---

Mr. McGovern: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 364 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 364

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

Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 1592 pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) is recognized for 1 hour.

Mr. McGovern: Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 364.

The Speaker pro tempore: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

There was no objection.

Mr. McGovern: Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 364 provides for consideration of H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except those arising under clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, modified by the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report, shall be considered as adopted, and the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against the bill, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and of the underlying legislation. H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, is a bipartisan piece of legislation that has already passed the House multiple times with Members from both sides supporting it.

In the 109th Congress, this legislation passed as an amendment to the Child Safety Act by a vote of 223-199. And in both the 108th and 106th Congresses, hate crimes legislation passed with bipartisan support.

With such a demonstrated history of strong bipartisan support, it should come as no surprise that this bill has also garnered the support of 171 cosponsors, Republicans as well as Democrats.

I would like to take note for my colleagues that H.R. 1592 has the support of more than 210 civil rights, education, religious and civic organizations. Equally as important, it has the support and endorsement of the law enforcement community, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Sheriffs Association.

Mr. Speaker, it makes sense that this bill has attracted such a wide range of support. Hate crimes are a serious problem everywhere. They continue to plague our society, and they happen in every State and in every community.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has documented over 113,000 hate crimes since 1991. In 2005 alone, nearly 7,200 crimes were identified by the FBI as hate crimes. But despite this marked occurrence of violent hate crimes, current law limits the ability of the Federal Government to provide assistance to States and localities to prosecute and investigate these crimes. It is long past time that Congress address these shortcomings.

Mr. Speaker, some will claim that this law is not needed. Others will claim that it adversely affects free speech. I strongly, very strongly disagree with both these claims.

First, while we have made progress toward equality in many facets of our society, hate crimes continue to spread in cities and towns across the country. The main reason why we have been unable to aggressively pursue and prosecute hate crimes is because law enforcement agencies in our States and towns lack the tools and resources.

I'd like to point out that this legislation has been endorsed by 31 Attorney Generals from all across the country, the very people who can attest to how critical this legislation is to stemming hate crime violence and to prosecuting and punishing the perpetrators of violent hate crimes.

Secondly, with respect to whether this legislation will have a negative impact on free speech, simply put, it will not. H.R. 1592 does not punish or prohibit in any way first amendment rights. It does not affect name-calling, verbal abuse, hateful expression or hate-filled speech. It only addresses violent criminal acts. In fact, there is a first amendment free expression and free exercise provision explicitly included in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1592 solely applies to bias motivated violent crimes. It does not infringe upon freedom of speech. It can only be applied to violent crimes that result in death or bodily injury where the motivation was based on the bias against a person's perceived race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability.

I want to remind all of my colleagues that behind all of the statistics of hate crimes, there are real people, people who were targeted for violence and who suffered violent attacks simply because of who they are.

Let me tell you a story of Lisa Craig, a 35-year old mother of two from my own State of Massachusetts. In 2003, Craig was assaulted on the street by three teenage girls and kicked in the head multiple times, causing her brain to bleed, and requiring 200 stitches in her head. Craig's partner and her two daughters witnessed the attack by these teenagers who, earlier in the evening, had been shouting anti-gay epithets at the couple.

Lisa Craig's case is just one of thousands, but it demonstrates the bloody results of hate crimes. We need to prevent hate crimes like the one suffered by Lisa Craig from ever occurring again, and we need to give our State and local law enforcement officers and court officials the ability to prosecute and punish the perpetrators of such violent acts for what they are, hate crimes. Passing H.R. 1592 will enable our police, our prosecutors, our judges and our courts to do just that.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Hastings of Washington: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

(Mr. Hastings of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Hastings of Washington: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this closed rule and the underlying bill, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Mr. Speaker, no one supports violent acts of crimes committed out of hatred toward a person based on personal characteristic whether that is ethnicity, gender, religion, weight, height, age, eye color, profession, socioeconomic background, or political beliefs. If someone commits a crime, they should be punished for that crime. Period.

Instead, today, the Democrat majority has chosen to end equality under the law and to bring legislation to the House floor that creates special categories of people. Specifically, this bill allows Federal assistance to be given to State and local law enforcement to investigate and prosecute felonies that are believed to be motivated by prejudice based on actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

This bill also makes certain crimes a felony in cases where the perpetrator was believed to be motivated by bias and there has been a history of such bias-motivated violence.

Separate treatment is afforded for crimes based on hate against protected classes of citizens under this bill, as opposed to crimes against victims that are not in a protected category. As we learned decades ago, separate is not equal.

The Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act is a bad bill and should not be brought to the floor, but especially under the closed process that does not allow for any changes or improvements to the underlying bill.

