The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. McNulty) Pursuant to House Resolution 364, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in House Report 110-120, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, 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. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.
In this Act--
(1) the term "crime of violence" has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;
(2) the term "hate crime" has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and
(3) the term "local" means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.
SEC. 3. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS BY STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.
(a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance.--
(1) In general.--At the request of State, local, or Tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that--
(A) constitutes a crime of violence;
(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or Tribal laws; and
(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Tribal hate crime laws.
(2) Priority.--In providing assistance under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one State and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or prosecution of the crime.
(b) Grants.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General may award grants to State, local, and Indian law enforcement agencies for extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.
(2) Office of justice programs.--In implementing the grant program under this subsection, the Office of Justice Programs shall work closely with grantees to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties, including community groups and schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed through the local infrastructure developed under the grants.
(3) Application.--
(A) In general.--Each State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency that desires a grant under this subsection shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by or containing such information as the Attorney General shall reasonably require.
(B) Date for submission.--Applications submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be submitted during the 60-day period beginning on a date that the Attorney General shall prescribe.
(C) Requirements.--A State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency applying for a grant under this subsection shall--
(i) describe the extraordinary purposes for which the grant is needed;
(ii) certify that the State, local government, or Indian tribe lacks the resources necessary to investigate or prosecute the hate crime;
(iii) demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement the grant, the State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, nongovernmental violence recovery service programs that have experience in providing services to victims of hate crimes; and
(iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this subsection will be used to supplement, not supplant, non- Federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded under this subsection.
(4) Deadline.--An application for a grant under this subsection shall be approved or denied by the Attorney General not later than 30 business days after the date on which the Attorney General receives the application.
(5) Grant amount.--A grant under this subsection shall not exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any 1-year period.
(6) Report.--Not later than December 31, 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. 4. GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Authority To Award Grants.--The Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice may award grants, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to State, local, or Tribal programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Justice, including the Community Relations Service, for fiscal years 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. 6. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
Sec. 249. Hate crime acts
(a) In General.--
(1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin.--Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--
(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
(i) death results from the offense; or
(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
(2) Offenses involving actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.--
(A) In general.--Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--
(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
(I) death results from the offense; or
(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
(B) Circumstances described.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that--
(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim--
(I) across a State line or national border; or
(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;
(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);
(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or
(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--
(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or
(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.
(b) Certification Requirement.--No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General that--
(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and
(2) such certifying individual has consulted with State or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution and determined that--
(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction;
(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;
(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government assuming jurisdiction; or
(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.
(c) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term 'explosive or incendiary device' has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;
(2) the term 'firearm' has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title; and
(3) the term 'gender identity' for the purposes of this chapter means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.
(d) Rule of Evidence.--In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.".
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
249. Hate crime acts.
SEC. 7. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.
The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1592.
The Speaker pro tempore: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the hate crimes bill, H.R. 1592, will provide assistance to State and local enforcement agencies and amend Federal law to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of violent, bias-motivated crimes.
Last Congress, this legislation passed with a bipartisan vote, and it also passed in the 108th Congress and the 106th Congress. So we have the same bill before us that we had in the 109th Congress.
This legislation has attracted the support of over 211 civil rights organizations, educational institutions, religious organizations, civic groups; and importantly, virtually every major law enforcement organization in the country has endorsed the bill, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the Police Executive Research Forum and 26 State attorneys general.
Hate crimes are disturbingly prevalent and pose a significant threat to the full participation of all Americans in our democratic society. It just so happens that we documented 113,000 hate crimes by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and in the year 2005, the most current data available, the FBI compiled reports on law enforcement agencies across the country, identifying 7,163 bias-motivated criminal incidents.
The fact of the matter that is known to law enforcement is that hate crime incidents are notoriously underreported; and so we come here today to take the civil rights laws that we have passed across the years to the last, final extent, to crimes of violence based on the hate of the individual, intended to intimidate the class or group that that individual comes from.
We have a strong bill. We have more supporters than ever in the Congress and in the national community, and we know that the current law limits Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin, but only when the victim is targeted because he or she is engaged in a Federal protected activity, such as voting.
Further, the existing statutes do not permit Federal involvement in a range of cases where the crimes are motivated by bias against the victims' actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability.
This legislation, identical to the version approved in the 109th Congress, will strengthen existing Federal law in the same way that the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 helped Federal prosecutors combat church arson, by addressing the rigid jurisdictional requirements under Federal law and expand the jurisdiction to crimes motivated by bias against the victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability.
This bill only applies to bias-motivated crimes of violence. It does not impinge on public speech or writing in any way. In fact, the measure improves two explicit first amendment free speech protections for the accused, and we want you to know that there are no first amendment disabilities about this measure in any way. As a personal advocate of the first amendment, I can assure you that that would be the last thing that would be allowed to be in this bill.
What we are saying now is that a vote for this bill is not a vote in favor of any particular sexual belief or characteristic. It is a vote, rather, to provide basic rights for and protection for individuals so that they are protected from assaults based on their sexual orientation.
But the majority of incidents reported on racially motivated crimes, 54 percent, are based on racially motivated crimes, 17 percent on religious bias, and 14 percent on sexual orientation bias.
The time has come for the Congress to finally deal with this whole subject of hate crimes. It is a blot on our constitutional understanding of what democracy is all about, and it is so important that today we debate and pass finally the hate crimes law that has been here and approved in three different Congresses.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Smith of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill, H.R. 1592, for three reasons. First, the bill will result in disproportionate justice for crime victims who do not fall within the categories it contains. Second, it will have a chilling effect on religious freedom and first amendment rights. And third, it is probably unconstitutional and raises significant Federalism issues.
We can all agree that every violent crime is deplorable, regardless of its motivation. Every violent crime can be devastating not only to the victim, but also to the larger community whose public safety has been violated. That is why all violent crimes must be vigorously prosecuted. However, this bill, no matter how well intended, undermines basic principles of our criminal justice system.
Our criminal justice system has been built on the ideal of equal justice for all. Under this bill, justice will no longer be equal, but depend on the race, sex, sexual orientation, disability or status of the victim. It will allow different penalties to be imposed for the same crime. For example, criminals who kill a homosexual or transsexual will be punished more harshly than criminals who kill a police officer, a member of the military, a child, a senior citizen or any other person.
To me, all victims should have equal worth in the eyes of the law. In fact, in 1984, Congress, in a bipartisan manner, enacted the Sentencing Reform Act to ensure the consistent application of criminal penalties to avoid, "unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants who have been found guilty of similar criminal conduct."
Why are we departing from the fairness embodied in that Act? Ordinarily, criminal law does not concern itself with motive, but rather with intent.
This legislation forces law enforcement officials to comb the offender's past to determine whether the offender ever expressed hostility toward a protected group. In addition, the bill raises the real possibility that religious leaders or members of religious groups could become the subject of a criminal investigation focusing on a suspect's religious beliefs, membership and religious organizations and any past statements made by a suspect. A chilling effect on religious leaders and others who, press their constitutionally protected beliefs, unfortunately, could result.
Some of my colleagues on the other side will claim that an amendment adopted during committee markup protects religious speech. However, it would not diminish the chilling effect of possible involvement in criminal investigations. Religious speakers and groups will feel in greater jeopardy as a result of this bill.
The facts of the Supreme Court decision in Wisconsin v. Mitchell underscore the danger of this legislation. In that case, Todd Mitchell received an enhanced hate crime sentence because of remarks he made to prior to others attacking a teenager because of his race. Mitchell did not participate in the physical assault of the teenager. His sentence was upheld. He was punished for his words.
My colleagues on the other side have argued that no prosecutor would ever subject members of a religious community to the criminal process. Are we willing to take the risk and leave the first amendment protections to a prosecutor's discretion?
I also believe the bill itself is probably unconstitutional and will likely be struck down by the courts. There is little evidence to support the claim that hate crimes impact interstate or foreign commerce, an important consideration for any Federal court reviewing the constitutionality of this legislation.
