[House Report 117-251]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


117th Congress    }                                      {      Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session       }                                      {     117-251

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



 
                      EMMETT TILL ANTILYNCHING ACT

                                _______
                                

 February 25, 2022.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                         [To accompany H.R. 55]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 55) to amend section 249 of title 18, United States 
Code, to specify lynching as a hate crime act, having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an 
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Hearings.........................................................     6
Committee Consideration..........................................     6
Committee Votes..................................................     6
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     6
Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects..........................     6
New Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost 
  Estimate.......................................................     7
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................     8
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     8
Advisory on Earmarks.............................................     8
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................     8
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     8
Additional Views.................................................    11

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Emmett Till Antilynching Act''.

SEC. 2. LYNCHING; OTHER CONSPIRACIES.

  Section 249(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
          ``(5) Lynching; other conspiracies.--Whoever conspires to 
        commit any offense under paragraph (1), (2), or (3), shall--
                  ``(A) if death results from the offense, be 
                imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in 
                accordance with this title, or both; or
                  ``(B) in any other case, be subject to the same 
                penalties as the penalties prescribed for the offense 
                the commission of which was the object of the 
                conspiracy.''.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 55, the ``Emmett Till Antilynching Act,'' would amend 
section 249 of title 18, United States Code, to specify 
lynching as a hate crime under federal law. The bill corrects a 
longstanding omission from federal civil rights law.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    Lynchings were violent and public acts of torture used for 
nearly a century to enforce racial segregation.\1\ Despite 
claiming the lives of thousands of victims, most of the 
perpetrators of these acts of terror were never held 
accountable and official inaction has left lasting scars on 
impacted communities.\2\ Despite enacting a broad range of 
civil rights protections, the federal government has never 
specifically outlawed lynching, despite the unique damage it 
caused to the fabric of democratic society.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Equal Justice Initiative, Lynching in America; Confronting the 
Legacy of Racial Terror, at 5 (3rd ed. 2017), 
www.lynchinginamerica.eji.org/report-landing (last visited Oct. 29, 
2019).
    \2\Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Lynching has been generally defined as a premeditated 
extrajudicial killing by a group.\3\ The term has been most 
often used to characterize informal public executions by a mob 
in order to punish an alleged transgressor or to intimidate a 
group. Lynching can also be employed as an extreme form of 
informal group social control, and often conducted with the 
display of a public spectacle for maximum intimidation. H.R. 55 
is named in honor of Emmett Till, a 14-year-old African 
American youth from Chicago who was lynched in 1955 while 
visiting an uncle in Mississippi.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\See Amy Louise Wood, Rough Justice: Lynching and American 
Society 1874-1947, (North Carolina University Press (2009)).
    \4\At his mother's insistence, Till received an open-casket funeral 
so that people could see how badly her son had been beaten, which 
galvanized the response of the African American community throughout 
the nation. The state of Mississippi tried two defendants for his 
murder, but they were acquitted by an all-white jury, and later 
