Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, it is my honor now to recognize the Speaker of the House, Ms. Nancy Pelosi, for 1 minute.
Ms. Pelosi: I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, for yielding time, but more importantly, for bringing this important legislation to the floor in his ongoing, long commitment to justice in our country. And I want to commend Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin and Chairman Barney Frank for their leadership. It is an honor to call you colleague. Thank you for giving us the opportunity today to make America more American.
Every day we come to this floor, we honor the tradition of our Founders, that every person is created equal, and that we are all God's children. Every day that we come to this floor, we pledge allegiance to the flag, and at the end of that pledge we say "with liberty and justice for all." That is what today is about. Because in the preamble to the Constitution, which we take an oath to, we talk about forming a more perfect union. Our Founders knew that our Constitution had to be amended. They knew that we had to move to a more perfect union in terms of legislation to reflect the values of our country. And so we are here today to extend to the hate crimes legislation others who have had hate crimes committed against them. The record is clear.
What I am so interested in is the fact that so many law enforcement organizations have endorsed this legislation. My colleagues have spoken very eloquently as to why this is about the values of our country. They have spoken very clearly about the need for this legislation. And if it has been said, I think it bears repeating that the law enforcement organizations, many of them, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the Police Executive Research Forum, as well as nearly 30 attorney generals across the country, support need for Federal hate crime legislation. They are joined by more than 230 civil rights, education, religious and civic organizations who have voiced their support. Let us be clear that this Congress, this House of Representatives, have heard their call.
Hate crimes, as have been said, have no place in America, no place where we pledge every morning "with liberty and justice for all." We must act to end hate crimes and save lives.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation will help prevent bias-motivated violence based on religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, national origin or disability, while respecting the first amendment rights of free speech and religious expression. It increases the ability of State, local and Federal law enforcement agencies to solve a wide range of violent hate crimes.
We in our country take pride in saying that we are moving to end discrimination of all kinds. Today, we have an opportunity to end discrimination and the violence that goes with it that equal a hate crime. So whatever you may think of any one of us, based on our ethnicity or our gender or whatever, you have no right to act upon that opinion in a violent way. Who would disagree with that? That is why I hope that we can send a clear message from the Congress that this Congress does not agree with that and pass this legislation.
Who of us can think of the story of the Shepard family and the Byrd family and so many examples that we have of this and not say that is wrong. And at the very least, we can pass legislation that tells Federal authorities that they can assist State and local authorities in enforcing the law. Over 100,000 hate crimes reported since 1991. There are so many more that go unreported, many of them unprosecuted.
So today, let us take this step forward that is consistent with the values of our Founders, both in terms of all being equal, and our faith that we are all God's children, but also consistent with the call and the preamble to form a more perfect union.
Again, passing this legislation makes America more American. I urge a "yes" vote.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I yield now for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Ohio.
(Mr. Kucinich asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Kucinich: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, because our Nation is one.
I rise today in support of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Crime, violent crime in particular, has repercussions beyond the individual perpetrator and victim. It impacts family and friends and the surrounding community.
Hate crimes, whether motivated by the race, creed, or sexual orientation of an individual, terrorize a community. In 2005, 7,163 hate crimes were reported to the FBI. Over half of those hate crimes were motivated by race-related bias. Seventeen percent were crimes based on religion. One in six hate crimes is motivated by the victim's sexual orientation. The purpose and intention of these crimes extends beyond the crime itself. They serve to instill fear in others sharing that trait.
This legislation does not punish thoughts or speech; it punishes crimes motivated by bias against the race, religion, national origin, gender identity, or sexual orientation of the victim. It gives law enforcement additional tools to punish violent crimes.
Hate crimes are inherently divisive. Regardless of the group targeted, hate crimes undermine our collective ability to look past our differences and find common ground. If we as a Nation seek the eradication of acts of violence, we must address the underlying causes of that violence. We must uncover and address the hatred and discrimination that motivates these crimes.
This legislation is step towards that goal. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1592.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I now yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. Blumenauer: Mr. Speaker, we make progress in dealing with discrimination based on sexual orientation when we're not distracted by myth and bigotry, but when we deal with the rights and needs of real people. I am pleased that that is why we will pass this hate crime legislation today which follows progress in my State of Oregon just this week, where we have provided protection for domestic partnerships and antidiscrimination legislation. I hope it will herald changes on the Federal level in the military for gays and lesbians, and in the workplace with non-discrimination protection for all Americans.
