5, Extermination--The majority group seeks
extermination of the minority group. They attempt to
eliminate the entire group of people (e.g., Indian Wars to
remove Native Americans, Final Solution of ``Jewish
Problem'' in Germany, and Ethnic cleansing in Armenia.).

Gordon Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (Addison-Wesley 1954).

LEGAL ANALYSIS

Federalism Concerns as to Section 249(a)(2)
The bill was carefully drafted to ensure that the Federal
Government will continue to limit its prosecutions of hate
crimes--particularly those motivated by actual or perceived
animus based on gender--to the small set of 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 Section 7(b) sets forth several
significant limiting principles. First, the bill requires proof
that the violence be motivated by animus based on actual or
perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or
disability. This statutory animus requirement, which the
Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, will limit the
pool of potential Federal cases to those in which the evidence
of bias motivation is sufficient to distinguish them from
ordinary crimes of violence left to State prosecution.
Second, the bill requires a nexus to interstate commerce
for all Federal hate crimes based on sexual orientation,
gender, gender identity, or disability. This interstate
commerce requirement, which the Government must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt, will limit Federal jurisdiction in these new
categories to cases that implicate Federal interests.
Third, the bill limits Federal hate crimes based on sexual
orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability to those
involving bodily injury or death (and a limited set of attempts
to cause bodily injury or death). These limitations will
confine Federal cases to truly serious offenses. All violations
of Section 249 are felonies; there are no misdemeanor
provisions that could potentially permit Federal involvement in
prosecuting minor offenses.
Finally, the bill requires certification, by the Attorney
General or other specified high-ranking, Department of Justice
official, that: ``(1) he or she has reasonable cause to believe
that the actual or perceived race, color, national origin,
religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or
disability of any person was a substantial motivating factor
underlying the defendant's conduct; and (2) that he or his
designee, or she or her designee, has consulted with State or
local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution and
determined that: (a) the State does not have jurisdiction or
refuses to assume jurisdiction; or (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) actions by State and local law enforcement
officials have left demonstrably unvindicated the Federal
interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.'' This
certification requirement is intended to ensure that the
Federal Government will assert its new hate crimes jurisdiction
only in a principled and properly limited fashion, and is in
keeping with procedures under the current Federal hate crimes
statute.
Additionally, based upon the testimony of Justice
Department officials, we expect the efforts of the Department
under the new substantive provisions of this legislation to be
guided by Department-wide policies that impose additional
limitations on the cases prosecuted by the Federal Government,
most notably Section 8-3.000 of the United States Attorneys
Manual.\29\ Section 8-3.000 governs the interaction of Federal
investigative and prosecutive offices in criminal civil rights
matters. The notification and approval procedures of that
Section ensure conformity in application of Federal laws,
opening investigations, and staffing cases. The review
processes set forth in the U.S. Attorney's Manual will provide
an important safeguard against overly expansive enforcement or
untested theories being brought by individual prosecutors or
agents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\See Testimony of Eric Holder, Deputy Attorney General, 106th
Congress 13, 17-18 (1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constitutionality (Sections 249(a)(1) and 249(a)(2))
The bill is consistent with a long history of Federal
involvement in combating criminal conduct. As the Department of
Justice articulated in a 2000 Statement of Administration
Position, the 13th amendment broadly authorizes Congress to
regulate acts of violence committed on the basis of race,
color, religion, or national origin.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\Statement of Administration Position, June 13, 2000 (Assistant
Attorney General Robert Raben).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender,
gender identity or disability, the Commerce Clause provides
Congress ample authority to prosecute acts of violence
motivated by animus based on these characteristics where the
act has the requisite connection to interstate commerce. To
avoid constitutional concerns arising from the decision in
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), 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 18 U.S.C. 249(a)(2).
This interstate commerce element was drafted to invoke the
full scope of Congress's Commerce Clause power, and to ensure
that hate crimes prosecutions brought under the new 18 U.S.C.
249(a)(2) will not be mired in constitutional litigation. The
interstate commerce nexus required by the bill is analogous to