admitted their guilt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the period between the Civil War and World War II, 
thousands of African Americans were lynched in the United 
States. Though lynching touched all races and religions, the 
practice was predominant in the South, and four out of five 
victims were African American. In 1892, the Tuskegee Institute 
began to record statistics of lynchings and reported that 4,742 
reported incidents had taken place by 1968, of which 3,445 of 
the victims were African-Americans.\5\ Through additional 
research, the Equal Justice Initiative (``EJI'') documented 
4075 ``racial terror lynchings'' in twelve Southern states 
between the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and 1950.\6\ These 
violent incidents profoundly impacted race relations and shaped 
the geographic, political, social, and economic conditions of 
African American communities in ways that are still evident 
today and were largely tolerated by state and federal 
officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\See Tuskegee University Archives Repository, Lynching, Whites & 
Negroes, 1882-1968, retrieved at http://archive.tuskegee.edu/archive/
handle/123456789/51; Jessie P. Guzman, Negro Yearbook (1952), at 275-
279, https://archive.org/details/negroyearbook52tuskrich (last visited 
Oct. 29, 2019).
    \6\See Equal Justice Initiative, Lynching in America; Confronting 
the Legacy of Racial Terror, at 5 (3rd ed. 2017), 
www.lynchinginamerica.eji.org/report-landing (last visited Oct. 29, 
2019). EJI distinguishes ``terror lynchings'' from racial violence and 
hate crimes that were prosecuted as criminal acts, classifying the 
incidents as acts of terrorism because the murders were carried out 
with impunity, sometimes in broad daylight, often ``on the courthouse 
lawn.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By the end of the nineteenth century, Southern lynching had 
become a tool of racial control that terrorized and targeted 
African Americans and their communities for wider violence. 
Though the circumstances of the thousands of African Americans 
lynched between 1877 and 1950 differed in many respects, in 
most cases, their murders can be categorized as one or more of 
the following: (1) lynchings that resulted from a wildly 
distorted fear of interracial sex; (2) lynchings in response to 
casual social transgressions; (3) lynchings based on 
allegations of serious violent crime; (4) public spectacle 
lynchings; (5) lynchings that escalated into large-scale 
violence targeting the entire African American community; and 
(6) lynchings of sharecroppers, ministers, and community 
leaders who resisted mistreatment, which were most common 
between 1915 and 1940.\7\ EJI research revealed that lynchings 
peaked between 1880 and 1940, with Mississippi, Georgia, and 
Louisiana having the highest absolute number of African 
American victims during this period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Id. at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The antilynching movement set the stage for the creation of 
the civil rights movement that we recognize today. African 
Americans undertook efforts to combat the terror of lynching 
and the threat of racial violence through grassroots activism 
and the founding of integrated social justice organizations. 
The work of the National Association for the Advancement of 
Colored People (``NAACP'') was pivotal in awakening the nation 
to the urgency of combatting lynching. Founded in 1909 as an 
interracial civil rights protest organization, the NAACP 
conducted thorough investigations of lynchings and other crimes 
committed against African Americans and issued regular reports 
concerning the incidents. In 1919 the NAACP published Thirty 
Years of Lynching in the United States, 1889-1918, which 
examined the causes of lynching and the circumstances under 
which the crimes occurred.\8\ Beginning in 1921, the NAACP also 
actively began endorsing antilynching legislation to make 
lynching a federal crime. Antilynching activists, like 
journalists Ida B. Wells and T. Thomas Fortune and Tuskegee 
sociologist Monroe Work, further harnessed the growing power of 
the black press to demand national accountability for racial 
violence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 
Thirty Years of Lynching in the United States 1889-1918 (April 1919), 
https://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/primarysourcesets/
naacp/pdf/lynching.pdf (last visited Oct. 29, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The first federal antilynching legislation was introduced 
by Congressman George Henry White, then the only African 
American Member of Congress, in 1900 and referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.\9\ During the first half of the 