When we deal with real people, their rights and needs, we will solve these problems and America will be a better place.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 30 seconds to my dear friend from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
Mr. Wynn: Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation because it is time to take a stand against the violence, the violent acts that flow from prejudice. This is not about the thought police, this is not about sermons on morality, this is about the status of our civilization, and it is about our humanity.
As human beings, we have the right to be safe from physical attack, no matter our race, our religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. In other words, human beings have the right to be safe from attacks based on who they are. No one should have to be afraid because of who they are.
We need to pass this legislation to ensure that this principle is embodied in our law.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize our brother from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver), himself a minister, for 30 seconds.
Mr. Cleaver: Mr. Speaker, as best as can be determined, I have delivered at least 15,600 sermons. I have never been investigated, I have never been indicted. I have spoken in churches and synagogues all around this country. I have spoken to thousands of pastors and clergy. I know not one who has been investigated for a sermon.
And so today I must not say I cannot, I must not, I will not sit silently and watch any injustice because in the words of my unlettered grandmother, "The God I serve don't make no trash."
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I now recognize the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) for 30 seconds.
(Mr. Langevin asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Langevin: Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This legislation will expand the Federal definition of hate crimes to include crimes which a victim was selected because of his or her disability.
So much has been done over the years to ensure inclusion of Americans with disabilities in our communities. Sadly, though, there have been shameful instances where these Americans, who may look or speak differently than others, are victims of abuse, neglect or targeted crimes. Investigating and prosecuting hate violence against someone with a disability involves unique challenges to law enforcement. Many violent crimes against people with disabilities go unreported or unprosecuted. Providing Federal resources to law enforcement is essential to help ensure proper prosecution of these crimes.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. This legislation will expand the Federal definition of hate crimes, allowing for Federal resources for law enforcement in their investigations and prosecutions of hate crimes.
I come to the floor today to draw attention to the inclusion of crimes in which a victim was selected because of his or her disability.
The Supreme Court's Olmstead decision, the ADA and other progressive policies have resulted in increased inclusion of Americans with disabilities in our classrooms, workplaces and communities. As a nation, we are growing in our acceptance of those who are perceived as "different." But this effort has not been without growing pains. Many people with disabilities look or speak differently or struggle with challenges like chronic seizures. We have seen too many shameful instances where these Americans are the victims of abuse, neglect and targeted crimes.
I recently learned the story of Ricky Whistnant, a mentally retarded adult man who was excited to have the opportunity to live independently at the age of 39. With the support of a local social service agency, he moved out of a Connecticut state group home and learned to cook for himself, maintain an apartment and be a part of the community. One evening, after cooking himself a chicken dinner, Ricky went to the corner store to buy some soda. He encountered a group of teenagers who mocked him, followed him back to his apartment, hurled a soda bottle at him. After he fell, striking his head on a windowsill, the boys continued to kick and taunt him. Ricky died a short time later in the hospital.
Ricky's story is extreme, but it is not isolated. It represents the reality of the challenges faced by individuals with disabilities. Investigating and prosecuting hate violence against someone with a disability involves unique challenges to law enforcement, and sadly many violent crimes against people with disabilities go unreported or unprosecuted.
As policymakers, we have a responsibility to address this problem. The inclusion of disability in the Federal hate crimes statute is a meaningful and substantive way to combat violence against Americans with disabilities. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1592.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?
The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Texas controls 4 minutes. The gentleman from Michigan has 50 seconds remaining.
Mr. Conyers: I am now pleased to recognize Lynn Woolsey of California for 30 seconds.
Ms. Woolsey: Mr. Speaker, my granddaughter, Julia, is 3 years old. She goes to preschool. Even in preschool, they gang up and they bully. The parents at that preschool tell me that my Julia steps in and she stops it. She will not put up with bullying and unfairness.
It is our turn. Be as brave as a 3-year-old. Vote for H.R. 1592. Show the world that if not now, when?
Mr. Smith of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I will yield the balance of my time to my good friend and colleague from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Goodlatte: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership on the committee and his strong opposition to this legislation.
I rise in strong opposition to the legislation as well. This bill would increase penalties for those who commit crimes against certain groups of citizens, but not others. For example, if a man walks down the street and punches another man because the victim is a transvestite, the aggressor would be punishable by up to 10 additional years in prison. However, if the same man walks down the street and punches another person because the victim is a pregnant woman, a senior citizen, a child under the age of 10, a veteran or the like, then the aggressor would not be punishable by the potential 10-year prison sentence. This is simply unfair.