Eighteen thoughtful amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee yesterday, and sadly, not one of these amendments was allowed to be considered by the full House of Representatives. I am disappointed the Democrat majority again has missed an opportunity to live up to their commitment of allowing input under an open process.

Mr. Speaker, how many special categories of people should this bill create? Have all characteristics for which there has been a history of bias-motivated violence been included in this bill? Should more categories be added and should some be excluded from this bill?

Under this closed rule, these questions will not be answered today by Members of the House through the amendment process.

Yesterday, Mr. Forbes of Virginia offered an amendment to this bill that would expand the list of protected categories of individuals to include members of the Armed Forces. If you believe the government should afford special treatment to crimes committed against special groups of citizens, then why not our military men and women? Why aren't those who volunteer to protect our country's freedom not afforded this protected status?

Mr. Gohmert of Texas offered an amendment that would add law enforcement officers to the list. There have been several instances where gang members and would-be gang members have targeted and killed law enforcement officers because of their hatred towards them for choosing to go to work each day to protect our communities. Is committing a crime against law enforcement officers simply because their job is to uphold our laws a crime not deserving of special assistance to investigate and prosecute that crime?

Crimes have been committed against senior citizens, and an amendment was offered to include them under the hate crimes legislation, but that amendment, too, was not allowed under this closed rule today.

The question remains, if the Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act creates special protection, then whom should it create special protection for? Because this bill is being brought up under a closed rule, Members of the House and the people they represent will not have an opportunity to voice their opinion on this question through the amendment process.

Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this closed rule, which not only gags the minority party, but gags all Members of the House, who will be denied the right to offer improvements to this legislation. I urge my colleagues to oppose the gag order rule and the underlying bill that creates special categories of citizens and ends equality under the law.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGovern: Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter signed by 31 State attorneys general, including the Republican attorney general of the State of Washington, in strong support of the underlying legislation.

Let me also say, Mr. Speaker, that I stand by this rule. We are talking about life and death issues here. We are talking about people's civil rights. And, unfortunately, I think it is clear that there are some on the other side of the aisle who oppose the expansion of civil rights protections for threatened groups living in the United States, and I believe they are flat wrong. But this gives the Members, every Member of the House, the opportunity to vote up or down on whether or not they believe that we should expand protections. I think this is an appropriate rule, and I strongly support the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), a member of the Rules Committee.

Ms. Castor: I thank my distinguished colleague from the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. In doing so, I join with the majority of Americans and law enforcement agencies who understand that violent acts fueled by bigotry and hatred of a particular group simply because of who they are has no place in America.

H.R. 1592, and this rule, strengthens and broadens protections for our neighbors for attacks based on disability, gender, and sexual orientation. This bill provides local law enforcement with tools needed to partner with our Federal law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute these hateful acts.

Why is it needed? Well, unfortunately, in my area of Florida, bigoted crimes are on the rise. This week police arrested and charged two Pinellas County teenagers after they spray-painted anti-Semitic and racial slurs on nine portable classrooms at a local high school.

Last month, a Polk County man was stabbed to death for being gay.

Also last month, the Islamic Education Center of Florida in Tampa was set on fire, and thousands of my neighbors were left without a place to hold religious services.

Last year, two men in neighboring Polk County were jailed on hate crime charges after they threw beer bottles at a club owner in Tampa, who happened to be speaking Arabic, and threatened to kill him.

According to my local State attorney general's offices, 334 hate crimes were reported in Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties in 2004, up from 275 in 2003. Fifty-two of those hate crimes were motivated by sexual orientation in 2004.

Nationwide, victims of hate crimes have reported an average of 191,000 hate crime incidents since the year 2000.

This bill says that we as Americans do not stand for violent acts upon our neighbors based upon who they are; we will not tolerate terrorism against any group of people; and we will provide our local law enforcement agencies with the tools needed to prosecute you when you use violence to spread fear and hate.

Members, I urge you to pass this important bill.

Mr. Hastings of Washington: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), a member of the Judiciary Committee, but more importantly, a former attorney general for the State of California.

Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.

Let's understand what this is. This is a closed rule suggesting that this is a perfect bill. This is anything but a perfect bill. People ought to understand that we are denied the opportunity to present a single amendment on this floor, and let me explain to my colleagues the single amendment I wish to bring to the floor.

This bill defines hate crimes to include a number of different subjects. One of them is a crime committed against someone where the hate was motivated by hatred for their sexual orientation. "Sexual orientation" appears as an undefined term in the bill.