20th century, nearly 200 antilynching bills were introduced in 
Congress, but none were successful. Between 1920 and 1940, the 
House of Representatives passed three strong antilynching 
measures, the closest of which Congress came to enacting was 
sponsored by Congressman Leonidas C. Dyer in 1922. The Dyer 
Anti-Lynching Bill provided fines and imprisonment for persons 
convicted of lynching in federal courts, and fines and 
penalties against states, counties, and towns which failed to 
use reasonable efforts to protect citizens from mob violence. 
Although the bill was quickly passed by a large majority in the 
House of Representatives, and supported by then-President 
Warren G. Harding, it was prevented from coming to a vote in 
1922, 1923, and 1924 in the U.S. Senate, due to filibusters by 
the Southern Democratic bloc who claimed the legislation would 
be unconstitutional and an infringement upon states' 
rights.\10\ However, the extensive debate on the bill, in 
combination with the 1919 NAACP report and the related National 
Conference on Lynching, moved local and state governments to 
take lynching more seriously, leading to a dramatic decrease of 
incidents after 1922.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\See Benjamin Justensen, George Henry White and the Anti-Lynching 
Bill of 1900 (2016), https://www.georgehenrywhite.com/single-post/2016/
09/17/George-Henry-White-and-the-Anti-Lynching-Bill-of-1900 (last 
visited Oct. 29, 2019). Rep. White's legislation was ultimately 
unsuccessful and would not be voted on by the House of Representatives 
before his departure from that body in 1901.
    \10\See Office of the Historian, U.S. House of Representatives, 
Black Americans in Congress, 1870-007, Anti-Lynching Legislation 
Renewed, U.S. Government Printing Office, (2008) https://
history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/BAIC/Historical-Essays/
Temporary-Farewell/Anti-Lynching-Legislation/ (last visited Oct. 29, 
2019).
    \11\Southern white organizations also began to condemn lynchings 
during the two decades before World War II. Among them were the 
Commission for Interracial Cooperation, which did research and issued 
publications which provided additional facts on lynchings, and the 
Association of Southern Women for the Prevention of Lynching, which was 
founded in Atlanta in 1930. See Robert A. Gibson, The Negro Holocaust: 
Lynching and Race Riots in the United States 1880-1950, Yale New Haven 
Teacher's Institute (2004). http://teachersinstitute.yale.edu/
curriculum/units/1979/2/79.02.04.x.html (last visited Oct. 29, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was the 
closest that Congress ever came in the post-Reconstruction era 
to enacting antilynching legislation. Codified at title 18, 
United States Code, section 241, the civil rights conspiracy 
statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire 
to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any 
state, territory, or district in the free exercise or enjoyment 
of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the 
Constitution or the laws of the United States (or because of 
his/her having exercised the same) and further makes it 
unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the 
highway or premises of another person with intent to prevent or 
hinder his or her free exercise or enjoyment of such 
rights.\12\ Though section 241 does not specify the offense of 
lynching as a federal crime, this section has been used by the 
Department of Justice to prosecute civil rights era crimes and 
hate crimes that were described as lynchings in public 
discourse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and any 
resulting injury, the offense is punishable by a range of fines and/or 
imprisonment for any term of years up to life, or the death penalty. 18 
U.S. Code Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 55 seeks to amend section 249 of title 18 to specify 
lynching as a hate crime act. Section 249 includes a 
certification requirement from the Attorney General, or his or 
her designee, prior to initiating prosecution under this 
section.\13\ Certification requires satisfying one of four 
elements: (1) that the state does not have jurisdiction; (2) 
that the state requested federal jurisdiction; (3) that the 
verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to state charges left 
demonstratively unvindicated the federal interest in 
eradicating bias-motivated violence; or (4) that a prosecution 
by the federal government is in the public interest and 
necessary to secure substantial justice. This requirement 
ensures that while states are able to investigate and prosecute 