In 2000, the Supreme Court in the United States v. Morrison struck down a prohibition on gender-motivated violence. In that case, the court specifically warned Congress that the commerce clause does not apply to noneconomic violent criminal conduct that does not cross State lines, nor does the proposed legislation authorized under the 14th and 15th amendments. Those amendments only extend to State action and do not cover the actions of private persons who commit violent crimes.
While the 13th amendment reaches private conduct such as individual criminal conduct, it is difficult to argue that one's sexual orientation, disability or gender identity constitutes a badge and incidence of slavery. Aside from the constitutional defects of this bill, it purports to federalize crimes that are being effectively prosecuted by our States and local governments.
FBI statistics show that the incidence of so-called hate crimes has actually declined over the last 10 years. Only six of approximately 15,000 homicides in the Nation involved hate crimes.
As the Washington Post stated in a previous editorial, "Rape, murder and assault--no matter what prejudice motivates the perpetrator--are presumptively local matters in which the Federal Government should intervene only when it has a pressing interest. The fact that hatred lurks behind a violent incident is not, in our view, an adequate Federal interest …"
Unfortunately we cannot legislate away the hatred that some feel in their hearts. We need fewer labels and more unity in our country. For all the reasons I have mentioned above, I oppose the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the committee, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin.
Ms. Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the House today has a historic opportunity to expand upon the principles of equal rights and equal protection embodied in our Constitution by passing the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
This Act would offer Federal protections for victims of hate crimes targeted because of their race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability. These characteristics are included in this hate crimes legislation, not because they deserve any special protection as opponents of this legislation claim, but because of the history of particularly heinous and violent crimes committed against individuals based on such characteristics. That's what warrants this inclusion.
I wanted to share several stories about why this legislation is so important. I only have time for one. Let us never forget the story of Matthew Shepard, who was brutally attacked by his hateful, homophobic assailants and left to die on a fence in a remote area of Wyoming.
Matthew's death generated international outrage by exposing the violent nature of hate crimes and its horrific effect on the entire targeted commune. The sponsors of the Senate hate crimes legislation have renamed the bill the Matthew Shepard Act. Today we have been joined by Matthew's mother, Judy Shepard and a lead investigator in this case, David O'Malley, who are still courageously advocating for the passage of this legislation more than 8 years after Matthew's death.
The passage of hate crimes legislation is long overdue. This will be critical for both symbolic and substantive reasons. The legal protections are essential to our system of ordered justice and essential for ensuring that those who commit heinous crimes are punished. But on a symbolic basis, it is important for Congress to enunciate clearly that hate-based violence targeting women, gays, lesbians, transgender individuals and people with disabilities will no longer be tolerated.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Conyers, Chairman Scott, and the staff of the Judiciary Committee for their diligent work in bringing the bill to the floor.
Hate crimes are different than other violent crimes because they seek to instill fear into a whole community--be it burning a cross in someone's yard, the burning of a synagogue, or a rash of aggravated batteries of people outside a gay community center. These are crimes motivated by prejudice and meant to send a message to society and others who belong to the same category. This sort of domestic terrorism demands a strong, federal response because this country was founded on the premise that persons should be free to be who they are--without fear of violence.
I want to share with you a few reasons why the passage of this legislation is so urgent and necessary. Last week in Committee, we heard from a very young man, Mr. David Ritcheson, who was brutally beaten last year by two individuals due to his ethnicity as a Mexican- American. Mr. Ritcheson spent the next 3 months and 8 days in the hospital, recovering from severe internal injuries. Yet because the attack took place in a private yard rather than an area of public access, the FBI had no grounds to investigate the attack under existing hate crimes laws.
The story of Brandon Teena also demonstrates the need for this legislation. Dramatized in the movie "Boys Don't Cry," Brandon was raped and later killed after the discovery of his biological gender by two acquaintances. Five days before his murder, Brandon reported his rape and beating by the same perpetrators, but the Richardson County Nebraska Sheriff would not pursue the case against Brandon's attackers.
Let us never forget the story of Matthew Shepard, who was brutally attacked by his hateful homophobic assailants and left to die on a fence in a remote area of Wyoming. Matthew's death generated international outrage by exposing the violent nature of hate crimes and its horrific effect on the targeted community. I remember the impact locally in Wyoming. I was in the midst of my first campaign for Congress in October 1998. Many gay and lesbian youths roughly Matthew's age were working on my campaign. I remember the impact of the crime on them. They were afraid for their safety, and that is precisely the effect these crimes have. The sponsors of the Senate hate crimes legislation have renamed the bill the Matthew Shepard Act, and today we are joined by Matthew's mother Judy Shepard and the lead investigator in his case David O'Malley, who are still courageously advocating for the passage of this legislation more than 8 years after Matthew's tragic death. Mr. Speaker, the passage of hate crimes legislation is long overdue.
The passage of H.R. 1592 today will be critical for both substantive and symbolic reasons. The legal protections are essential to our system of ordered justice and essential for ensuring that those who commit these heinous crimes are punished … but on a symbolic basis, it is important for Congress to enunciate clearly that hate-based violence targeting women, gays and lesbians, transgender individuals, and people with disabilities will no longer be tolerated.
The opponents of this legislation will disseminate a lot of misinformation today in order to derail this bill. But make no mistake, the legislation we are considering today has been carefully crafted to protect an individual's First Amendment right to speech, expression, and association. It also provides much needed federal resources to local law enforcement authorities without usurping local authority. Finally, the bill is fully consistent with Supreme Court precedence on both First Amendment and interstate commerce cases.
Our society is not perfect; the passage of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act will not make all hate crimes go away. H.R. 1592 is about giving state, local, and federal law enforcement authorities the necessary resources and tools to combat violent crimes based on prejudice and intended to terrorize a group of people or an entire community. Such hate crimes are in desperate need of a federal response, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in support of this bill.
Mr. Smith of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and a former attorney general of California.
Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California: I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, hate crimes are a serious issue. That's why 45 out of the 50 States have laws against them. That's why we have an already existing Federal law where there is a Federal interest involved.
Unfortunately, this bill is not necessary or is not drawn appropriately for any specific Federal problem. Some 20 years ago, I remember supporting the gentleman from Massachusetts against an effort by a Member on my side of the aisle to remove homosexuals from protection under the Hate Crimes Act at the time, that is the Hate Crimes Statistics Act. That went to the definition.
I am concerned about the definition in this bill. I mentioned this during the rule. In this rule there is no definition of sexual orientation, which becomes a protected class in the sense of enhanced penalty or a new crime for protection for such a victim.
We asked whether we would put the definition that is noted in the statute that goes to the sentencing commission in the bill. In fact, many on the committee said that I had a good idea. Yet, I was denied the opportunity in committee and in the Rules Committee to present that.
So, therefore, we have no definition of sexual orientation. I wanted the simple definition that's recognized in the note to the sentencing commission, which limits it to homosexual or heterosexual conduct. So, now we have an undefined term of sexual orientation.
Why am I concerned about it? Because I come from the State of California, where, for the past 20 years, we have had a problem dealing with an organization called NAMBLA, North American Man/Boy Love Association. They march in parades. They asserted the right, under the first amendment, to be able to hold their meetings in the local chapter in a library in my district. That's a sexual orientation.
Without limiting the definition, as I asked us to do, we open up the potential for creating a new protected class. I do not understand why the majority refused to allow us a serious amendment to just define what this is and get rid of this problem.
We were told, look at the statute. It defines it. We found out it didn't. It said it does it by reference. We went to it. The only reference is to a note to the sentencing commission. It is not defined.
If this is not taken care of, this bill, I know it's not the intent, but it becomes essentially a NAMBLA Protection Act, because it allows that sort of conduct or any other sexual orientation to be considered because there is a lack of definition.
Why you didn't allow it, I don't know. But you didn't allow it. On that grounds alone, this bill ought not to go forward.
This bill needs to be reviewed, it needs to be amended, it needs to be perfected. It doesn't do what it claims it does. It has an expansion beyond all that anybody would support. At least in the committee they told me they didn't support it.
They said they would take care of it. They didn't take care of it. I asked for a simple amendment in the Rules Committee. We were denied a simple amendment. I don't know why you are doing this, but it is a failure of this bill and will probably defeat this bill.