I offered a simple amendment to define sexual orientation as it is noted in the U.S. Code, the only specific reference to a definition in the U.S. Code, which is a note that is a footnote in the statute which directs the Sentencing Commission to take into consideration hate motivation when they want to enhance penalties. There is no statutory definition of it, however, with respect to the crime itself. And that note refers to sexual orientation simply as consensual homosexual or heterosexual conduct.

Now, why would they not allow us to have that simple amendment, which when we discussed it in committee, I was told that is what they meant the bill to be? The chairman of the committee said to me it sounded like a reasonable amendment because that's exactly what they intended it to be. So why don't we have the opportunity to offer this amendment on the floor? I do not know.

And why would I be concerned about a failure for us to define this term? Because if you use the term "sexual orientation" and use the definition found in the dictionary of those two words, it means any orientation of sexual conduct. Now, why would I be concerned, being a former attorney general of the State of California and having served in this Congress now for seven terms representing my State? Because I recall some 20 years ago when a debate ensued in my then-existing district in Palos Verdes, California, where the local chapter of NAMBLA, which is the North American Man/Boy Love Association, NAMBLA, and the dispute was that they wanted to have their local chapter meetings at the local library. Some of you may have seen their banners in certain parades that take place in San Francisco, where NAMBLA, instead of hiding, proudly proclaims their position of "sexual orientation." They argue, for instance, that we are denying children their right to have sexual expression with adults and that somehow we are hampering their development.

I am not making this up, my colleagues. This is a fact. And under a nondefined term of "sexual orientation," that very well may be included.

I could give you other examples, but that is a current example. And in order to make sure that that kind of activity is not enshrined in the law and given special protection, I asked for this simple amendment. And when I was in debate in the committee, I was told by the chairman that it made ample sense and we ought to work to do that.

So then I go before the distinguished Committee on Rules, make this presentation, have no argument against it, and yet am denied the simple opportunity to offer that.

So the question is why? If you don't want to extend this definition, if you don't want to have this free play out there in the legal atmosphere, why do you deny me the opportunity to present this simple amendment? Is there a hidden agenda here? Is there something we don't know? Are we flying under false flags here? What are we doing?

This is more, my colleagues, than just a dispute between the majority versus the minority on the Rules Committee. This is more than just hampering the minority. This is a question of simple definition which goes to a crucial question in our society today.

So my concern, my colleagues, is not fanciful. It is not made up. It is not something that may happen in the future. This is based on an experience that I have seen for 20-plus years in my home State. And yet when I asked to have this considered, I was told that it made eminent sense, we basically hear a great silence. A great silence.

Now, we can have games here in the House of Representatives, majority versus minority, but when it affects the lives of our constituents, when it affects in a very real way a serious social question in our society, it seems to me we ought to rise above this kind of nonsense, and we ought to at least give the Members the opportunity to consider it.

Maybe the Members don't agree with me. Maybe the Members think we ought to expand this definition. But at least we ought to have the chance to debate it.

Last time I checked, we're not under a time clock here that requires us to leave. We could consider this.

So I would ask my colleagues to please vote down this rule. Allow us to bring forward a rule that allows consideration of these and other amendments.

Mr. McGovern: Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), I would like to give my colleagues a couple of examples of the kinds of crimes that we're talking about here.

In Los Angeles, California, 2003, after seeing him hugging another man on the street, three men attacked Treve Broudy, who was 34 years old, with a baseball bat. The incident left Broudy in a coma. Broudy was also hospitalized for approximately 10 weeks after the attack, and has lost half of his vision and has experienced trouble hearing.

In Charlottesville, Virginia, in 1997, James Kittredge was attacked by three young men he offered a ride to outside of a gay club in Charlottesville, Virginia. The men offered to take him to party, but instead they dragged Kittredge out of his car, where they beat him, smashing eight of his ribs and eye socket, urinated on him, put cigarettes out on him and locked him in his own trunk. He was found over a day later.

I can go on and on and on with examples of these hate crimes, but this is what we are trying to prevent, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas: Let me thank the Rules Committee for very diligent and thorough review. About 14 Members of Congress were able to present their case before the Rules Committee.

I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, to reaffirm that this is about hate. There are already well-recognized doctrines and no disagreement that no matter who you are as an adult, sex with children is wrong. Many of us have enthusiastically supported Federal laws that already oppose that kind of abuse and violation.

It is important to note that not only in the Rules Committee did Members have the opportunity to make the case as to the relevance of their amendments to this bill, but we sat for hours and hours in the Judiciary Committee going over amendment after amendment, amendments that were not about hate. They were, of course, certainly elements that one could raise, but they were protected in other aspects of the law. This bill pertains specifically to historical documented cases that, because of your disability or because of your race, because of your gender, because of your gender identity you have been abused.