that required in other Federal criminal statutes. The Church
Arson Prevention Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 247, for example,
makes it a crime to destroy religious property if the offense
``is in or affects interstate commerce.'' 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 247(b). Section 249 in the bill is drawn to comport with
Supreme Court guidance in Lopez and U.S. v. Morrison, 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 18 U.S.C. 249(a)(1), which
is based on Congress' enforcement powers under the 13th
amendment and does not require proof of a nexus to interstate
commerce, and 18 U.S.C. 249(a)(2), which is based on Congress'
powers under the Commerce Clause and contains an interstate
commerce element that must be proved by the Government beyond a
reasonable doubt in each case.\31\ The inclusion of religion in
both subsection (a)(1) and subsection (a)(2) will enable
prosecutors to determine, based on the facts of each case
before them, how best to proceed in light of possible
constitutional challenges that might be brought.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Speech
The bill has been crafted in a fashion that fully protects
first amendment and other constitutional rights. The bill is
designed only to punish violent acts, not beliefs or thoughts--
even violent thoughts. The legislation does not punish, nor
prohibit in any way, name-calling, verbal abuse, or expressions
of hatred toward any group, even if such statements are
hateful. Moreover, nothing in this legislation prohibits the
lawful expression of one's deeply held religious or personal
beliefs. The bill only covers violent actions that result in
death or bodily injury committed because the victim has one of
the specified actual or perceived characteristics.
In addition, 249(d) provides that evidence of association
or expression may not be introduced as substantive evidence at
trial (though such evidence may be used as impeachment) unless
it specifically relates to the offense. This provision is
written to harmonize competing interests--it recognizes the
need to protect first amendment rights to express unpopular
beliefs, but recognizes the need to permit the proper use of
evidence of an accused's statements and associations when they
specifically relate to the offense.
This provision ensures that evidence of mere expression or
association is not permitted to be introduced at trial--that a
person has expressed beliefs, for example, including religious
beliefs, or belongs to an organization, including a religious
organization, that holds or professes beliefs, that may be
consistent with the crime charged. The provision recognizes
that the use of an individual's statements or associations may
well be unfairly prejudicial if there is little other evidence
linking the accused to the offense.
It is not possible to provide a complete set of examples
that capture the range of circumstances where such expressions
or associations would be admitted or excluded. Nonetheless,
this provision requires the district court to employ, in
essence, a heightened relevance standard that takes into
account the policy values associated with protecting the rights
of free religious expression, free speech, and free
association, and to consider the potential for unfair prejudice
if the evidence at issue consists of unpopular speech or
association with an unpopular group. This provision also
recognizes that evidence of speech, conduct or associations of
an accused is not unfairly prejudicial if it can be shown to be
specifically related to the crime at issue.
An isolated racial slur remote in time to the charged
offense, or mere membership in an organization that professes
strong negative views toward a given group would, presumably,
be excluded. Even an incidental racial slur uttered in the
course of the crime might be excluded if it were clear that it
was not the motive--uttered in the course of an otherwise
ordinary robbery, for example.
In contrast, a 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 or
close in time to the alleged offense, made in a way that
indicates that such hatred is the motive for the violence, are
more likely to be properly admitted as evidence. In these
examples, there would need to be other independent evidence of
the accused's participation in the crime, and the court would
retain the discretion to determine that the particular evidence
was otherwise unfairly prejudicial.
Moreover, this provision does not provide a license 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 ensuring that a
witness who gives false testimony may be impeached.
The legislation also includes a ``rule of construction'' in
Section 8, to lay to rest concerns raised in the 110th Congress
mark-up of the legislation, and repeated since then, that
religious speech or expression by clergy could form the basis
of a prosecution. The rule of construction affirms that nothing
in this legislation ``shall be construed to prohibit any
expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any
activities protected by, the Constitution.'' Nothing in this
legislation would prohibit the constitutionally protected
expression of one's religious beliefs.
Finally, any lingering 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, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) and Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S.
476 (1993). In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the Supreme Court
clarified 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.