The Speaker pro tempore: Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
First of all, I want to assure my friend Mr. Lungren, the former attorney general of California, that we have no opposition about dealing with the definition of which he complained.
I also take this opportunity to remind him that 26 State attorney generals, just like you were, approved this bill.
Now I turn to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Bobby Scott, and I yield him 2 minutes.
Mr. Scott of Virginia: I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, bias-based crimes are an unfortunate reality in this country. This legislation is necessary because existing law, 18 U.S.C. section 245(b)(2) does not protect individuals from violent acts based on race, color, national origin or religion, unless the defendant intended to interfere with the victims' participation in certain enumerated Federal activities.
Additionally, Federal law does not presently provide for hate crime protection at all for attacks based on sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability.
Mr. Speaker, this bill also addresses many of the express concerns about the first amendment rights to free speech and association. H.R. 1592 addresses these concerns by providing an evidentiary exclusion, which prohibits the government from introducing evidence of expression or association as substantive evidence at trial, unless it is directly relevant to the elements of the crime.
This provision will ensure that defendants will only be prosecuted and convicted based on their criminal acts, not on what they say or what they believe, or because of the people with whom they are associated. There are some of us who criticize the bill as an improper exercise of Federal jurisdiction. But based on testimony and the issues of the witnesses at our hearings, this legislation has been carefully drafted to address the Supreme Court's decisions in Lopez and Morrison, which limited Congress' jurisdiction to pass legislation.
Furthermore, H.R. 1592, in response to the gentleman's complaint, Federal prosecutors must confer with State authorities to decide whether Federal jurisdiction is appropriate, and no prosecution can proceed without the express approval of the United States attorney general or his designee. Additionally at trial they must prove a valid Federal interest as a specific element of the crime.
In addition to creating new hate crime offenses and expanding the application of existing ones, this bill also establishes an important grant program to provide financial assistance to States, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies to provide much-needed assistance in investigating high-profile crimes.
Mr. Speaker, this bill has broad support. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. Smith of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and a ranking member of the IP subcommittee.
Mr. Coble: I thank the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill before us.
All crimes are deplorable, particularly when they are motivated by some form of discrimination. But this bill, in my opinion, does nothing to prevent these acts. States and Federal governments traditionally prosecute hate crimes now. I agree with the argument that this bill would unfairly classify crimes against certain groups of people, and ignore others such as law enforcement, children, veterans or senior citizens who deserve the same degree of protection.
I am concerned that this legislation will lead to unseemly investigations, possibly into thoughts and beliefs, which could have the effect of criminalizing religious or political speech.
Furthermore, I understand that the legislation does not have a nexus with interstate commerce that would survive a constitutional challenge.
I understand the need to protect vulnerable people, Mr. Speaker, and I support funding to help community safety and to prosecute criminals, but I cannot support this legislation.
Oftentimes, Mr. Speaker, those of us who oppose hate crime legislation are accused of being uncaring and insensitive. Now, to those charges I plead "not guilty," but I oppose this, among other reasons, because hate crime legislation is duplicative. There is sufficient statutory relief readily available now to aggrieved victims. There is such a thing as having too many laws, and I think this would result if we enact this today, and I urge its defeat.
Mr. Smith of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
(Mr. Shays asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Shays: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, as one of the lead Republican cosponsors of H.R. 1592, I am pleased we are considering this legislation, which will allow the Justice Department to investigate crimes committed on the basis of the victims race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.
Under this bill, hate crimes that cause death or bodily injury because of prejudice can be investigated federally, regardless of whether the victim was exercising a federally protected right.
In my judgment, violence based on prejudice is a matter of national concern that federal prosecutors should be empowered to punish if the States are unable or unwilling to do so.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said:
We must scrupulously guard the civil rights and civil liberties of all citizens, whatever their background. We must remember that any oppression, any injustice, any hatred, is a wedge designed to attack our civilization.
That statement is no less true today than it was back then. I urge support of this legislation.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Mr. Kirk: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this as the original cosponsor of this legislation. We find that a hate crime can ignite group-on-group violence that would tear a community apart. We have seen it in other countries; we want to make sure it never happens here.
This is especially dangerous when group-on-group violence can overwhelm a small suburban police department, and this offers assistance so that a small problem doesn't become a big problem and doesn't become a national problem. We saw when Rodney King was beaten that a riot broke out in Beloit, Wisconsin, and overwhelmed that police department.
So to be able to make sure that the Federal Government can defend the Nation and to make sure that our country stands not just for freedom and democracy, but also tolerance, is one reason why we should follow enactment of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, under President George Herbert Walker Bush, to also pass this legislation.
Mr. Smith of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney), a member of the Judiciary Committee and a former speaker of the Florida house.
Mr. Feeney: I am very grateful to the ranking member.
Mr. Speaker, hate is an awful thing, but we cannot punish people for what is in their hearts. We cannot punish people and make it a crime for what people are thinking. We punish acts in this country.
Unfortunately, I think this bill is badly misnamed. This bill should not be called the hate crimes bill, this should be called the unequal protection bill, because what it does is to say that the dignity and the property and the person and the life of one person gets more protection than another American. That is just wrong. With respect to my friend from Illinois, who just said hate crimes can tear this country apart, that is what this bill does. It gives different people the protection of their life, their property, and their person based on their special status.
We need to treat all Americans equally. Justice ultimately must turn on the fundamental word of each and every human being as equal before God and before the law. This bill undermines both of those principles.
Mr. Smith of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Jerry Nadler, for 2 minutes.
Mr. Nadler: I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with violent crimes committed against victims who are singled out solely because someone doesn't like who they are.
Violent attacks because of actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability often cause serious injury or death. They are more serious than a normal assault because they target not just an individual, but an entire group. They spread terror to all members of the group and often deter them from exercising their constitutional rights, sometimes for simply walking down the wrong street.
The only question for Members is whether they believe that singling out a person for a crime of violence because of his or her race or religion or because any other trait is sufficiently heinous to merit strong punishment.
For many years, Mr. Speaker, Congress debated what were known as the Federal lynching laws. They were designed to deal with the widespread practice of lynching primarily African Americans. There was staunch resistance to those laws here in Congress. For three decades, they did not pass while thousands were lynched. We heard many of the same arguments then that we are hearing today. That was not a proud period in our Nation's history. Today, we can do the right thing. I hope we can agree to do so.
Under current law, the attackers of someone like Michael Sandy of Brooklyn, who was attacked simply because he was walking down a street and he was gay, could not be prosecuted for a hate crime because, under existing law, only victims targeted because they are engaged in a federally protected activity, such as voting, are protected. This bill expands the definition to cover all violent crimes motivated by race, color, creed, national origin, et cetera.
This is not an issue of free speech. This bill deals only with crimes of violence in which the victim is selected with his or her status.
The law routinely looks to the motivation of a crime and treats the more heinous of them differently. Manslaughter is different from premeditated murder, which is different from a contract killing. We all know how to make these distinctions. The law does it all the time. We ought to do it here; we ought to say that crimes of violence motivated by one's status are particularly heinous and ought to be treated as such.
Mr. Smith of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. King of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee yielding to me.
This bill before us today is one that I have dreaded seeing come before the American people.
I was born in 1949. That was the year that George Orwell published the book "1984." I offered an amendment in committee to change the title of this bill from the Hate Crimes bill to the Thought Crimes bill. In fact, you are seeking to punish thought. And even though the gentleman from Virginia has stated correctly that under this bill, they will be prosecuting crimes, they will also be sentenced for thoughts.
Orwell wrote in 1949 in the book "1984," "We are not interested in those stupid crimes that you have committed. The party is not interested in any overt act. The thought is all that we care about. We do not merely destroy our enemies; we change them. Do you understand what I mean by that?"
And he goes on to define "crimethink," which is exactly the bill before us today. And he defines it this way: "To even consider any thought not in line with the principles of Ingsoc. Doubting any of the principles of Ingsoc. All crimes begin with a thought. So, if you control thought, you control crime. Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death. Thoughtcrime is death, the essential crime that contains all others in and of itself."