You have not seen the depth of degradation unless you've listened to people who have come to you in tears, who cannot, for any reason, tell you why they are who they are, but they say they are who they are, sort of a mix of words. And the pain of living as a human being who is rejected every day of their life, fearful that they may encounter brutality, that is the simplicity of this bill. That is why 31 Attorney Generals currently serving have said we need this. That is why they have asked the Federal Government simply to help us calm the communities, prosecute the cases, make sure that those who have a historical investment in themselves, who they are, can be protected; that a young Hispanic teenager does not have to be brutalized by skinheads. It is emotional, it is tearful, but it is true.

And so when my colleagues talk about this rule, let me assure you that hours upon hours of attention to amendments have already been given, debated, presented. But what we have tried to do is to answer the pain, answer the violence, and yes, answer the call of 31 attorneys of the United States of America.

Pass this rule so that we can debate the question of preventing hate.

Mr. Hastings of Washington: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Gohmert: Mr. Speaker, this is a critical piece of legislation, not from the good that it will do, but from the chilling and even killing effect it will have down the road on free speech.

Now, I know that there are people that have said that this is an overreaction, much like people said in 1935 and 1936 that those nuts here on the floor that were concerned Social Security numbers, once created, might be used as identification numbers, and they were promised and assured that it would not happen. But some folks here could see down the road where it was going.

Now, the rule on this is so grossly unfair. If you really want to deal with hate crimes, what about the hate crimes for the elderly? We've seen that recently. They're not part of this. No, that wasn't part of the agenda. You can have a 100-year-old woman beat up by some mean thug, but that doesn't count; we're not going to prosecute. She doesn't deserve protected status.

Frankly, I had a hard time believing we were taking up this law immediately after the tragedy at Virginia Tech. We even had a Holocaust survivor that was randomly shot. I had an amendment proposed that was struck in committee, and the rule being proposed is a closed rule, no amendments, but that would address random violence. Because what we see is a Federal offense where a defense will be, you know what, I didn't hate these people, I just randomly chose someone. It's a senseless act of violence. That will be a defense to an important element of this new created Federal offense.

Another thing we keep hearing people say is, and I had an amendment to address this, is being shut out. We should have had a right to vote on this. People say, well, no, you are specifically protected under the rule of evidence provision in this law. We even had Mr. Davis' amendment that further said religious speech is protected. But what they don't point to is what I'm pointing to, under that it says, "It may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to the offense."

Well, when you tie that with current existing Federal law, 18 U.S.C. 2(a), the law of principals, which is a good law, most States have it, the Federal Code has it, it says, Whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures a crime's commission is punishable, just as the principal. And for those of us who have been judges or prosecutors and have prosecuted or seen prosecuted people as a principal who didn't commit the offense, but they induced it, then you know every statement, things that you said to induce, could be introduced. That's where they go after ministers.

I think a large part of this is the fact that many people do not understand a Christian heart because they just don't like people that disagree with them. Whereas the Christian, the true Christian heart can disagree with people and love them, love them deeply and be willing to give their lives for them.

This is an unfair law, the way the rule is being put to it. We are not going to protect religious speech because you can go after a minister, and this came up in committee, you can go after a minister who says, gee, relations outside of a marriage with a man and a woman is wrong. Someone goes out after hearing that, shoots somebody, and then he says, well, the preacher told me it was wrong, that's what induced me to do that, the sermons, the Bible teachings, whatnot, that the preacher used that this person may have heard are all relevant on whether or not he was a principal and can go to prison for the actual shooting. And it also provides that nothing changes the rule of impeachment.

So if he says, well, no, I never advocate violence, well, here comes everything he has ever said, his hard drives, his files, and we had an amendment to deal with that, and we were not allowed to use it.

This is not a good law. These things are already protected. We ought to have an open rule to fix it.

Mr. Hastings of Washington: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bad rule because it's a closed rule, which has been demonstrated with the observations of Mr. Lungren and Mr. Gohmert.

Mr. Speaker, if someone commits a crime, they should be punished. Period. This is a bill that ends equality under the law by authorizing $10 million in grants over 2 years to State and local law enforcement to combat hate crimes targeted to special categories of people. It is a bad bill. This rule is a bad bill, not allowing for improvement, so I ask Members to oppose the rule and the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGovern: Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record at this time a list of endorsements from law enforcement organizations all across the country. I will also submit for the Record the endorsement of the National Education Association, the Religious Action Center of Reformed Judaism, the Matthew Shepard Foundation and the UAW.

Mr. McGovern: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us provides much needed support for local law enforcement agencies in the fight against violent hate crimes. That's why so many law enforcement agencies all across the country are enthusiastically supporting this legislation. That's why 31 State Attorney Generals, including the Republican Attorney General from the State of Washington, supports this bill.