While I strongly support efforts to rid our schools, neighborhoods and communities of violent crimes, I do not believe that new Federal laws specifically addressing hate crimes are necessary.
Today, there are few, if any, cases in which law enforcement has not prosecuted violent crimes to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of the background of the person.
In addition, this bill sets a dangerous and unconstitutional precedent of punishing citizens for their thoughts. When prosecutions occur under this bill, prosecutors will undoubtedly submit evidence of prior statements by individuals to prove that the aggressor was motivated by hate. This will have a chilling effect on citizens' willingness to speak freely as citizens will adapt to a new world where the Federal Government can cause any unpopular statements they make to be used against them in the future.
One of the great freedoms we have as Americans is our first amendment right to speak our minds, whether our thoughts are popular or unpopular, and this legislation undermines that right.
Again, I abhor acts of violence against any citizen. I abhor bigotry and believe that such crimes should be punished to the fullest extent of the law when aggressive violence occurs. However, this legislation gives special preferences to certain classes of citizens and would create a chilling effect on one of our most cherished constitutional rights.
For these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. However, if my colleagues need to be reminded further, I would like to share with them the statement of the administration regarding this legislation, H.R. 1592:
"The administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crime based on personal characteristics such as race, color, religion, or national origin. However, the administration believes that H.R. 1592 is unnecessary and constitutionally questionable. If H.R. 1592 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
"State and local criminal laws already provide criminal penalties for the violence addressed by the new Federal crime defined in section 7 of H.R. 1592, and many of these laws carry stricter penalties (including mandatory minimums and the death penalty) than the proposed language in H.R. 1592. State and local law enforcement agencies and courts have the capability to enforce those penalties and are doing so effectively.
"There has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement, and doing so is inconsistent with the proper allocation of criminal enforcement responsibilities between the different levels of government. In addition, almost every State in the country can actively prosecute hate crimes under the State's own hate crimes law."
Mr. Speaker, I include the balance of the statement of administration policy for the Record.
H.R. 1592 prohibits willfully causing or attempting to cause bodily injury to any person based upon the victim's race, color, religion, or national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The Administration notes that the bill would leave other classes (such as the elderly, members of the military, police officers, and victims of prior crimes) without similar special status. The Administration believes that all violent crimes are unacceptable, regardless of the victims, and should be punished firmly. Moreover, the bill's proposed section 249(a)(1) of title 18 of the U.S. Code raises constitutional concerns. Federalization of criminal law concerning the violence prohibited by the bill would be constitutional only if done in the implementation of a power granted to the Federal government, such as the power to protect Federal personnel, to regulate interstate commerce, or to enforce equal protection of the laws. Section 249(a)(1) is not by its terms limited to the exercise of such a power, and it is not at all clear that sufficient factual or legal grounds exist to uphold this provision of H.R. 1592.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the administration and oppose this legislation.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to conclude our debate by yielding our remaining time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).
Mr. AL Green of Texas: Mr. Speaker, Dr. King reminded us that on some questions, cowards will ask us, is it safe? What will happen to me if I do this? The answer is, what will happen to them if we don't do it? And on some questions, expediency will ask, is it politic? Will I get reelected? And then vanity asks, is it popular?
Today, let's do that which is neither safe nor politic nor popular. Let's do it because it's right.
Mr. Levin: Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
This bipartisan legislation will give state and local law enforcement the tools and resources they need to prevent and prosecute violent hate crimes.
In the not so distant past, violence motivated by hatred or discrimination towards a minority was sanctioned by our government. As we struggled to right the inequities present in our society, many used targeted violence against individual African Americans as a tactic to scare African Americans in general and discourage the Civil Rights Movement overall.
This type of targeted violence against a minority--violence specifically intended to intimidate and repress all members of that minority--was particularly reprehensible and damaging to society as a whole. Congress recognized that these particularly heinous actions warranted stronger criminal penalties, which were codified in Federal hate crimes law in 1968.
Unfortunately, almost 20 years later bias-based violence continues, and while the groups and individuals victimized have changed, the damage remains the same. In 1998, Matthew Sheppard was viciously murdered because of his sexual orientation. In January 2000, a 16-year- old high school female student was brutally attacked by a group of teenagers because the student was holding hands with another girl--a common practice in her native country in Africa. Just last October, Michael Sandy was beaten then chased into traffic and killed because he was gay.
Under current law, the attackers in each of these cases could not be prosecuted for a hate crime for two reasons. First, in order for it to constitute a federal hate crime, a victim must be engaged in a federally protected activity such as voting. Second, the current hate crime law does not consider sexual orientation a protected class.