And the definition of "Ingsoc" is English socialism, which is how he defined the coming creeping of socialism and Marxism that he feared.
So I make that point strongly that we have now come to this. "1984" has manifested itself on the floor of the United States Congress with the belief that, somehow or another, we can divine what somebody thinks and then punish them for it. And I have been called a racist on the floor of this House for using the term "cultural continuity." How can someone who could make that allegation who has been elected to the United States Congress be sitting on a jury of me? We judge by a jury of our peers, or the peers of the accused and what's in their mind. That's a thoughtcrime in and of itself.
Mr. Conyers: I yield 1 minute now to a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Ellison of Minnesota.
Mr. Ellison: Mr. Speaker, it is horribly sad that anyone would want to vocalize hateful ideas, but it is not illegal. What Don Imus said about African American women was legal though deplorable. But violence is not. Violence is different. Violence is acts, if motivated by hateful thoughts, that make an impact on the community that is much more harmful than to the individual. It expands to an entire community and injects an immobilizing, terrorizing fear into that community which makes it even more wrong than an act against an individual.
When Eric Richey drove his Mustang into the largest mosque in Ohio on September 16, 2001, he didn't just destroy a building, he injected fear into an entire community.
My question is this: Why do you want to protect thugs and hatemongers? Why don't you want to stand with the civilized community and say, hate is wrong and we must stop it now?
Mr. Smith of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), also a member of the Judiciary Committee.
(Mr. Pence asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Pence: Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today in strong opposition to the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. It would be Thomas Jefferson who would remind the American people that the government reaches actions only and not opinions, in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists.
This legislation is unnecessary and bad public policy. Violent attacks on people or property are already illegal regardless of the motive behind them, and there is no evidence that underlying violent crimes at issue here are not already being fully and aggressively prosecuted. Therefore, hate crimes laws serve no practical purpose and, instead, serve to penalize people for their thoughts and beliefs.
Now, some of these thoughts and beliefs are abhorrent, like racism and sexism, and I disdain them. But hate crimes bills are broad enough to encompass legitimate beliefs as well, and protecting the rights of freedom of speech and religion must be paramount on our minds.
The first amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. There is a real possibility that this bill, as written, that religious leaders or members of religious groups could be prosecuted criminally based on their speech or protected activities under conspiracy laws or section 2 of title XVIII, which holds a person criminally liable if they aid and abet in the commission of a crime. Putting a chill on a pastor's words or a religious broadcaster's programming, an evangelical leader's message, or even the leader of a small group Bible study is a blatant attack on the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of religion.
Last week, I offered an amendment before the committee that simply would have stated that nothing in this section limits the religious freedom of any person or group under the Constitution. Unfortunately, this amendment was rejected by the majority and rejected by the Rules Committee for consideration today.
We must guard against the potential for abuse of hate crimes laws. The Pence amendment would have done so by stating, once and for all, that people in groups will not have their constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of religion taken away.
On this National Day of Prayer, let's take a stand for the right of every American to believe and speak and pray in accordance with the dictates of their conscience and reject this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today in strong opposition to H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
As Thomas Jefferson once said, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
This legislation is unnecessary and bad public policy. Violent attacks on people or property are already illegal regardless of the motive behind them and there is no evidence that the underlying violent crimes at issue here are not already being fully and aggressively prosecuted in the States. Therefore, hate crimes laws serve no practical purpose and instead serve to penalize people for their thoughts, beliefs or attitudes.
Some of these thoughts, beliefs or attitudes such as racism and sexism are abhorrent, and I disdain them. However the hate crimes bill is broad enough to encompass legitimate beliefs, and protecting the rights of freedom of speech and religion must be paramount in our minds.
The First Amendment to the Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." America was founded upon the notion that the government should not interfere with the religious practices of its citizens. Constitutional protection for the free exercise of religion is at the core of the American experiment in democracy.
There is a real possibility that as this bill is written, religious leaders or members of religious groups could be prosecuted criminally based on their speech or protected activities under conspiracy law or section 2 of title 18, which holds criminally liable anyone who aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission; or one who "willfully causes an act to be done" by another.
In the debate at the Judiciary Committee, much was made of the fact that an amendment was adopted by the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Davis. However, that amendment did not go far enough in making it clear that the bill will not limit religious freedom. The sponsor of the amendment admitted that a pastor could still be targeted under the bill for incitement of violence for simply preaching his religious beliefs. For example if a pastor included a statement in his sermon that sexual relations outside of marriage is wrong, and a member of the congregation caused bodily injury to a person having such relations, that sermon could be used as evidence against the pastor.
Putting a chill on a pastor's words, a religious broadcaster's programming, an evangelical leader's message, or even the leader of a small-group Bible study is a blatant attack on the Constitutionally- guaranteed right to freedom of religion.
Last week when the Judiciary Committee took up this bill, I offered an amendment to make it clear that the bill will not affect the Constitutional right to religious freedom.
The Pence Amendment stated, "Nothing in this section limits the religious freedom of any person or group under the Constitution."
Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated by the majority in the Judiciary Committee. Yesterday, I submitted the Pence Religious Freedom Amendment to the Rules Committee for consideration, but that committee chose to adopt a closed rule for today's debate, effectively blocking my amendment and many other good amendments from consideration.
We must guard against the potential for abuse of hate crimes laws, and the Pence Amendment would have done so by stating once and for all that people and groups will not have their Constitutionally-guaranteed right to religious freedom taken away.
Mr. Speaker, this bill threatens religious freedom by criminalizing religious thoughts. On this National Day of Prayer, let's take a stand for the right of every American to believe, speak and pray in accordance with the dictates of their conscience. Take a stand for religious freedom and the First Amendment and vote no on the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield to a distinguished Member on the Judiciary Committee, Steve Cohen of Tennessee, for 1 minute.
Mr. Cohen: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand in support of this bill. The fact is, these crimes, the victims of which have been Matthew Shepard, James Byrd, Emmett Till over the years have shocked the conscience of this country, and that is why they need special treatment.
When you look at the laws and the type of activities that we are looking at, discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, or disabilities, you are looking at the same people that the Nazis tried to exterminate. If you were Jewish, if you were black, if you were disabled, if you were gay, the Nazis made a systematic attempt to eliminate you. And people who do that, even if they are not governments, should be punished, because that is the type of conduct that this world has seen and abhors and went to war for; and our U.S. attorneys should be given the ammunition to go to war against people that perpetrate those type of crimes.
And if you stand against this, what's going to happen? Certain villainous hooligans will maybe get less time. These are the people we need to lock up and put away, because this is a country about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and everybody gets an opportunity.
Mr. Smith of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Judiciary Committee, and also the ranking deputy member of the Crimes Subcommittee.
Mr. Gohmert: Mr. Speaker, this bill starts off with a preamble that makes it faulty to begin with.
There are all kinds of recitations in the beginning, factual, so- called findings that were not supported and are not supported by any evidence. That is a major problem here.
First of all, people want to talk about how desperately this is needed to stop hate-based crimes. However, there are laws that protect every man, woman, and child from violent acts. In fact, I have heard my colleague across the aisle reference that the Matthew Shepard case shows how desperately we need hate crime legislation. Those perpetrators that did that horrible act both got life sentences under regular murder laws. This was not necessary.
People in committee threw up the Byrd case, a horrible tragedy where a man was dragged to his death simply because he was African American. Those two main perpetrators got the death penalty, and no hate crime that has been passed would address that.
Now, these statistics, if you really want to look at the facts before we pass bad legislation that is not justified by the facts, and I do take issue with the preamble's fact findings. There is no evidence to support them. But let's look.
Since 1995, the FBI statistics show that we have gone from 9,500 to 12,400 agencies reporting, more of the country is being covered, and yet a steady decline has gone from right at 8,000 to 7,100 incidents.
Offenses have gone down near well a thousand, to 8,300. Victims have gone down 1,600. Offenders have gone down 1,600. The laws are working. What this is trying to do is protect a class from any ill speech, anything that's derogatory.