criminal conduct at the state level, the Department of Justice 
will be able to prosecute the act of lynching as a federal hate 
crime. When an offense is motived by the victim's actual or 
perceived race, color, religion, or national origin, this bill 
will also enable federal law enforcement to investigate in 
instances where the state is unable or unwilling to prosecute 
the crime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\18 U.S.C. Sec. 249(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The significance of a federal antilynching statute became 
even more apparent following the murder of Ahmaud Arbery on 
February 23, 2020, which was described as a modern day 
lynching.\14\ The county prosecutor in that case is currently 
charged with violating the oath of public office and 
obstructing and hindering a law enforcement officer for not 
only failing to adequately investigate the murder of Arbery, 
but even attempting to prevent arrest of a suspect.\15\ Three 
men were ultimately arrested for Arbery's murder only after 
cell phone video footage of the attack was released online and 
public outcry motivated the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to 
take over the case. In April 2021, a federal grand jury 
indicted the three men on charges under section 245 that they 
intimidated Arbery, interfered with his right to use a public 
street, and attempted to kidnap him because of his race.\16\ On 
February 22, 2022, a jury convicted the three men, finding that 
they were motivated by racism when they chased and murdered 
Arbery.\17\ The men now face a federal sentence of up to life 
in prison in addition to the life sentences they received in 
state court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\The Associated Press, Ahmaud Arbery's death called a modern day 
lynching, AL.com, May 20, 2020, https://www.al.com/news/2020/05/ahmaud-
arberys-death-called-a-modern-day-lynching.html.
    \15\Alyssa Lukpat, Former Prosecutor in Ahmaud Arbery's Death Faces 
Criminal Charges, New York Times, published September 2, 2021, updated 
November 24, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/02/us/jackie-
johnson-indicted-ahmaud-arbery.html.
    \16\U.S. v. McMichael et al, United States District Court, Southern 
District of Georgia, https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/
1390396/download.
    \17\Mzezewa, Burch, and Fausset, Three Men Are Found Guilty of Hate 
Crimes in Arbery Killing, New York Times, February 22, 2022, https://
www.nytimes.com/2022/02/22/us/gregory-mcmichael-travis-mcmichael-
william-bryan.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite the existence of federal criminal enforcement 
against hate crimes, it remains important to enact federal 
antilynching legislation due to the historical context of these 
violent incidents. Lynching was a violent tactic of racial 
subordination and closely linked to the deprivation of 
freedmen's post-Reconstruction constitutional rights. The fear 
of lynching was also a major factor in the Great Migration to 
the North and changed the demographics of the nation. 
Politically, the terms of the lynching debate still echo 
through Congress and influence the debate around social justice 
policy. For that reason, in 2005, the Senate passed a 
resolution, sponsored by Senators Mary Landrieu and George 
Allen, apologizing for the Senate's failure to enact 
antilynching legislation as a federal crime, with Senator 
Landrieu commenting that, ``There may be no other injustice in 
American history for which the Senate so uniquely bears 
responsibility.''\18\ Taking a further step to equal the record 
of the House of Representatives, the Senate voted unanimously 
in favor of the Justice for Victims of Lynching Act on December 
19, 2018, putting to rest nearly a century of opposition to 
antilynching legislation in that chamber. The House of 
Representatives, however, failed to pass the Justice for 
Victims of Lynching Act prior to the end of that Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\Avis Thomas-Lester, A Senate Apology for Lynching, Washington 
Post, June 14, 2005, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/
2005/06/14/a-senate-apology-for-history-on-lynching/324dade8-ec0e-46d9-
9674-c81c247eb214/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Bobby Rush introduced H.R. 35, the Emmett 
Till Antilynching Act on January 3, 2019, which passed the 
House of Representatives on February 26, 2020 without amendment 
and nearly unanimously. The current Emmett Till Antilynching 
Act, H.R. 55, builds on the consideration of prior antilynching 
legislation to ensure the Department of Justice is able to 
appropriately prosecute the crime of lynching as a federal hate 
crime.