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act addresses both these gaps in current law by expanding the definition of a hate crime to cover all violent crimes motivated by race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. It also expands the instances in which federal authorities can prosecute or assist local authorities in prosecuting hate crimes.
Importantly, the bill before the House includes specific language stating that nothing in the bill can be interpreted to prohibit "expressive conduct" protected by the First Amendment. In doing so, we have ensured that this legislation in no way impinges on one's constitutional right to freedom of speech or religious expression.
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act enjoys the strong support of law enforcement, and has been endorsed by International Association of Chief of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, the National District Attorneys Association, as well as 31 state Attorneys General.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. In doing so we are sending a clear message that hate crimes have no place in America.
Mr. Holt: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crime Prevention Act, H.R. 1592. This legislation seeks to address the pernicious effects that hate crimes have on our society.
Bigotry, bias, and ignorance have existed since the dawn of time. Yet, in a country founded on the principles of freedom, equality and liberty for all, we must do all we can to stop individuals from committing crimes based solely on prejudice.
According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, there were 7,163 hate crimes committed in 2005 and we can be sure that number is low for crimes that are underreported. Hate crimes are very real. And each hate crime spreads fear and violence among an entire community. It's long past time for Congress to pass this important legislation to help prosecute those who would commit these heinous acts.
To paraphrase Martin Luther King, the laws we pass may not change the heart; but they can restrain the heartless.
As an original cosponsor of this legislation, I believe it is the fundamental role of government to protect its citizens. Therefore, it is necessary and proper for the federal government to work in conjunction with local law enforcement officials to robustly prosecute crimes motivated by bigotry.
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act expands our Nation's existing hate crimes laws to ensure that certain violent crimes committed against an individual because of race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability are prosecuted. As this bill states, bias and bigotry related crime "savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected" for the crime, Additionally, this legislation expands the hate crime statute by dropping the requirement that the victim had been engaged in six specifically defined federally protected activities, such as voting.
H.R. 1592 also creates a grant program for the federal government to assist state and local law enforcement agencies in investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. State and local law enforcement prosecute the overwhelming majority of hate crimes. However, investigating and prosecuting these acts takes more time and resources than many local and state agencies may possess. Thus, H.R. 1592 authorizes the federal government to provide tools and resources that are needed by local law enforcement.
This legislation is supported by the National Sheriffs Association, National District Attorneys Association, International Association of Chiefs of Police, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, National Coalition of Public Safety Officers, Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, Consortium of Developmental Disabilities Councils, Human Rights Campaign, NAACP, National Victim Center, United States Conference of Mayors, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, American Association on Mental Retardation, and more than 200 other law enforcement, religious, civil rights, and civic organizations.
By making our Nation's hate crimes statutes more comprehensive, we will take a needed step in favor of tolerance and against prejudice and hate-based crime in all its forms. This legislation sends a strong message that hate-based crime cannot be tolerated and will be vigorously prosecuted.
Ms. Kilpatrick: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of every Congress, every member of this august body takes an oath to "defend and protect the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic." It is an oath that I am proud that the majority of the citizens of the 13th Congressional District of Michigan have honored me with their vote for more than 12 years. One of the most important duties that I have as a Member of the United States House of Representatives is to protect and defend its citizens, which is precisely what H.R. 1592, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, introduced by my fellow Michigander and Detroiter, one of the founders of the Congressional Black Caucus, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, Jr. This bill protects all Americans from bias-motivated violence; it provides funds so that local authorities can tackle the tough challenge of hate crimes, and it protects the First Amendment to the Constitution. It does not criminalize speech or thoughts; it does not give some people "special rights," and it is not anti-Christian.
As a child and as a proud Christian, the least common denominator of all of the lessons that I learned from my parents and minister is about God's ethic of love. Along that, I learned from the practices of my parents and my minister my divine responsibility to love our neighbors as ourselves. Indeed, it is out of my love that all of my brothers and sisters, and the activism that Jesus Christ illustrated through loving His enemies, through His compassion for the poor, the down trodden, and those who seek justice, that I became an activist, a state legislator and now a Member of Congress. It is that thirst for justice for all human beings that drives all that I do, guided by unerring and infinite wisdom and faith in God.