Hearings

In the last Congress, the Committee's Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held 1 day of hearings
on substantially identical legislation, 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. That bill was reported by the
Judiciary C0ommittee on April 30, 2007, and passed the House on
May 3, 2007.

Committee Consideration

On April 22, 2009, the Committee met in open session and
ordered the bill H.R. 1913 favorably reported with amendment,
by a rollcall vote of 25 to 12, 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. 1913:
1. An amendment by Mr. Goodlatte to broaden the protected
classes in the bill to include status as a senior citizen who
has attained the age of 65 years. Defeated 15 to 11.

ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................
Mr. Berman...................................................... X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Gonzalez....................................................
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Maffei...................................................... X
[Vacant]........................................................
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member.......................................
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
Mr. Poe.........................................................
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Rooney...................................................... X
Mr. Harper......................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 11 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. An amendment by Mr. Franks to bar prosecution where the
offender was, at the time of the offense, engaged in conduct
protected by the first amendment to the Constitution. Defeated
16 to 11.

ROLLCALL NO. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................
Mr. Berman...................................................... X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler...................................................... X
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman.....................................................
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Gonzalez.................................................... X
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz........................................... X
Mr. Maffei...................................................... X
[Vacant]........................................................
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member.......................................
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
Mr. Poe......................................................... X
Mr. Chaffetz....................................................
Mr. Rooney...................................................... X
Mr. Harper......................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 11 16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. An amendment by Mr. Rooney to include in the bill crimes
where the victim's status was that of a member of the armed
forces. Defeated 11 to 9.

ROLLCALL NO. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman...................................... X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler...................................................... X
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman.....................................................
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Gonzalez....................................................
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Maffei......................................................
[Vacant]........................................................
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member.......................................
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble.......................................................
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Franks......................................................
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
Mr. Poe.........................................................
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Rooney...................................................... X
Mr. Harper......................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 9 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. An amendment by Mr. Gohmert to add the death penalty to
the penalty provision of the bill. Defeated 11 to 8.

ROLLCALL NO. 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman...................................... X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler...................................................... X
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman.....................................................
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Gonzalez....................................................
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Maffei......................................................
[Vacant]........................................................
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member.......................................
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................
Mr. Coble.......................................................
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Franks......................................................
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan......................................................
Mr. Poe.........................................................
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Rooney...................................................... X
Mr. Harper......................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 8 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. An amendment by Mr. Gohmert to the Department of Justice
Certification Provision to add a requirement that a State has
no law prohibiting the conduct constituting the defendant's
alleged crimes before allowing the assertion of Federal
jurisdiction. Defeated 12 to 9.

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.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman.....................................................
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Gonzalez....................................................
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
Ms. Wasserman Schultz........................................... X
Mr. Maffei...................................................... X
[Vacant]........................................................
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member.......................................
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble.......................................................
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Franks......................................................
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan......................................................
Mr. Poe.........................................................
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Rooney...................................................... X
Mr. Harper......................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 9 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. An amendment by Mr. Gohmert to add a Rule of
Construction that no prosecution may be based in whole or in
part on religious beliefs quoted from the Bible, the Tanakh, or
the Koran. Defeated 11 to 8.

ROLLCALL NO. 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman...................................... X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler...................................................... X
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman.....................................................
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Gonzalez....................................................
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff......................................................
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Maffei...................................................... X
[Vacant]........................................................
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member.......................................
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Franks......................................................
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan......................................................
Mr. Poe.........................................................
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Rooney...................................................... X
Mr. Harper......................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 8 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. An amendment by Mr. King to rename the bill ``Local Law
Enforcement Thought Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.'' Defeated
15 to 10.

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.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler...................................................... X
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Gonzalez....................................................
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff......................................................
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Maffei...................................................... X
[Vacant]........................................................
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member.......................................
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Franks......................................................
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
Mr. Poe.........................................................
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Rooney...................................................... X
Mr. Harper...................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 10 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Motion to table an appeal of the Chair's ruling that the
Jordan amendment to broaden the protected classes in the bill
to include an unborn child was non-germane. Agreed to 14 to 10.

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.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Gonzalez....................................................
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff......................................................
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Maffei...................................................... X
[Vacant]........................................................
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member.......................................
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Franks......................................................
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
Mr. Poe.........................................................
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Rooney......................................................
Mr. Harper...................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 14 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. An amendment by Mr. Goodlatte to broaden protected
classes in the bill to cover crimes where the victim's status
was that of a pregnant woman. Defeated 13 to 9.