                                Hearings

    For the purposes of clause 3(c)(6)(A) of House Rule XIII, 
the following hearing was used to develop H.R. 55: On February 
17, 2022, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 
Security held a hearing titled, ``The Rise in Violence Against 
Minority Institutions.'' The witnesses were: Dr. Seth G. Jones, 
Senior Vice President, Harold Brown Chair, and Director of the 
International Security Program and Transnational Threats 
Project, Center for Strategic and International Studies; Dr. 
David K. Wilson, President, Morgan State University; Rabbi 
Charlie Cytron-Walker, Colleyville, Texas; Pardeep Singh 
Kaleka, Executive Director, Interfaith Conference of Greater 
Milwaukee; Margaret Huang, President and CEO, Southern Poverty 
Law Center; Dr. Demetrick Pennie, Retired Police Sergeant, 
Dallas Police Department; and Brandon Tatum, Former Tucson 
Police Officer, Founder and CEO, The Officer Tatum. The hearing 
explored, among other issues, the roots of domestic violence 
extremism in the United States, including the legacy of 
lynchings that took place in the early part of the 20th 
Century.

                        Committee Consideration

    On December 8, 2021, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered the bill, H.R. 55, favorably reported with an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute, by a voice vote, a quorum being 
present.

                            Committee Votes

    No recorded votes occurred during the Committee's 
consideration of H.R. 55.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

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

                Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of House Rule XIII, the 
Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

   New Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of House Rule XIII and section 
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and pursuant to 
clause (3)(c)(3) of House Rule XIII and section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee sets forth, 
with respect to the bill, H.R. 55, the following analysis and 
estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, January 27, 2022.
Hon. Jerrold Nadler,
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. 55, the Emmett 
Till Antilynching Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Lindsay 
Wylie.
            Sincerely,
                                         Phillip L. Swagel,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

    
    

    H.R. 55 would classify the act of lynching as a hate crime. 
Individuals who violate the bill's provisions could be subject 
to criminal fines, so the federal government might collect 
additional fines under the legislation. Criminal fines are 
recorded as revenues and deposited in the Crime Victims Fund. 
Those funds are later spent without further appropriation 
action, which is classified as direct spending. CBO expects 
that any additional revenues and associated direct spending 
would not be significant because few additional cases would 
probably be affected.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Lindsay Wylie. 
The estimate was reviewed by Leo Lex, Deputy Director of Budget 
Analysis.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of House rule XIII, no provision 
of H.R. 55 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the federal 
government known to be duplicative of another federal program.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
House Rule XIII, H.R. 55 will increase public safety and heal 
past and present racial injustice.

                          Advisory on Earmarks

    In accordance with clause 9 of House Rule XXI, H.R. 55 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

    The following discussion describes the bill as reported by 
the Committee.
    Sec. 1. Short Title. Section 1 sets forth the short title 
of the bill as the ``Emmett Till Antilynching Act.''
    Sec. 2. Lynching; Other Conspiracies. Section 2 amends 
section 249(a) of title 18 of the United States Code to add a 
new subsection that designates lynching as a hate crime. If 
death results from the offense, it is punishable by a prison 
term up to life, a fine, or both. In any other case, the 
punishment is the same as the penalties for the offense the 
commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

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

                      TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE



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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 13--CIVIL RIGHTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

  (a) In General.--
          (1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, 
        color, religion, or national origin.--Whoever, whether 
        or not acting under color of law, willfully causes 
        bodily injury to any person or, through the use of 
        fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or 
        incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to 
        any person, because of the actual or perceived race, 
        color, religion, or national origin of any person--
                  (A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 
                years, fined in accordance with this title, or 
                both; and
                  (B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years 
                or for life, fined in accordance with this 
                title, or both, if--
                          (i) death results from the offense; 
                        or
                          (ii) the offense includes kidnapping 
                        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) or paragraph (3), 
                willfully causes bodily injury to any person 
                or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a 
                dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary 