Despite the teachings of my parents and that of countless clergy--of all religions--around our Nation, there are some who perpetrate crime with hatred and bigotry in their heart. Who can forget that, during the civil rights era, the murders of the courageous Medgar Evers? Who can forget the killing of civil rights workers James Chaney, Michael Schwerner, and Andrew Goodman for merely registering African Americans to vote? Who can forget the murder of native Detroiter Viola Liuzzo, who was gunned down as she drove civil rights workers to voting booths? All of these crimes, motivated by some bias, were ultimately prosecuted under Federal laws because, at the time, local authorities were either unable or unwilling to prosecute these crimes. These crimes could only be prosecuted because all of these individuals were participating in activities protected by the Federal Government--helping individuals vote or register to vote, for example. Only in limited, specific instances does this law even apply.
I vote in support of H.R. 1592 because H.R. 1592 sends a powerful message that all crime motivated by hatred and bias will not be tolerated in our society. I have voted for this bill at every opportunity when it came before the U.S. Congress. This legislation strengthens Federal law by providing local authorities with more money to prosecute hate crime and by expanding the jurisdiction to crimes motivated by bias against the victims actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, or disability.
Unfortunately, opponents of this bill are shamelessly advancing false claims about the bill's impact on religion, particularly the freedom of clergy to preach about their beliefs, and that the bill legalizes certain sexual acts. Both of these claims are patently false. If you are a minister, this bill does not restrict any sermon, homily, speech or lesson unless that minister plans to start urging people to go out and commit violent crimes against others. During floor debate on the bill, Chairman Conyers reiterated the fact that the bill would not legalize any one of a plethora of sexual acts or activity, most of which are already illegal in most states.
Again this bill in no way, shape or fashion restricts free speech. Indeed, it clearly states, and has been supported by a Republican- dominated, conservative Supreme Court, that it in fact protects the First Amendment. Language is protected under this bill. Actions are criminalized. Preaching against homosexuality, against disabled people, against women--the categories that this bill protects--is allowed as it has always been, under the protections of the First Amendment. Under this bill, it would be criminal to incite violence by willfully causing "bodily injury 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."
Since 1991, over 100,000 hate crimes have occurred in our nation. Hate crimes devastate the communities, counties, cities and states in which they occur. These crimes of bigotry and hatred against an identifiable minority--based on race, color, ethnic origin, gender, disability or sexual orientation--not only hurts the individual affected, but demoralizes and dehumanizes whole groups of people. As the civil rights era clearly illustrated, these crimes are committed solely to intimidate and trample upon the human rights of others.
This as the immediate effect of crushing the investment of companies in that locality, of tourists visiting that state, of individuals wanting to relocate to that region. This is measurable in real dollars and cents. The Federal Government cannot stand by to allow these heinous, horrible offenses to be committed. I did not stand for this when I was an activist fighting for human rights in the City of Detroit, Michigan; I will not stand for it as a Member of Congress with an opportunity to make a change and make a difference.
Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel once said that "indifference is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor--never his victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she is forgotten. The political prisoner in his cell, the hungry children, the homeless refugees--not to respond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them from human memory. And in denying their humanity, we betray our own. Indifference, then, is not only a sin, it is a punishment."
In the past decade, our country has had men murdered merely because they were gay, disabled, or African American. These were all hard- working, tax-paying, law-abiding American citizens, killed because of these differences. As we move onward through this new millennium, as we continue to change course, confront crises, and continue the legacy, I will do so with the continued guidance and love of an infinite God, with extraordinary hope, with profound faith, and with the knowledge that in caring for the least of our brothers and sisters, we care for ourselves. We cannot afford to be indifferent.
As we celebrate two centuries of the end of the African slave trade, it is my hope that today will be the beginning of the end of the decades of mindless hatred, bigotry, and discrimination against all God's children. All Americans have an investment in a stable, violence- free government, and that is exactly what this bill provides.
Mr. Rush: Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1592, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This bill lends a voice to those who have no voice.
As a nation, we have been endowed to preserve the truth that all men and women are created equal under God and as Members of Congress, we must fight to preserve this truth as long as we continue to live in a democracy.
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act does not in any way infringe on the First Amendment rights of Americans. On the contrary, the bill only covers violent criminal actions. Nothing in this legislation would prohibit any form of lawful expression of one's religious beliefs.
This legislation brings our current hate crimes laws into the 21st century by expanding the current provision to cover all violent crimes motivated by race, color, religion, or national origin when the defendant causes bodily injury, or attempts to cause bodily injury through use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device.