Victims have reported an average of 191,000 hate crime incidents annually since the year 2000. Seventy-three percent of Americans support strengthening hate crimes laws.

This bill, as I said, is endorsed by virtually every major law enforcement organization in the country. The legislation is also supported by President George H.W. Bush's Attorney General, Dick Thornburg. This legislation is virtually identical to the version approved by a bipartisan majority in the Republican-led 109th Congress.

Hate crimes affect more than one individual, Mr. Speaker. It is committed with the intention of terrorizing a group of people or an entire community.

Now, we've heard arguments from some on the other side that this bill somehow violates the first amendment. In fact, the measure includes an explicit statement that the bill may not be interpreted as limiting first amendment protections language that is based on the existing Washington State hate crime statute. The provision only applies when a person's conduct, not thought or speech, is being punished.

Mr. Speaker, the United States Supreme Court has rejected the claim that a hate crime law is a law against thoughts. The Supreme Court recognized in Wisconsin v. Mitchell that it is common to take motive into account in criminal law.

So to those of my colleagues who are worried about protecting bigoted speech, they can stop worrying because this bill, sadly, will not affect that kind of speech.

Now, some have argued that this law is an unnecessary extension of the Federal Government. The bill provides support and resources to assist local law enforcement agencies. The majority of hate crimes will still be prosecuted at the State level. The Federal Government only has jurisdiction in certainly limited and extreme circumstances.

The Federal Government has the responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to protect all Americans against bigotry and against violent crime.

So what we have before us, Mr. Speaker, is relatively simple; you either support providing an expansion of civil liberties and civil rights and civil protections under the law, or you don't. So that is the question that my colleagues have to deal with.

I think the answer is simple. I think we should support this legislation. This is a good bill. It should enjoy bipartisanship support because it has in the past. I would urge all of my colleagues to support this rule and to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The Speaker pro tempore: The question is on ordering the previous question.

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. Hastings of Washington: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The Speaker pro tempore: Evidently a quorum is not present.

The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.

Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of the resolution.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, nays 196, not voting 19, as follows:

Roll No. 296 - H. Res. 364
YEAS--217
Abercrombie	Ackerman	Allen	Altmire	Andrews
Arcuri	Baca	Baird	Baldwin	Bean
Becerra	Berkley	Berman	Bishop (GA)	Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer	Boren	Boswell	Boucher	Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)	Braley (IA)	Brown, Corrine	Butterfield	Capps
Capuano	Cardoza	Carnahan	Carney	Carson
Castor	Chandler	Clarke	Clay	Cleaver
Clyburn	Cohen	Conyers	Cooper	Costa
Costello	Courtney	Cramer	Crowley	Cuellar
Cummings	Davis (AL)	Davis (CA)	Davis (IL)	Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio	DeGette	Delahunt	DeLauro	Dicks
Dingell	Doggett	Donnelly	Doyle	Edwards
Ellison	Ellsworth	Emanuel	Eshoo	Etheridge
Farr	Filner	Frank (MA)	Giffords	Gillibrand
Gonzalez	Gordon	Green, Al	Green, Gene	Grijalva
Gutierrez	Hall (NY)	Hare	Harman	Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin	Higgins	Hill	Hinchey	Hinojosa
Hodes	Holden	Holt	Honda	Hooley
Hoyer	Inslee	Israel	Jackson (IL)	Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson	Johnson (GA)	Kagen	Kanjorski	Kaptur
Kennedy	Kildee	Kilpatrick	Kind	Klein (FL)
Kucinich	Langevin	Lantos	Larsen (WA)	Larson (CT)
Lee	Levin	Lewis (GA)	Lipinski	Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe	Lowey	Lynch	Mahoney (FL)	Maloney (NY)
Markey	Marshall	Matheson	Matsui	McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)	McDermott	McGovern	McIntyre	McNerney
McNulty	Meehan	Meek (FL)	Meeks (NY)	Melancon
Michaud	Miller (NC)	Miller, George	Mitchell	Mollohan
Moore (KS)	Moore (WI)	Murphy (CT)	Murphy, Patrick	Murtha
Nadler	Napolitano	Neal (MA)	Oberstar	Obey
Olver	Pallone	Pascrell	Pastor	Payne
Perlmutter	Peterson (MN)	Pomeroy	Price (NC)	Rahall
Rangel	Reyes	Rodriguez	Rothman	Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger	Rush	Ryan (OH)	Salazar	Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta	Sarbanes	Schakowsky	Schiff	Schwartz
Scott (GA)	Scott (VA)	Serrano	Sestak	Shea-Porter
Sherman	Shuler	Sires	Skelton	Slaughter
Smith (WA)	Snyder	Solis	Space	Spratt
Stark	Stupak	Sutton	Tauscher	Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)	Tierney	Towns	Udall (CO)	Udall (NM)
Van Hollen	Velazquez	Visclosky	Walz (MN)	Wasserman Schultz
Waters	Watson	Watt	Waxman	Weiner
Welch (VT)	Wexler	Wilson (OH)	Woolsey	Wu
Wynn	Yarmuth
NAYS--196
Aderholt	Akin	Alexander	Bachmann	Bachus
Baker	Barrett (SC)	Barrow	Bartlett (MD)	Barton (TX)
Berry	Biggert	Bilbray	Bilirakis	Bishop (UT)
Blackburn	Blunt	Boehner	Bonner	Bono
Boozman	Boustany	Boyd (FL)	Brady (TX)	Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny	Buchanan	Burgess	Burton (IN)	Buyer
Calvert	Camp (MI)	Campbell (CA)	Cannon	Cantor
Capito	Carter	Castle	Chabot	Coble
Cole (OK)	Conaway	Crenshaw	Davis (KY)	Davis, David
Davis, Tom	Deal (GA)	Dent	Diaz-Balart, L.	Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle	Drake	Dreier	Duncan	Ehlers
Emerson	English (PA)	Everett	Fallin	Feeney
Ferguson	Flake	Forbes	Fortenberry	Fossella
Foxx	Franks (AZ)	Frelinghuysen	Gallegly	Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach	Gilchrest	Gillmor	Gohmert	Goode
Goodlatte	Granger	Hall (TX)	Hastert	Hastings (WA)
Hayes	Heller	Hensarling	Herger	Hobson
Hoekstra	Hulshof	Inglis (SC)	Issa	Jindal
Johnson (IL)	Johnson, Sam	Jones (NC)	Jordan	Keller
King (IA)	King (NY)	Kingston	Kirk	Kline (MN)
Knollenberg	Kuhl (NY)	LaHood	Lamborn	Latham
LaTourette	Lewis (CA)	Lewis (KY)	Linder	LoBiondo
Lucas	Lungren, Daniel E.	Mack	Manzullo	Marchant
McCarthy (CA)	McCaul (TX)	McCotter	McCrery	McHenry
McHugh	McKeon	Mica	Miller (FL)	Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary	Moran (KS)	Murphy, Tim	Musgrave	Myrick
Neugebauer	Nunes	Pearce	Pence	Peterson (PA)
Petri	Pickering	Pitts	Platts	Poe
Porter	Price (GA)	Pryce (OH)	Putnam	Ramstad
Regula	Rehberg	Reichert	Renzi	Reynolds
Rogers (AL)	Rogers (KY)	Rogers (MI)	Rohrabacher	Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam	Ross	Royce	Ryan (WI)	Sali
Saxton	Schmidt	Sensenbrenner	Sessions	Shadegg
Shays	Shimkus	Shuster	Simpson	Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)	Smith (TX)	Souder	Stearns	Sullivan
Taylor	Terry	Thornberry	Tiahrt	Tiberi
Turner	Upton	Walberg	Walden (OR)	Walsh (NY)
Wamp	Weldon (FL)	Weller	Westmoreland	Whitfield
Wicker	Wilson (NM)	Wilson (SC)	Wolf	Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--19
Cubin	Culberson	Davis, Jo Ann	Engel	Fattah
Gingrey	Graves	Hirono	Hunter	Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)	Lampson	McMorris Rodgers	Moran (VA)	Ortiz
Paul	Radanovich	Tancredo	Tanner

Mr. Duncan, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, and Mr. Burgess changed their vote from "yea" to "nay."

So the previous question was ordered.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Stated for:

Ms. Hirono: Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 296, I was attending a hearing on S. 310, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007 and missed this vote. Had I been present, I would have voted "yea."

The Speaker pro tempore: The question is on the resolution.