                device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any 
                person, because of the actual or perceived 
                religion, national origin, gender, sexual 
                orientation, gender identity, or disability of 
                any person--
                          (i) shall be imprisoned not more than 
                        10 years, fined in accordance with this 
                        title, or both; and
                          (ii) shall be imprisoned for any term 
                        of years or for life, fined in 
                        accordance with this title, or both, 
                        if--
                                  (I) death results from the 
                                offense; or
                                  (II) the offense includes 
                                kidnapping 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, dangerous 
                        weapon, explosive or incendiary device, 
                        or other weapon that has traveled in 
                        interstate or foreign commerce; or
                          (iv) the conduct described in 
                        subparagraph (A)--
                                  (I) interferes with 
                                commercial or other economic 
                                activity in which the victim is 
                                engaged at the time of the 
                                conduct; or
                                  (II) otherwise affects 
                                interstate or foreign commerce.
          (3) Offenses occurring in the special maritime or 
        territorial jurisdiction of the united states.--
        Whoever, within the special maritime or territorial 
        jurisdiction of the United States, engages in conduct 
        described in paragraph (1) or in paragraph (2)(A) 
        (without regard to whether that conduct occurred in a 
        circumstance described in paragraph (2)(B)) shall be 
        subject to the same penalties as prescribed in those 
        paragraphs.
          (4) Guidelines.--All prosecutions conducted by the 
        United States under this section shall be undertaken 
        pursuant to guidelines issued by the Attorney General, 
        or the designee of the Attorney General, to be included 
        in the United States Attorneys' Manual that shall 
        establish neutral and objective criteria for 
        determining whether a crime was committed because of 
        the actual or perceived status of any person.
          (5) Lynching; other conspiracies.--Whoever conspires 
        to commit any offense under paragraph (1), (2), or (3), 
        shall--
                  (A) if death results from the offense, be 
                imprisoned for any term of years or for life, 
                fined in accordance with this title, or both; 
                or
                  (B) in any other case, be subject to the same 
                penalties as the penalties prescribed for the 
                offense the commission of which was the object 
                of the conspiracy.
  (b) Certification Requirement.--
          (1) In general.--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, or a designee, that--
                  (A) the State does not have jurisdiction;
                  (B) the State has requested that the Federal 
                Government assume jurisdiction;
                  (C) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant 
                to State charges left demonstratively 
                unvindicated the Federal interest in 
                eradicating bias-motivated violence; or
                  (D) a prosecution by the United States is in 
                the public interest and necessary to secure 
                substantial justice.
          (2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
        shall be construed to limit the authority of Federal 
        officers, or a Federal grand jury, to investigate 
        possible violations of this section.
  (c) Definitions.--In this section--
          (1) the term ``bodily injury'' has the meaning given 
        such term in section 1365(h)(4) of this title, but does 
        not include solely emotional or psychological harm to 
        the victim;
          (2) the term ``explosive or incendiary device'' has 
        the meaning given such term in section 232 of this 
        title;
          (3) the term ``firearm'' has the meaning given such 
        term in section 921(a) of this title;
          (4) the term ``gender identity'' means actual or 
        perceived gender-related characteristics; and
          (5) the term ``State'' includes the District of 
        Columbia, Puerto Rico, and any other territory or 
        possession of the United States.
  (d) Statute of Limitations.--
          (1) Offenses not resulting in death.--Except as 
        provided in paragraph (2), no person shall be 
        prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense under 
        this section unless the indictment for such offense is 
        found, or the information for such offense is 
        instituted, not later than 7 years after the date on 
        which the offense was committed.
          (2) Death resulting offenses.--An indictment or 
        information alleging that an offense under this section 
        resulted in death may be found or instituted at any 
        time without limitation.
  (e) Supervised Release.--If a court includes, as a part of a 
sentence of imprisonment imposed for a violation of subsection 
(a), a requirement that the defendant be placed on a term of 
supervised release after imprisonment under section 3583, the 
court may order, as an explicit condition of supervised 
release, that the defendant undertake educational classes or 
community service directly related to the community harmed by 
the defendant's offense.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                            Additional Views