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.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Gonzalez....................................................
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff......................................................
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Maffei......................................................
[Vacant]........................................................
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member.......................................
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble.......................................................
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Franks......................................................
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
Mr. Poe.........................................................
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Rooney......................................................
Mr. Harper...................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 9 13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. An amendment by Mr. King to replace the term ``gender''
with the term ``sex'' throughout the bill and strike the term
``gender identity.'' Defeated 16 to 10.

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.................................................
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler...................................................... X
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Gonzalez....................................................
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff......................................................
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Maffei...................................................... X
[Vacant]........................................................
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member.......................................
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble.......................................................
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Franks......................................................
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
Mr. Poe.........................................................
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Rooney......................................................
Mr. Harper...................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 10 16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. An amendment by Mr. King to broaden the protected
classes in the bill to include anyone possessing any immutable
characteristic. Defeated 10 to 9.

ROLLCALL NO. 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman...................................... X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler...................................................... X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................
Mr. Johnson.....................................................
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman.....................................................
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Gonzalez.................................................... X
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff......................................................
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
Ms. Wasserman Schultz........................................... X
Mr. Maffei...................................................... X
[Vacant]........................................................
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member.......................................
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Forbes......................................................
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
Mr. Poe.........................................................
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Rooney...................................................... X
Mr. Harper......................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 9 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12. An amendment by Mr. King to create a new category of
criminal offense for crimes committed by illegal immigrants
against nationals of the United States because of the U.S.
national's status as a U.S. national or U.S. citizen. Defeated
14 to 11.

ROLLCALL NO. 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman...................................... X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Delahunt.................................................... X
Mr. Wexler...................................................... X
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman.....................................................
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Gonzalez.................................................... X
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff......................................................
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz........................................... X
Mr. Maffei...................................................... X
[Vacant]........................................................
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member.......................................
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan......................................................
Mr. Poe......................................................... X
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Rooney...................................................... X
Mr. Harper......................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 11 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13. An amendment by Mr. King to replace the term ``gender''
with the term ``sex'' throughout the bill. Defeated 16 to 11.

ROLLCALL NO. 13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman...................................... X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Delahunt.................................................... X
Mr. Wexler...................................................... X
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez................................................... X
Mr. Sherman.....................................................
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Gonzalez.................................................... X
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff......................................................
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz........................................... X
Mr. Maffei...................................................... X
[Vacant]........................................................
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member.......................................
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan......................................................
Mr. Poe......................................................... X
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Rooney...................................................... X
Mr. Harper...................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 11 16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14. An amendment by Mr. King to add an additional element
of proof to the substantive offense, requiring proof of intent
to intimidate or terrorize the class of persons to which the
victim belongs. Defeated 10 to 8.

ROLLCALL NO. 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman...................................... X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler...................................................... X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................
Mr. Johnson.....................................................
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez................................................... X
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Gonzalez....................................................
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff......................................................
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Maffei...................................................... X
[Vacant]........................................................
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member.......................................
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Franks......................................................
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
Mr. Poe......................................................... X
Mr. Chaffetz....................................................
Mr. Rooney......................................................
Mr. Harper......................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 8 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15. An amendment by Mr. King to define the term ``sexual
orientation'' as used in the bill to explicitly exclude
pedophilia. Defeated 13 to 10.

ROLLCALL NO. 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman...................................... X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler...................................................... X
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez................................................... X
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Gonzalez....................................................
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff......................................................
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Maffei...................................................... X
[Vacant]........................................................
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member.......................................
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
Mr. Poe......................................................... X
Mr. Chaffetz....................................................
Mr. Rooney......................................................
Mr. Harper......................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 10 13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16. An amendment by Mr. Goodlatte to strike the text
setting forth the basis of bias against the protected classes
as an element of the offense, thereby broadening the scope of
the bill to include all violent crimes against persons.
Defeated 14 to 11.

ROLLCALL NO. 16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman...................................... X
Mr. Berman...................................................... X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler...................................................... X
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez................................................... X
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Gonzalez....................................................
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff......................................................
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Maffei...................................................... X
[Vacant]........................................................
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member.......................................
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
Mr. Poe......................................................... X
Mr. Chaffetz....................................................
Mr. Rooney...................................................... X
Mr. Harper......................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 11 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17. Motion to report H.R. 1913 favorably, as amended.
Passed 15 to 12.