Now, friends across the aisle say no, no, no. We put that in the bill. We've got an amendment that protects that. But if you go to the law in this bill, it says that, yeah, religious or protected speech would not be used at trial, unless it pertains or is relevant to the offense. And as anybody that's prosecuted someone as a principal, not a conspiracy, but a principal, a principal under Federal law, it says whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, procures a crime's commission is punishable as if he committed the crime.
And this is where this is going; ministers reading from the Bible, rabbis reading from the Torah, imams reading from the Koran who say sexual activity outside of marriage of a man and a woman is wrong, if they have somebody from their flock, some nut go out and commit a crime of violence and, by the way, this is not a restricted crime of violence. It could be violence against property. It can be a touching to be bodily injury. We've lowered the standard in this bill.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased now to recognize the gentleman from Alabama, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, Artur Davis for 1½ minutes.
Mr. Davis of Alabama: Mr. Speaker, there's a pastor back home who has a card that he carries around with him and it says, made by God, return to the Creator upon expiration.
As a person of faith, if you believe that, as I do, you have to believe that that admonition and that promise applies not just to you and your kind, but to people who may be different, act different, think different, and look different. So this is the simplest way I can put this to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
If you are a person of faith, you have a Bible-based problem with hate. And if you have a Bible-based problem with hate, it's legitimate to say that hate ought to be punished a little bit more. That's all this legislation says.
Obviously, it must be done consistent with the first amendment, and that is why I offered an amendment that was accepted in committee and that my good friend, Lamar Smith from Texas, not only voted for, but praised during the markup. The amendment says specifically, nothing in this statute shall change the terms of the first amendment as they exist.
So this is as simple as I can put this to my good friend, Mr. Gohmert. The only people who ought to fear this bill are people who would say to another human being, you ought to do violence against someone else. I don't know a man of God or woman of God who would take to any pulpit in the land, any synagogue or mosque in the land and say, do violence to another one of God's children. And because I have confidence in people of faith and know they wouldn't do that, I know they won't be hurt by this bill. And, by the way, I say that as the only Democrat on the committee who voted against gay marriage.
This bill ought to be passed, and I ask my colleagues to do so.
Mr. Smith of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman fro Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin).
Ms. Fallin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments about faith and God. And I am a woman of God. I oppose hate, and I think all crimes are awful. And I have a great disdain for violence produced by hate.
But this bill is the wrong solution for an ideal goal. It is horrible for anyone to hate for any class, race or religion or sexual orientation. Violence produced by hate is already outlawed. Why would we, as a Nation, want to divide our American citizens into various categories of more worthy or less worthy of whatever protection the law can give them? What happened to the great ideal this Nation was founded on of equal, equal protection under law?
The hate crimes bill will chill the first amendment rights of religious groups. This hate crimes bill will chill the first amendment rights of the religious groups, and the government will be required to prove the suspect's thoughts as a category of the victim involved in the crime.
Religious groups may become the subject of criminal investigations in order to determine the suspect's religious beliefs, membership in religious organization, or past statements about persons associated with specific categories. Religious leaders will be chilled from expressing their religious views for fear of involvement in the criminal justice system.
This hate crime bill will result in unequal justice for all and the restriction of one of our ideals that has made this Nation great, free speech.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased now to recognize the most distinguished civil rights leader that we have serving in the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. John Lewis. And I yield to him 1 minute.
Mr. Lewis of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, hate is too heavy a burden to bear. We have the opportunity, with this bill, to move this Nation one step forward toward laying down the burden, the burden of hate. With this legislation, we can send the strongest possible message that violence against our fellow citizens because of race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or transgender will not be tolerated.
It was the Great Teacher who said, "As much as you have done it unto the least of these, you have done it unto me."
During the 1950s and the 1960s, as a participant in the Civil Rights Movement, I tasted the bitter fruits of hate, and I didn't like it. I saw some of my friends beaten, shot and killed because of hate. Hate is too heavy a burden to bear. It also was the Great Teacher who said, "Love you one another." He didn't say hate you one another.
We're one people. We're one family. We all live in the same house. It doesn't matter whether we're gay or straight. We're one people.
Mr. Smith of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased now to yield to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) for 1 minute.
(Mr. Clyburn asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Clyburn: Last night, Mr. Speaker, I re-read Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "Letter from a Birmingham City Jail." In that letter, King dealt with the notion of timing. He said to us that time is never right; time is never wrong; that time actually is neutral, and it's only what we make it. We can use it constructively, or we can use it destructively.
King went on to say that it's always the right time to do that which is right.
Now, a lot of people on yesterday told me that this was the wrong time to bring this legislation. For a moment, I agreed. But reflecting on Dr. King's admonition that the time is always right to do right, I come before this body today to ask us to use the time that we have before us to do right by those people who may not be like us.
Mr. Smith of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).
Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue, and people ought to recognize it's a serious issue.
There is something called hate crimes. And in the past, the Supreme Court has looked at issues to try and differentiate between mere speech and speech connected with conduct and how you articulate a law in a proper way that does not offend the first amendment, which allows terrible speech. One of the prices of our democracy and one of the prices of this society is to allow terrible speech, not to say you accept it, but to allow it.
And so the Supreme Court has carefully reviewed hate crime legislation. When I was attorney general of California, we issued an amicus brief before the Supreme Court to support one version of the hate crime legislation in one State that was similar to ours in California. We declined to do it in another State. And in that one in which we declined to do it, the Supreme Court found that it was afoul of the law.
That's why I think it's very, very important how we carefully construct a hate crimes bill. The underlying premise of this bill is that we should extend the already existing Federal hate crimes legislation, which has a Federal nexus, based on the individual victim or victims being involved in a protected Federal activity.
This bill goes beyond that and suggests that the constitutional nexus with Federal activity is that hate directed against the particular protected classes here somehow restricts interstate commerce. And I would just suggest that the findings in the bill did not have evidence to back it up. And I think there may very well be a constitutional attack that is successful in the Court on that. That's why we are concerned about the way this is written.
Second, there are those who suggest that we will not have the concern become a reality expressed by some on this floor and by some outside this floor that this somehow will chill free speech. The suggestion is we've carefully crafted the legislation so that's not to be the case.
I would just direct our attention to another section of the bill which calls for participation by the Federal Government in the investigation and prosecution of crimes at the State level which delineates the definition of hate crimes in the first two paragraphs but, in the third paragraph says, or any other hate crime established by State law. So what we are doing is extending it beyond the carefully constructed definitions that we have in this bill, considering the constitutional questions and extended it far beyond that. That is another legitimate concern about this bill.
And so I would just say that I hope we don't get totally involved in the argument that there are no hate crimes and they, therefore, never should be involved in our criminal justice system, versus that they are the worst of all crimes, or they are so essentially different from others that those who are subjected to attacks because of a random attitude by the perpetrator, or for reasons outside the protected class, somehow don't have the sufficiency of interest or the sufficiency of importance to be included.
Hate crimes exist in our society. Hate crimes are to be condemned in our society. As I said before, that's why 45 States have done so, most of them successfully in negotiating the shows of constitutional concern that are created by the first amendment. And therefore, one might suggest that we need to review this in far greater detail than we've been allowed thus far.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds to respond to my dear friend from California (Mr. Lungren).
The purpose of this hate crime bill is to supplement State and local actions. It is not to take over.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hank Johnson, member of the Judiciary Committee, 1 minute.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, we've had Federal hate crime legislation on the books since 1968. It covered violent crimes targeted against persons based upon race, color, religion and national origin.
Now we've got folks who don't want us to extend this hate crime legislation to those who would be attacked because of their gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of the victim, and this at a time, Mr. Speaker, when one in six hate crimes is motivated by the victim's sexual orientation. And yet today's Federal laws don't include any protection for these Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. It is the right thing to do. It is the humane thing to do. Let's bring protection to those who need it now, 39 years later after the act was enacted.
Mr. Smith of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
Mr. Price of Georgia: I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this legislation because, at its core, its purpose is to punish thought; and to respectfully suggest that this new majority continues to bring sad and divisive legislation to the floor.