    Lynching is a tragic vestige of a dark period in our 
nation's history. It is a particularly wicked and horrific 
crime that deserves a just and serious punishment. We write 
separately to note particular concern with how the Democrat 
majority amended the definition of ``lynching'' in H.R. 55, the 
Emmett Till Antilynching Act, during the Committee's business 
meeting in a manner that threatens to trivialize this atrocious 
crime.
    Commonly defined as mob-led, extrajudicial killings (often 
by hanging), lynching was prominent in the United States 
following the emancipation of slaves after the Civil War. 
Between 1882 and 1968, 4,743 people were lynched in the United 
States, including 3,446 African Americans and 1,297 whites.\1\ 
More than 73 percent of lynchings in the post-Civil War period 
occurred in the Southern states.\2\ Although some lynching 
victims were accused of crimes, these accusations were often 
pretexts for lynching African Americans who violated Jim Crow 
etiquette or engaged in economic competition with whites.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Aneurin Canham-Clyne, Despite repeated efforts, a federal anti-
lynching law has not passed Congress in 130 years, Howard Center for 
Investigative Journalism (Oct. 31, 2021).
    \2\Id.
    \3\Lynching in America, Confronting the Legacy of Racial Terror, 
Equal Justice Initiative (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1918, Representative Leonidas C. Dyer, a Missouri 
Republican, introduced the first bill in Congress to make 
lynching a federal crime. Over the next century, Members of 
Congress introduced more than 200 antilynching bills. Between 
1920 and 1940, the House of Representatives passed three 
antilynching bills, but Southern Democrats in the Senate 
opposed the bill and blocked further action.\4\ Most recently, 
Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL) has introduced antilynching 
bills in the 115th, 116th, and 117th Congresses.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Aneurin Canham-Clyne, Despite repeated efforts, a federal anti-
lynching law has not passed Congress in 130 years, Howard Center for 
Investigative Journalism (Oct. 31, 2021).
    \5\H.R. 6086, 115th Cong. (2017); H.R. 35, 116th Cong. (2019); H.R. 
55, 117th Cong. (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 55 is named after Emmett Till, a fourteen-year-old boy 
from Chicago who was visiting family in Mississippi. After 
being accused of whistling at a white woman, he was kidnapped, 
beaten, shot in the head, tied to a large metal fan with barbed 
wire, and thrown into the Tallahatchie River. His mother 
bravely chose to have an open casket during her son's funeral 
to show the world the truth about lynching.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\DeNeen L. Brown, Emmett Till's mother opened his casket and 
sparked the Civil Rights Movement. The Wash Post. (Oct. 28, 2021) 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/07 /12/emmett-
tills-mother-openedhis-casket-and-sparked-the-civil-rights-movement/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee should appropriately treat lynching as a 
serious crime, and an antilynching bill should set forth a 
clear and accurate definition of lynching. H.R. 55, as 
introduced, included such a definition. Indeed, its definition 
was identical to the definition in Representatives Rush's bills 
in previous Congresses, including the version approved by the 
Committee in 2019 by voice vote.\7\ H.R. 55, as introduced, 
would add a new federal crime of lynching to 18 U.S.C. 249 and 
define lynching as ``willfully, acting as part of any 
collection of people, assembled for the purpose and with the 
intention of committing an act of violence upon any person, 
caus[ing] death.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\H.R. 35, 116th Cong. (2019). For reasons unclear to Republicans, 
the Democrat majority altered H.R. 35's definition of lynching between 
Committee consideration and floor debate. The new definition, which was 
never explained by the bill's proponents, changed ``lynching'' into 
conspiracy to commit any of four crimes under federal civil rights laws 
and reduce the punishment from life in prison to a maximum of 10 years 
in prison. Although H.R. 35 with this new definition passed the House, 
it did not pass the Senate due to concerns from Senator Rand Paul (R-
KY) that the new definition trivialized the crime of lynching by 
lowering the standard of injury from death to ``bodily injury.''
    \8\H.R. 55, 117th Cong. (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the Committee's consideration of H.R. 55, however, 
Chairman Jerry Nadler offered an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute (ANS) that minimized the importance and the gravity 
of the crime of lynching altogether. Departing from the 
commonly accepted definition of lynching, the ANS would simply 
criminalize conspiracies to commit any type of hate crime. 
Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX), a cosponsor of H.R. 55, 
offered an amendment to the ANS to revert the definition of 
lynching back to the text as introduced. In explaining his 
amendment, Representative Gohmert voiced serious concern that 
the new language would reduce the standard of injury to 
``bodily injury'' and minimize the heinous act of lynching as 
an act that results in injuries as minor as a scratch or a 
bruise. This negligible standard, Representative Gohmert 
explained, would ``minimize our discussion about lynching, and 
it should never minimize how serious it is.'' Unfortunately, 
Representative Gohmert's amendment failed, with 20 Democrat 
cosponsors of H.R. 55 voting against the definition of 
``lynching'' as introduced.
    Representative Gohmert's concerns mirrored those 
articulated by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) during Senate debate in 
the 116th Congress on a previous version of this bill. In 
seeking to clarify the standard of injury as ``serious bodily 
injury,'' Senator Paul explained at the time:

          I seek to amend this legislation, not because I take 
        lynching lightly, but because I take it seriously and 
        this legislation does not. Lynching is a tool of terror 
        that claimed the lives of nearly 5,000 Americans 
        between 1881 and 1968, but this bill would cheapen the 
        meaning of lynching by defining it so broadly as to 
        include a minor bruise or abrasion. Our nation's 
        history of racial terrorism demands more seriousness 
        from us than that.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\166 Cong. Rec. S2715 (2020).

The Senate ultimately failed to act on Senator Paul's 
amendment, and the bill languished until the end of the 116th 
Congress.
    The barbaric violence inflicted on Emmett Till and other 
victims of lynching deserves serious treatment. It is not 
comparable to, and should not treated like, mere bruises or 
scratches. The Committee and the House should ensure that a 
federal definition of lynching appropriately captures the 
seriousness of the crime so that we may ensure it never happens 
again.
                                   Jim Jordan,
                                           Ranking Member.

                                  [all]