ROLLCALL NO. 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman...................................... X
Mr. Berman...................................................... X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler...................................................... X
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez................................................... X
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Gonzalez.................................................... X
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff......................................................
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Maffei...................................................... X
[Vacant]........................................................
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member.......................................
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
Mr. Poe......................................................... X
Mr. Chaffetz....................................................
Mr. Rooney...................................................... X
Mr. Harper...................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 15 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee advises that there is
authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2010 and 2011.

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. 1913, 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, 2009.
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. 1913, the ``Local
Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.''
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark
Grabowicz, who can be reached at 226-2860.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf,
Director.

Enclosure

cc:
Honorable Lamar S. Smith.
Ranking Member
H.R. 1913--the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of
2009.

SUMMARY

H.R. 1913 would establish certain hate crimes as new
federal offenses and would authorize the appropriation of:

L$5 million for each of fiscal years 2009 and
2010 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
address hate crimes committed by juveniles; and

LSuch sums as may be necessary for fiscal
years 2009 through 2011 for DOJ and the Department of
the Treasury to investigate and prosecute hate crimes.

Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO
estimates that implementing H.R. 1913 would cost about $10
million over the 2010-2014 period. The legislation could affect
direct spending and revenues, but CBO estimates that any such
effects would not be significant in any year.
H.R. 1913 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. 1913 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010-2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Estimated Authorization Level 10 * 0 0 0 10

Estimated Outlays 2 3 2 2 1 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: * = less than $500,000.

CBO assumes that the bill will be enacted near the start of
fiscal year 2010. Based on spending for similar activities in
recent years, CBO estimates that the bill's authorization for
grants to address hate crimes committed by juveniles would cost
an additional $5 million in fiscal year 2010--the same amount
that the bill would specifically authorize for grants to state
and local governments to combat hate crimes in general. We
assume that the necessary amounts (a total of $10 million for
2010) will be appropriated by the start of that fiscal year and
that spending 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 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 2010 through 2011, subject to the
availability of appropriated funds.
Because those prosecuted and convicted under H.R. 1913
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 IMPACT

H.R. 1913 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 $10 million to investigate and prosecute hate crimes.
The bill also would authorized the Attorney General to provide
technical, forensic, and prosecutorial assistance to those
governments. Any costs to nonfederal entities 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:

Theresa Gullo
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.
1913 will assist State and local law enforcement in the
investigation and prosecution of hate crimes and will permit
Federal prosecution of hate crimes in appropriate instances.

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 Thirteenth and Fourteenth 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. 1913 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 names the short title of
the bill as the ``Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention
Act of 2009.''
Sec. 2. 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. 3. 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 local
law. Priority is given to crimes by offenders who acted in more
than one State and rural jurisdiction with extraordinary
expenses.
Subsection (b) creates a grant program under the authority
of the Department of Justice that is design 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 2010 and 2011.
Sec. 4. Grant Program. This section creates a grant program
under the authority of the Department of Justice that is design
to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including
programs to train law enforcement in identifying,
investigating, prosecuting and preventing bias crimes.
Sec. 5. Authorization for Additional Personnel to Assist
State, Local and Tribal Law Enforcement. This section
authorizes appropriations of sums necessary, if any, to support
the response, investigation and prosecution of alleged
violations of provisions created pursuant to this legislation.
Sec. 6. Prohibition of Certain Hate Crime Acts. This
section adds a new provision to title 18 of the U.S. Code to be
codified at 18 U.S.C. 249--entitled ``Hate crime acts.'' In
particular, 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. 245(b)(2), this new provision does not require a
showing that the defendant committed the offense because of the
victim's participation in a federally protected activity. An
offense under the new 18 U.S.C. 249(a)(1) will be prosecuted as
a felony only, and 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 is required.
Other misdemeanor attempts will not constitute offenses under
this section.
The new section 18 U.S.C. 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. This
provision omits the ``federally protected activity''
requirement of 18 U.S.C. 245, but instead requires proof of a
commerce clause nexus as an element of the offense.
Subsection(b) of this provision requires a written
certification from the Attorney General before prosecutions can
be brought under sections 249 (a)(1) and (a)(2).
Subsection(d) of this provision 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 offence. 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 be introduced as impeachment
or rebuttal.
Sec. 7. Severability. This section shields underlying hate
crime statutes and amendments from any finding of
unconstitutionality directed against a specific section or
amendment of hate crimes law.
Sec. 8. Rule of Construction. This section provides that
nothing in the bill shall be construed to prohibit expressive
conduct or activities protected by 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):