All violent crime is wrong. All violent crime is founded in hate.
This legislation will easily move us to the point of punishing thought and punishing motive. Hate crimes have already been used to suppress speech opposed by cultural elites. In New York, for example, city officials recently cited hate crime principles to force a pastor to remove billboards containing biblical quotations on sexual morality.
Many pastors and ministers from around this Nation adamantly oppose this legislation. And to bring this forward on the National Day of Prayer adds insult to injury and may, in fact, be hateful.
The hate crimes bill creates a new Federal thought crime. The bill requires law enforcement officials to probe, infer, or deduce if a crime occurred because of a bias towards a protected group. A criminal's thoughts will be considered an element of the crime.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that one can never reliably determine the true thought or motive of a criminal.
And with thought crimes come thought police. What a sad day.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the chairman of our caucus, Mr. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois.
Mr. Emanual: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to hate and discrimination, America speaks with one voice, "no." Zero tolerance. You cannot be a beacon of freedom around the world and fail that test here at home.
President Kennedy was moved on the civil rights movement because he understood, in the battle of the Cold War, you could not be a beacon for freedom against intolerance around the world if we weren't free here at home. You could not. And as we talk, all our colleagues always say, as we battle on the issues on the war in Iraq, Islamic fascism, the whole world will watch what we say here in Congress.
People will watch this vote and understand, most importantly, whether America remains true to its principles on freedom or not. People will watch this vote. And I would hope my colleagues will remember, as we do this today, that every time America widens the circle of democracy to protect more of its citizens who sit in the shadows, it is true to its principles.
I would hope people will vote "yes" on this legislation.
Mr. Smith of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary from Houston, Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee.
(Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas: Mr. Speaker, with great emotion, I come to this floor.
Congressman Frank, let me thank you. No one that may be listening had the opportunity to listen to Congresswoman Baldwin and you speak of your existence.
So I rise today to make sure that everyone understands that this bill is about hate. Regular order is in place. It is about protecting young people who have an identity that is different from any of us. It is about reflecting the definition of hatred that says that it is an affection of the mind awakened by something regarded as evil. Can we in America regard human life as evil?
Even as Christians, and many of us are not, the Bible dictates about the instruction of loving thy neighbor. This bill reflects on the needs of African Americans and Hispanics and the disabled and those with gender identity. It reflects on the fact that brutality and viciousness because of hate cannot be tolerated by a country that believes we are all created equal.
This is a fair bill. It does not encourage you to change your faith, but it encourages you to adhere to democracy and to the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1592, the "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007." Mr. Speaker, as important as it is to apprehend, prosecute, convict, and punish severely those who commit hate crimes, we can all agree that in the long run it is even more important and better for society if we can increase our effectiveness in eradicating the desire to commit a hate crime in the first place. I have long believed, and research confirms, that if a person does not acquire a proclivity to hate as a juvenile, he or she is not likely to be motivated to commit crimes out of hate as an adult.
Mr. Speaker, Webster's Dictionary defines hate as a "strong aversion; intense dislike; hate; an affection of the mind awakened by something regarded as evil."
Mr. Speaker, before I proceed any further, I would be remiss if I failed to note that this legislation is more timely than any of us could have predicted just a month ago. Two weeks ago, at Virginia Tech University, one of the Nation's great land grant colleges, we witnessed the most senseless acts of violence on a scale unprecedented in our history. Neither the mind nor the heart can contemplate a cause that could lead a human being to inflict such injury and destruction on fellow human beings. The loss of life and innocence at Virginia Tech is a tragedy over which all Americans mourn and the thoughts and prayers of people of goodwill everywhere go out to the victims and their families. In the face of such overwhelming grief, I hope they can take comfort in the certain knowledge that unearned suffering is redemptive.
But the carnage at Virginia Tech also commands that we here in this body take a stand against senseless acts of violence taken against persons for no reason other than that they are different, whether in terms of race, religion, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation. It is long past time for our national community to declare that injuries inflicted on any member of the community by another simply because he or she is different poses a threat to the peace and security of the entire community. For that reason alone, such conduct must be outlawed and punished severely. That is why I have, Mr. Speaker, since 1999 introduced and supported strong legislation to deter and punish hate crimes, including as noted earlier, H.R. 254, the "David Ray Hate Crime Prevention Act of 2007" pending in this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, every act of violence is tragic and harmful in its consequences, but not all crime is based on hate. A "hate crime" is the violence of intolerance and bigotry, intended to hurt and intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.
The purveyors of hate use explosives, arson, weapons, vandalism, physical violence, and verbal threats of violence to instill fear in their victims, leaving them vulnerable to more attacks and feeling alienated, helpless, suspicious and fearful. Others may become frustrated and angry if they believe the local government and other groups in the community will not protect them. When perpetrators of hate are not prosecuted as criminals and their acts not publicly condemned, their crimes can weaken even those communities with the healthiest race relations.
Of all crimes, hate crimes are most likely to create or exacerbate tensions, which can trigger larger community-wide racial conflict, civil disturbances, and even riots. Hate crimes put cities and towns at risk of serious social and economic consequences. The immediate costs of racial conflicts and civil disturbances are police, fire, and medical personnel overtime, injury or death, business and residential property loss, and damage to vehicles and equipment. Long-term recovery may be hindered by a decline in property values, which results in lower tax revenues, scarcity of funds for rebuilding, and increased insurance rates.
Mr. Speaker, a study funded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics released September 2000, shows that 85 percent of law enforcement officials surveyed recognize bias-motivated violence to be more serious than similar crimes not motivated by bias.
Hate crimes are destructive and divisive. A random act of violence resulting in injury or even death is a tragic event that devastates the lives of the victim and their family, but the intentional selection and beating or murder of an individual because of who they are terrorizes an entire community and sometimes the Nation. For example, it is easy to recognize the difference between check-kiting and a cross burning; or an arson of an office building versus the intentional torching of a church or synagogue. The church or synagogue burning has a profound impact on the congregation, the faith community, the greater community, and the Nation.
Mr. Speaker, some opponents of hate crimes legislation claim that such legislation is a solution in search of a problem. They claim that there is no epidemic of bias-motivated violence and thus no need to legislate. I wish to briefly address this claim.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, racially motivated hate crimes most frequently target blacks. Six in ten racially biased incidents target blacks, and 3 in 10 incidents targeted whites. Hispanics of all races were targeted in 6.7 percent of incidents and Asians in 3 percent. Younger offenders were responsible for most hate crimes and most of their victims were between 11 and 31. The age of victims of violent hate crimes drops dramatically after age 45. Thirty-one percent of violent offenders and 46 percent of property offenders were under age 18. Thirty-two percent of hate crimes occurred in a residence, 28 percent in an open space, 19 percent in a retail commercial establishment or public building, 12 percent at a school or college, and 3 percent at a church, synagogue, or temple.
In Harris County--Houston--Texas, in a case that drew national attention, 16-year-old David Ray Ritcheson, a Mexican-American, was severely assaulted April 23, 2007, by two youths while attending a party in the Houston suburb of Spring, Texas. One of his teen-age attackers, a skinhead, yelled ethnic slurs and kicked a pipe up his rectum, severely damaging his internal organs and leaving him in the hospital for 3 months and 8 days--almost all of it in critical care. For the supposed crime of allegedly kissing a white girl, young David Ray's assailants punched him unconscious, kicked him in the head, sadistically inflicted 17 cigarette burns that still scar his body, poured bleach on his face and body, and then assaulted with a pipe taken from a patio umbrella. He was left lying unconscious and unattended in the back yard of a house for more than 8 hours. He has endured more than 30 operations to restore his appearance and regain the normal use of his bodily functions.
In Jasper, Texas, an African-American man, James Byrd, Jr., was brutally murdered by being kidnapped, beaten unconscious, spray painted in the face with black paint, tied to the back of a pick-up truck, pants dropped down to his ankles, dragged 2.5 miles over pavement through a rural Black community in Jasper County called Huff Creek, leaving his skin, blood, arms, head, genitalia, and other parts of his body strewn along the highway, his remains were dumped in front of a Black cemetery.