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. Hastings of Washington: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The Speaker pro tempore: This will be a 5-minute vote.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213, noes 199, not voting 20, as follows:

Roll No. 297
AYES--213
Abercrombie	Ackerman	Allen	Altmire	Andrews
Arcuri	Baca	Baird	Baldwin	Barrow
Bean	Becerra	Berkley	Berman	Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)	Blumenauer	Boren	Boswell	Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)	Braley (IA)	Brown, Corrine	Butterfield	Capps
Capuano	Cardoza	Carnahan	Carson	Castor
Chandler	Clarke	Clay	Cleaver	Clyburn
Cohen	Conyers	Cooper	Costa	Costello
Courtney	Cramer	Crowley	Cuellar	Cummings
Davis (AL)	Davis (CA)	Davis (IL)	Davis, Lincoln	DeFazio
DeGette	Delahunt	DeLauro	Dicks	Dingell
Doggett	Donnelly	Doyle	Edwards	Ellison
Emanuel	Eshoo	Etheridge	Farr	Filner
Frank (MA)	Giffords	Gillibrand	Gonzalez	Gordon
Green, Al	Green, Gene	Grijalva	Gutierrez	Hall (NY)
Hare	Harman	Hastings (FL)	Herseth Sandlin	Higgins
Hill	Hinchey	Hinojosa	Hirono	Hodes
Holden	Holt	Honda	Hooley	Hoyer
Inslee	Israel	Jackson (IL)	Jackson-Lee (TX)	Jefferson
Johnson (GA)	Kagen	Kanjorski	Kaptur	Kennedy
Kildee	Kilpatrick	Kind	Klein (FL)	Kucinich
Langevin	Lantos	Larsen (WA)	Larson (CT)	Lee
Levin	Lewis (GA)	Lipinski	Loebsack	Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey	Lynch	Maloney (NY)	Markey	Marshall
Matheson	Matsui	McCarthy (NY)	McCollum (MN)	McDermott
McGovern	McNerney	McNulty	Meehan	Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)	Melancon	Michaud	Miller (NC)	Miller, George
Mitchell	Mollohan	Moore (KS)	Moore (WI)	Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick	Murtha	Nadler	Napolitano	Neal (MA)
Oberstar	Obey	Olver	Pallone	Pascrell
Pastor	Payne	Perlmutter	Peterson (MN)	Pomeroy
Price (NC)	Rahall	Rangel	Reyes	Rodriguez
Rothman	Roybal-Allard	Ruppersberger	Rush	Ryan (OH)
Salazar	Sanchez, Linda T.	Sanchez, Loretta	Sarbanes	Schakowsky
Schiff	Schwartz	Scott (GA)	Scott (VA)	Serrano
Sestak	Shea-Porter	Sherman	Sires	Skelton
Slaughter	Smith (WA)	Snyder	Solis	Space
Spratt	Stark	Stupak	Sutton	Tauscher
Thompson (CA)	Thompson (MS)	Tierney	Towns	Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)	Van Hollen	Velazquez	Visclosky	Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz	Waters	Watson	Watt	Waxman
Weiner	Welch (VT)	Wexler	Wilson (OH)	Woolsey
Wu	Wynn	Yarmuth
NOES--199
Aderholt	Akin	Alexander	Bachmann	Bachus
Baker	Barrett (SC)	Bartlett (MD)	Barton (TX)	Berry
Biggert	Bilbray	Bilirakis	Bishop (UT)	Blackburn
Blunt	Boehner	Bonner	Bono	Boozman
Boustany	Boyd (FL)	Brady (TX)	Brown (SC)	Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan	Burgess	Burton (IN)	Buyer	Calvert
Camp (MI)	Campbell (CA)	Cannon	Cantor	Capito
Carney	Carter	Castle	Chabot	Coble
Cole (OK)	Conaway	Crenshaw	Davis (KY)	Davis, David
Davis, Tom	Deal (GA)	Dent	Diaz-Balart, L.	Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle	Drake	Dreier	Duncan	Ehlers
Ellsworth	Emerson	English (PA)	Everett	Fallin
Feeney	Ferguson	Flake	Forbes	Fortenberry
Fossella	Foxx	Franks (AZ)	Frelinghuysen	Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)	Gerlach	Gilchrest	Gillmor	Gohmert
Goode	Goodlatte	Granger	Hall (TX)	Hastert
Hastings (WA)	Hayes	Hensarling	Herger	Hobson
Hoekstra	Hulshof	Inglis (SC)	Issa	Jindal
Johnson (IL)	Johnson, Sam	Jones (NC)	Jordan	Keller
King (IA)	King (NY)	Kingston	Kirk	Kline (MN)
Knollenberg	Kuhl (NY)	LaHood	Lamborn	Latham
LaTourette	Lewis (CA)	Lewis (KY)	Linder	LoBiondo
Lucas	Lungren, Daniel E.	Mack	Mahoney (FL)	Manzullo
Marchant	McCarthy (CA)	McCaul (TX)	McCotter	McCrery
McHenry	McHugh	McIntyre	McKeon	Mica
Miller (FL)	Miller (MI)	Miller, Gary	Moran (KS)	Murphy, Tim
Musgrave	Myrick	Neugebauer	Nunes	Pearce
Pence	Peterson (PA)	Petri	Pickering	Pitts
Platts	Poe	Porter	Price (GA)	Pryce (OH)
Putnam	Ramstad	Regula	Rehberg	Reichert
Renzi	Reynolds	Rogers (AL)	Rogers (KY)	Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher	Ros-Lehtinen	Roskam	Ross	Royce
Ryan (WI)	Sali	Saxton	Schmidt	Sensenbrenner
Sessions	Shadegg	Shays	Shimkus	Shuler
Shuster	Simpson	Smith (NE)	Smith (NJ)	Smith (TX)
Souder	Stearns	Sullivan	Taylor	Terry
Thornberry	Tiahrt	Tiberi	Turner	Upton
Walberg	Walden (OR)	Walsh (NY)	Wamp	Weldon (FL)
Weller	Westmoreland	Whitfield	Wicker	Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)	Wolf	Young (AK)	Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--20
Boucher	Cubin	Culberson	Davis, Jo Ann	Engel
Fattah	Gingrey	Graves	Heller	Hunter
Johnson, E. B.	Jones (OH)	Lampson	McMorris Rodgers	Moran (VA)
Ortiz	Paul	Radanovich	Tancredo	Tanner