CHAPTER 13 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE

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.--
(1) In this section--
(A) the term ``explosive or incendiary
device'' has the meaning given such term in
section 232 of this title; and
(B) the term ``firearm'' has the meaning
given such term in section 921(a) of this
title.
(2) For the purposes of this chapter, the term
``gender identity'' 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.

Dissenting Views

We oppose H.R. 1913 as an unconstitutional threat to
religious freedom, freedom of speech, equal justice under the
law and basic federalism principles.
Justice should be blind to the personal traits of victims.
Under the Majority's hate crime bill, H.R. 1913, 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, gender, sexual orientation, disability or
other protected status.
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 and viciousness,
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, gender,
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, although 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. 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, 529 U.S.
598 (2000), 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.
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 2007, 9
were murders and 2 were rapes. Only 9 of approximately 17,000
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 infirmities 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 Government are not inappropriately
expanded. We offered 18 amendments to this legislation but the
Majority defeated each and every one of our attempts to address
these problems.

H.R. 1913 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; however, hate crimes statutes that
criminalize bias motivated violence may survive a first
amendment challenge. Cf. 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 a state hate crime penalty enhancement
for a violent crime and 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 amendments 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 from involvement in the
criminal process.
Moreover, under existing criminal law principles, the bill
raises the possibility that religious leaders or members of
religious groups could be prosecuted criminally based on their
speech or protected activities. Using conspiracy law or section
2 of title 18 which allows for the prosecution of anyone who
aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures the
commission of a crime, or anyone 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 by one
person to causing hateful violent acts by another.
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 4300
hate crimes against persons reported by the FBI in 2007, over
2,000 incidents involved ``intimidation,'' usually defined as
threatening words. 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. 1913 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.
All violent crimes can be ``hate'' crimes, and there is
little justification for singling out specific groups of
victims for Federal protection. A Federal law criminalizing
violent actions based upon a victim's real or perceived
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.'' United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549,
561 n. 3 (1995) (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 in scope.

H.R. 1913 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, and the 13th, 14th, and 15th
amendments.
Interstate Commerce Clause
The Supreme Court, in United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S.
598 (2000), 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. The Court concluded that upholding the criminal
provision of 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. 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 five of the 14th
amendment. 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 in which Congress uses its enforcement powers
under section five 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.
In City of Boerne v. Flores, 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. City of Boerne, 521 U.S. at 530-32. In
Florida Prepaid, the Court noted that ``[i]n enacting the
Patent Remedy Act. . . . Congress identified no pattern of
patent infringement by the States, let alone a pattern of
constitutional violations.'' The Court held 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. 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.
The only iota of fact-finding to be found in relation to
H.R. 1913 is section two of the bill, which lays out various
``findings'' regarding so-called hate crimes. Ironically, and
inexplicably, the Majority chose to remove this section from
the bill through adoption of a manager's amendment offered by
Mr. Scott.
Until Congress engages in this sort of legislative
spadework, it will not be able to justify any 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 two 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 incident'' of
slavery. See Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 105 (1971).
The Court has addressed Congress's power under section two
in only a few cases, the chief of which is Jones v. Alfred H.
Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968). 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.
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. Section two 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.''
Jones, 392 U.S. at 439. Therefore, the Court observed,
``[s]urely Congress has the power under the 13th amendment
rationally to determine what are the badges and the incidents
of slavery, and the authority to translate that determination
into effective legislation.'' Id. at 440. The Court, however,
has not provided much guidance beyond Jones on what constitutes
``the badges and the incidents of slavery.'' 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 two 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 1997, a total of 8,049
bias-motivated criminal incidents were reported by the FBI.
Statistics for four of those years, 2002 through 2005,
demonstrated a steep decline in the number of hate crimes
reported. In 2005, for example, 7,163 hate crimes were
reported. In the last two years for which data is available,
there has been a slight uptick in the number of hate crimes--
7,722 incidents in 2006 and 7,624 in 2007--but fewer hate
crimes are committed today than ten years ago.
In 2007, 51 percent of the crimes involved racial bias; 18
percent involved anti-religion bias; 17 percent involved sexual
orientation bias; and 13 percent involved national origin bias.
Anti-disability bias was about 1 percent. Further, in 2007,
there were 1,083 violent crimes against persons--rape, murder,
assault, intimidation, and robbery--that were based on bias
against sexual orientation, or approximately 3.6 incidents per
100,000 inhabitants. In contrast, there were a total of
1,408,337 violent crimes committed in 2007, or about 466.9
violent crimes incidents per 100,000 inhabitants.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\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.'' The Hate Crimes Statistics Act does not require collection
of hate crimes statistics for violent crimes alleged to be motivated by
``gender identity.'' 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to FBI data, there were 16,929 murders in the
U.S. in 2007. Of that number, nine murders were classified as
``hate crimes''. By doing the math, we learn that ``hate-
crimes'' murders make up less than one-tenth of 1% of the
murders committed in the U.S. in 2007. This begs the question
of why the House would pass legislation that ignores 99.9% of
the murders in this country.