In Springfield, Missouri, an African-American male in the company of a white female was stabbed at local Denny's restaurant by a group of white males.
Near San Diego, California, elderly immigrant workers were attacked by white youths. The body of a Latino immigrant youth was also discovered in the same vicinity as the attacks on the workers.
An African-American employee of a construction company in Marquette, Kansas, reported that he had been racially harassed for several months by fellow employees through racist graffiti and name-calling.
A Jewish synagogue was vandalized by four Arab-American males in the Bronx, New York.
Every individual's life is valuable and sacred, and even one life lost is too many. There is ample evidence that violent, bias-motivated crimes are a widespread and serious problem in our Nation. But it is not the frequency or number of these crimes alone, that distinguish these acts of violence from other types of crime; it is the impact these crimes have on the victims, their families, their communities and, in some instances, the Nation.
Evidence indicates that bias-motivated crimes are underreported; however, statistics show that since 1991 over 100,000 hate crime offenses have been reported to the FBI, with 7,163 reported in 2005, the FBI's most recent reporting period. Crimes based on race-related bias were by far the most common, representing 54.7 percent of all offenses for 2005. Crimes based on religion represented 17.1 percent and ethnicity/national origin, 13.2 percent. Crimes based on sexual orientation constituted 14.2 percent of all bias-motivated crimes in 2005, with 1,017 reported for the year.
The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP), a non- profit organization that tracks bias incidents against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, reported 1,985 incidents for 2005 from only 13 jurisdictions, compared to the 12,417 agencies reporting to the FBI in 2005.
Additionally, the Hate Crimes Statistics Act makes the reporting of bias-motivated crimes by State and local jurisdictions voluntary, resulting in no participation by many jurisdictions each year. Hawaii, for instance, did not participate in reporting at all in 2005. Underreporting is also common. Wyoming, for instance, reported only 4 incidents for 2005. Six States reported 10 or fewer incidents in 2005. Some large cities have been egregiously deficient in reporting hate crimes. Jacksonville, Florida, for example, reported only 5 incidents in 2005.
Sadly, statistics only give a glimpse of the problem. It is widely recognized that violent crimes on the basis of sexual orientation often go unreported due to fear and stigmatization. A Department of Justice report released in October 2001 confirms that bias-motivated crimes are under-reported; that a disproportionately high percentage of both victims and perpetrators of these violent crimes are young people under 25 years of age; and that only 20 percent of reported hate crimes result in arrest.
A December 2001 report by the Southern Poverty Law Center, SPLC, a nonprofit organization that monitors hate groups and extremist activity in the United States, went so far as to say that the system for collecting hate crimes data in this Nation is "in shambles." SPLC estimates that the real number of hate crimes being committed in the United States each year is likely closer to 50,000, as opposed to the nearly 8,000 reported by the FBI.
Next, Mr. Speaker, let me address the specious claim that H.R. 1592 abridges free speech. Opponents seem to be complaining that the legislation would prohibit pursuant to Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the introduction of substantive evidence of the defendant's expression or associations, unless the evidence specifically relates to the offense or is used to impeach a witness. In this way, the legislation strikes the appropriate balance between two competing interests: the interest of the government in punishing hate crimes and the rights of the defendant.
Hate crimes legislation allows society to prescribe greater punishments for hate crimes because of the distinct emotional harm they cause their victims, the community unrest they incite, and the likelihood that they will provoke retaliatory crimes. See Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 488 (1993) (upholding a hate crimes punishment enhancement statute). However, H.R. 1592 also protects a defendant's rights by only permitting the introduction of evidence within the confines of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the First Amendment.
The First Amendment protects speech and expressive conduct. Our bill only punishes criminal conduct, which is not protected by the First Amendment. Any argument that this legislation punishes expressive conduct would likely be unsuccessful because using violence to convey one's ideas is outside the scope of the First Amendment. NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 916 (1982). In Wisconsin v. Mitchell the Court distinguished between statutes that are explicitly directed at expression and statutes that are directed at conduct. 508 U.S. at 487. The Court upheld the statute in Wisconsin v. Mitchell because it was directed at criminal conduct, unlike the statute at issue in R.A.V. v. St. Paul, which the Court struck down because it was explicitly directed at expression. Id. The critical flaw with the statute at issue in R.A.V. was that it was viewpoint discriminatory: It prohibited otherwise permissible speech based on the subject and perspective of the speech. R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 391 (1992).
H.R. 1592 does not ban religious, political, or offensive speech, or even punish expressive conduct, such as cross burning or flag burning. Rather, the legislation is only directed at criminal conduct that is independently criminal, such as assault or murder. It punishes conduct that is already criminal more severely because of the defendant's motivation in choosing the victim. Thus, evidence of a defendant's expressions and associations properly can be admitted under certain circumstances.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, nothing in this legislation would prohibit the lawful expression of one's deeply held religious beliefs. If they wish, any person will continue to be free to say things like: "Homosexuality is sinful"; "Homosexuality is an abomination"; or "Homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of heaven." This is because H.R. 1592 only covers violent actions committed because of a person's sexual orientation that result in death or bodily injury.
Mr. Speaker, the American public opinion strongly favors this legislation. According to a recent survey by Peter Hart and Associates, voters overwhelmingly favor expanding the definition of hate crimes to include crimes against people based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Three in four (73 percent) voters favor Congress's expanding the definition of hate crimes in this way, including 62 percent who strongly favor it. Just 22 percent oppose this action, with 17 percent who strongly oppose it.
Support for hate crimes definition expansion is strong across the board. Large majorities of every major subgroup of the electorate-- including such traditionally conservative groups as Republican men (56 percent) and evangelical Christians (63 percent)--express support for this proposal. Support also crosses racial lines, with three in four whites (74 percent), African Americans (74 percent), and Latinos (72 percent) favoring Congress's including sexual orientation and gender identity in the definition of hate crimes.
Voters believe strongly in government's obligation to protect all citizens, the fact that crimes based on prejudice are directed against an entire community, and that it would give local law enforcement extra help in solving crimes.
Voters soundly reject arguments against this proposal. Whether it is the idea that it creates unequal treatment under the law; that it attacks the moral and religious beliefs of those opposed to homosexuality; or that it equates being gay with being Black or a woman, arguments against the hate crimes bill are not compelling to the public.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, by passing H.R. 1592 we also pay fitting tribute to David Ray Ritcheson of Spring, Texas, my constituent, friend, and a very courageous young man. David Ray, a victim of one of the most horrible hate crimes in Harris County, Texas came forward to tell his story to the Crime Subcommittee in the hopes of saving others from experiencing a similar brutal ordeal. In coming forward, he has performed a valuable service to our Nation. In going forward with H.R. 1592 and seeing it through to final passage, this Committee is also performing a great service to our Nation by hastening the day when we make hate history.
In conclusion, let me say that I strongly support H.R. 1592 and will vote to report the bill favorably to the full Committee.
Mr. Smith of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to Jan Schakowsky of Illinois.
Ms. Schakowsky: I thank the gentleman.
I am so proud to stand here against hate, but even more, I feel compelled to stand here against violence.
When the categories of people that are named in this bill were picked, it wasn't sort of a capricious or random or even a liberal bias sort of thing, that we want to support certain people or single them out. It is because the statistics show us and the law enforcement community who supports this bill has said, these are the victims of violence. They are named for only one reason and that's it. And we are talking about people who are victims of assault, of brutal attacks, of torture, or even of murder.
You can say it as many times as you want. This is not about thought. This is not about speech. This is about violence. And you or your pastor may not agree with homosexuals or transgenders, but surely you don't think that is a reason for them to be assaulted.
Support the bill.
Mr. Smith of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my colleagues. We have twice as many requests for time than we have the time.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield 30 seconds to the brilliant gentlelady from Oakland, California, Barbara Lee.
(Ms. Lee asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. Lee: Mr. Speaker, let me thank Congresswoman Baldwin and Congressman Barney Frank for making sure we have a chance to vote on this very important legislation today. And I just want to briefly tell you a story, if I can, very quickly.