Mrs. Boyda of Kansas changed her vote from "no" to "aye."

So the resolution was agreed to.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 364, I call up the bill (H.R. 1592) to provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 1592

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.

(2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive.

(3) State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance.

(4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.

(5) A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.

(6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following:

(A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.

(B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.

(C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.

(D) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.

(E) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce.

(7) For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, through widespread public and private violence directed at persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.

(8) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States were adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious and national origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct "races". Thus, in order to eliminate, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

(9) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local authorities to work together as partners in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes.

(10) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.

In this Act--

(1) the term "crime of violence" has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;

(2) the term "hate crime" has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and

(3) the term "local" means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.

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

(a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance.--

(1) In general.--At the request of State, local, or Tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that--

(A) constitutes a crime of violence;

(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or Tribal laws; and

(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Tribal hate crime laws.

(2) Priority.--In providing assistance under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one State and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or prosecution of the crime.

(b) Grants.--

(1) In general.--The Attorney General may award grants to State, local, and Indian law enforcement agencies for extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.

(2) Office of justice programs.--In implementing the grant program under this subsection, the Office of Justice Programs shall work closely with grantees to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties, including community groups and schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed through the local infrastructure developed under the grants.

(3) Application.--

(A) In general.--Each State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency that desires a grant under this subsection shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by or containing such information as the Attorney General shall reasonably require.

(B) Date for submission.--Applications submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be submitted during the 60-day period beginning on a date that the Attorney General shall prescribe.

(C) Requirements.--A State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency applying for a grant under this subsection shall--

(i) describe the extraordinary purposes for which the grant is needed;

(ii) certify that the State, local government, or Indian tribe lacks the resources necessary to investigate or prosecute the hate crime;

(iii) demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement the grant, the State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, nongovernmental victim services programs that have experience in providing services to victims of hate crimes; and

(iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this subsection will be used to supplement, not supplant, non- Federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded under this subsection.

(4) Deadline.--An application for a grant under this subsection shall be approved or denied by the Attorney General not later than 30 business days after the date on which the Attorney General receives the application.

(5) Grant amount.--A grant under this subsection shall not exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any 1-year period.

(6) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2008, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report describing the applications submitted for grants under this subsection, the award of such grants, and the purposes for which the grant amounts were expended.

(7) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

SEC. 5. GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) Authority To Award Grants.--The Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice may award grants, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to State, local, or Tribal programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.

(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.

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

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

SEC. 7. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.

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

"Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

(a) In General.--

(1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin.--Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--

(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

(i) death results from the offense; or

(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

(2) Offenses involving actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.--

(A) In general.--Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--

(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

(I) death results from the offense; or

(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

(B) Circumstances described.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that--

(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim--

(I) across a State line or national border; or

(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;

(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);

(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or

(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--

(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or

(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.

(b) Certification Requirement.--No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General that--

(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and

(2) such certifying individual has consulted with State or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution and determined that--

(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction;

(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;

(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government assuming jurisdiction; or

(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.

(c) Definitions.--In this section--

(1) the term 'explosive or incendiary device' has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;

(2) the term 'firearm' has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title; and

(3) the term 'gender identity' for the purposes of this chapter means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.

(d) Rule of Evidence.--In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.".

(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

"249. Hate crime acts.".

SEC. 8. STATISTICS.

(a) In General.--Subsection (b)(1) of the first section of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting "gender and gender identity," after "race,".

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

SEC. 9. SEVERABILITY.

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