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 passed legislation pertaining to hate crimes in recent
years, and in both states the legislation has been struck down
by the courts.

NEED TO PROTECT MILITARY, UNBORN CHILDREN, THE ELDERLY,
AND MOTHERS

In protecting 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 current and former members of the Armed Forces,
senior citizens, and pregnant women. We can see no reason to
distinguish among these groups--all of them deserve heightened
protection against hate-motivated crimes. Despite the evidence
of crimes targeting these members of these groups, the Majority
has made its priorities clear, and has done a disservice to our
Armed Forces, senior citizens, and pregnant women.
Members of the Armed Forces
We honor our men and women of the military because of their
patriotism, their commitment to protecting our freedom and to
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, recently 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 in 2006 in passing legislation to restrict the
right of protesters to interfere with military funerals.
With the rising debate over the Iraq War, we are seeing
increased threats to Iraq War veterans. In 2004, Private First
Class Foster Barton, of Grove City, Ohio, was brutally beaten
in the parking lot of a music venue in Columbus as he was
leaving a concert. According to the Columbus police, six
witnesses who didn't know Barton said the person who beat him
up was screaming profanities and making crude remarks about
U.S. soldiers. Barton had been on a 2-week leave from service
in Iraq when the incident happened. A year later, during a
peace rally, a war veteran was spit on by a protester at the
rally. Such incidents were all too common place 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.
Crimes against our Armed Forces must be punished at a
heightened level just like the other groups that are given
protection under this Act.
During consideration of H.R. 1913, Mr. Rooney offered an
amendment to add current and former members of the Armed
Services to the list of classes protected under this
legislation. The Majority rejected this amendment and defeated
it in a party-line vote.
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, 127 S.Ct. 1610 (2007), 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.
Id. at 1632.
During consideration of H.R. 1913, 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.
Pregnant Women
All 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.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\In 2004, 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
her unborn child was killed. 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.
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.
During consideration of H.R. 1913, Mr. Goodlatte offered an
amendment to add pregnant women to the list of classes
protected by this legislation. The Majority rejected this
amendment and defeated it in a party-line vote.
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.
During consideration of H.R. 1913, Mr. Goodlatte offered an
amendment to add senior citizens to the list of classes
protected by this legislation. The Majority rejected this
amendment and defeated it in a party-line vote.

CONCLUSION

As outlined above, H.R. 1913 suffers from numerous
problems. The Majority's rush to judgment ensures that, even if
enacted, the hate crimes statute will most likely be overturned
by the courts, and therefore, will be counter-productive to its
stated goal of assisting state and local law enforcement to
reduce bias-motivated violence.

Lamar Smith.
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
Howard Coble.
Elton Gallegly.
Bob Goodlatte.
Darrell E. Issa.
Steve King.
Trent Franks.
Louie Gohmert.
Jim Jordan.
Ted Poe.
Jason Chaffetz.
Tom Rooney.
Gregg Harper.