There was a young lady next to my district named Gwen Araujo. She was viciously beaten to death and buried, again, by four men, simply because she was born a male. Gwen was comfortable as herself, as a transgendered woman who had gone through most of high school as a girl and had the love and support of her family, particularly her mother, Sylvia Guerrero.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say there are so many stories of countless people who are dead, countless people who get killed because of their God-given right that they were living to be themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1592, and I am pleased that today, we can have a vote on the legislation that I know many of us have in this chamber. Chairman Conyers, Congresswoman Baldwin, and Congressman Frank.
This legislation is long overdue. In the history of this Nation, there is a dark chapter. That chapter is full traumatic scenes of people being murdered, beaten, attacked, raped, harassed, and threatened because something about them was different from their aggressors. Whether it has been the color of their skin, their religion, their gender, their disability, National origin, or their sexual orientation or identity the sad fact is that so many in this country have suffered violence, often ending in death, because of one of these reasons.
Sadly, many of the recent attacks based on sexual orientation have been on black gay men. One of those stories happened in New York this past October, when a young man named Michael Sandy, was beaten by four men who set him up, just so they could beat and rob him. He ended up in a coma for several days, before finally succumbing to his injuries. In court proceedings, it was revealed that his at1ackers would often seek out gay men to steal from and attack. Fortunately, New York has a Hate Crimes law that includes sexual orientation.
Many hate groups have also used the debate on immigration to amp up their hate speech, and violence, promoting hate crimes against Mexican- Americans and other Latinos. In Houston, TX, David Ritcheson, a 16 year-old Mexican-American high school football team member was viciously and savagely beaten by two young skinheads. They poured bleach on him, and sodomized him, leaving him a coma, with massive internal injuries and now deaf in one ear.
And closer to home, right outside my district in Newark, CA, a young woman in high school, named Gwen Araujo, was viciously beaten to death and buried, again, by four young men, simply because she was born a male. Gwen was comfortable as herself, a transgendered woman, who had gone through most of high school as a girl, and had the love and support of her family, particularly her mother, Sylvia Guerrero.
Her story resonates with me because in my time in the California Legislature, I championed the California School Hate Crimes Reduction Act. I did so because our children needed to feel safe in their schools. I was determined to include sexual orientation in that bill. Doing so made passing that legislation an uphill battle, even leading to a veto by Governor Pete Wilson. Nonetheless, we were finally able to pass the California School Hate Crimes Act of 1995, thanks to the assistance of our former Republican colleague, Congressman Tom Campbell who was then serving with me in the California Legislature. During that period, I learned just how deep-seated the hate against people who were gay or transgendered, black or latino, or otherwise somehow different, still is today and that is why we need to pass H.R. 1592 today.
Mr. Speaker, these stories are just a small glimpse of the vicious crimes going on out there. We must pass this legislation today, in the memory of Michael Sandy, Gwen Araujo, and countless others who are now dead, simply because they were themselves. People have a God given right to be themselves and as law makers we must protect everyone from violence based on hate. As an African-American woman who has faced so much hatred and so much discrimination in my life I implore you today to remember the words of Dr. M.L. King, Jr. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. Hoyer: Mr. Speaker, this will be one of the serious votes that we cast during this session. This will be a vote on whether or not we are going to allow bigotry to manifest itself in hate and result in violence.
My friend, Artur Davis, rose and he said he didn't know anybody of faith who recommended violence. I would suggest that tragically the citizens of the United States know all too well some who claim to be men of faith and who have issued fatwas to kill those not of their faith, and that if they do so, Allah will reward them. We call them terrorists. They kill not because of individual wrongdoing or individual action. They kill because of the membership in a faith or a race or a nationality, because perhaps we are Christian or we are Jews or we are Americans. And we call them terrorists.
This is an important vote. Neither the exercise of bigotry nor the rationalization of bigotry ought to be sanctioned in this great House, but we know through the centuries it has been. We know there were those who in times past rose on this floor and rationalized slavery and rationalized why we should not have antilynching laws in America. We know that. We lament it, and we say to ourselves had we lived in those times, had we lived in the 18th century, hopefully we would have been beyond our time, or in the 19th century hopefully beyond our time, or in the 20th century hopefully beyond our time, as Martin Luther King, Jr., urged us to be.
We serve now in the 21st century, and we know that there are those in America and throughout the world who preach hate against a class of people not because of their actions, not because of their character, but because of who they are. That is what this vote is about today.
Through this legislation, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the Members of this body will make a strong statement in favor of values that unite us as Americans: tolerance, respect for our differences, and justice and accountability for those who perpetrate violent acts against others.
It has been too recent that lynching was rationalized in our country. It is too present in today's society that some across the sea and, yes, some here rationalize violence because of membership in another class different than they. It is long past time to bring the existing Federal hate crimes law, which was enacted nearly 40 years ago, into the 21st century. Under existing law, Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes is limited to those acts directed at individuals on the basis of race, religion, color, or national origin.
Let me say something about that to my friends. We have come to accept in America in the 21st century that it is not respectable nor acceptable to be bigoted against those who are black, be bigoted against those who are women, be bigoted against those who are Catholic or Baptist or Jews or Muslims. It is not respectable. It is not acceptable. You don't talk about that in the restaurant anymore.
But there is a class in America that is still respectable, rationalized many times by faith. But then segregation was rationalized for faith-based reasons.
My friends, this is an important vote of conscience, of a statement of what America is, a society that understands that we accept differences. We may not agree with those differences, but we know if society is to be free that we must accept differences.
That is the bedrock of what America means, not just to us, but to all the world.
And so today, my friends, I say we have an important statement to make, not a bill to pass, but a statement to make about the values of our country.
I had a prepared statement here, I won't read the balance of it. But I hope that every Member has the courage and the perspective, that when they rise from their bed 20 years from now, they will be able to say, unlike some of our predecessors in centuries past who failed the test of tolerance, to say that we had the courage to live out the principles that makes America such a wonderful, great, decent and just Nation.
Vote for this bill. Vote for our principles. Vote for your faith that teaches that we reach out to lift up and to love. Vote for this bill.
Mr. Speaker, today, through this legislation--"The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act"--the Members of this body will make a strong statement in favor of values that unite us as Americans: tolerance, respect for our differences, and justice and accountability for those who perpetrate violent acts against others.
It is long past time to bring the existing Federal hate crimes law, which was enacted nearly 40 years ago, into the 21st century.
Under existing law, Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes is limited to those acts directed at individuals on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin and only when the victim is targeted because he or she is engaged in a Federally protected activity, such as voting.
This legislation broadens this provision to cover all violent crimes motivated by race, religion, or national origin, when the defendant causes bodily injury or attempts to cause bodily injury.
Furthermore, the bill expands current law to prohibit the same conduct, if such conduct is motivated on the basis of the victim's gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is, the Federal Government has long had a history of combating crimes based on prejudice.
This bill simply expands the current law to groups that historically have been affected by violence and thus it responds to the reality in America today.
According to the FBI, race ranks first among motivations for hate crimes and sexual orientation ranks second among the reasons that people are targeted.
Some people ask: Why is this legislation even necessary?
To them, I answer: because brutal hate crimes motivated by race, religion, national orgin, gender, sexual orientation and identity or disability not only injure individual victims, but also terrorize entire segments of our population and tear at our Nation's social fabric.
Let us be clear: This legislation does not affect free speech, or punish beliefs or thoughts. It only seeks to punish violent acts.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this bill would allow the Federal Government to provide assistance to State and local law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute hate crimes, and would clarify the conditions under which such crimes could be federally investigated and prosecuted.
Enacting these important additions to current law will send a very powerful message that crimes committed against any American--just because of who he or she is--are absolutely unacceptable.
Not surprisingly, this legislation is supported by 31 State attorneys general, and more than 280 national law enforcement, professional, education, civil rights, religious and civic organizations, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National District Attorneys Association and the National Sheriffs Association.
I urge my colleagues: Vote for this legislation, not only because it is important and necessary but also because it is the right thing to do.
Congressional Records: Iraq War 2007 is
a project of Liberated Text dot org
Web Design by Impietease