Additionally, the bill will also allow the Federal Government to provide crucial Federal resources to State and local agencies to equip local officers with the tools they need to prosecute hate crimes. This resolution ensures that the Federal prosecution of hate crimes is limited to cases that implicate the greatest Federal interest and present the greatest need for Federal intervention.
This bill will protect people like Billy Ray Johnson of Linden, TX, a mentally-challenged African-American man who suffered severe brain damage after being maliciously attacked by four white men who hurled racial expletives at him. This law would properly prosecute the individuals, ensure that justice is allowed to run its course, and is seen by Mr. Johnson's family.
In conclusion Mr. Speaker, hate in any form is neither a Democratic nor an American value and I do not subscribe to it.
We must love our neighbors and moreover we must protect them from crimes committed against them due to their self-expression.
We must be vehemently opposed to prejudice in all forms. I strongly support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this important bill.
Mrs. Jones of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1592, The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.
In 2003 the FBI announced that there were more than 9,000 reported hate crime victims in these United States. This means that on average 25 people per day were victims of violence fueled by the toxic fumes of hate. If you are not outraged by this figure then you haven't been paying attention. As a former prosecutor in Cuyohoga County, OH, I know that these numbers are shocking for a number of reasons.
In a country as blessed as we are, and with the resources that we have, we still have an absurdly high crime rate. Violence is taken to be the norm. Local news in most big cities begins with a report on who was shot. Then, we have a country which regularly puts out a report on the human rights records of other countries around the world. Is a hate crime not a human rights issue? It has been long established constitutional doctrine that individuals should not be treated differently based on their race, color, creed, nationality, gender or sexual orientation.
This Act allows the Justice Department to grant local jurisdictions up to $100,000 to help prosecute hate crimes. It also provides moneys for preventative programs to stem the growing tide of hate crimes committed by minors. In the Bible, verse 5:43 in the Gospel of Matthew, it says "Love thy neighbor." That is what this bill is about.
The time is now to pass this legislation. We honor our founders, ancestors, and the people who built this great Nation by ensuring that going forward, Americans from every walk of life can walk down our streets in peace.
Mr. Stark: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of hate crime prevention.
Our laws should reflect the reality that hate crimes are fundamentally different from ordinary crimes. Hate crimes cause entire communities to live in fear of being attacked simply because of who they are. Hate crimes are meant to send a message and terrorize an entire group of people, not just an individual victim.
Hate crimes are a national issue and should be dealt with at the national level. In 2005, more than 7,000 hate crimes were reported to the FBI. Even this high number is certainly lower than the actual numbers of crimes committed all across America, as many go unreported and the FBI does not receive information from all law enforcement agencies.
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1592) recognizes the need for a federal response and allocates the necessary resources to investigate and prosecute hate crimes when local officials are unable or unwilling to investigate incidents of hate crime. Local authorities, however, would maintain their autonomy and primary authority for these investigations. Federal intervention would be the last resort.
The bill also removes existing barriers that prohibit the FBI and the Department of Justice from fully assisting local law enforcement agencies in addressing hate crimes. This is vital because local governments often lack the resources necessary to properly conduct expensive hate crimes investigations and prosecutions. For example, the investigation of the Matthew Shepard murder in Wyoming cost over $150,000 and resulted in lay-offs at the local Sheriff's department.
Congress has a moral and constitutional obligation to offer the full protection of our Nation's laws to all individuals. This vital legislation expands existing hate crime protections to those who are targeted because of their gender, disability, or sexual orientation. These groups have been frequent targets of hate crimes. According to the FBI, 14 percent of reported hate crimes are motivated by sexual- orientation bias.
I fully support this bill. But I feel compelled to also note that it fails to address the growing number of hate crimes being committed against homeless individuals. The National Coalition for the Homeless has documented 614 hate crimes against homeless individuals since 1999, including 189 deaths. Some of these crimes against society's most vulnerable have been caught on tape, giving us a glimpse into the violence and fear of violence that many homeless people experience on a daily basis. I hope that this body will work to bring the issue of hate crimes against homeless individuals to light and move toward protections that recognize the value of all of our neighbors, including those lacking shelter.
Hate crimes impact all of us and it is our collective responsibility to actively confront the terror they cause. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bill.
Mr. Castle: Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, H.R. 1592, which will provide needed assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies and make changes to Federal law to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of violent, bias-motivated crimes against people for no other reason than their perceived or actual race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.
Hate crimes are alarmingly prevalent and threaten the full participation of all Americans in our democratic society. While State and local governments will maintain principal responsibility, an expanded Federal role in investigating and prosecuting serious forms of hate crimes is critical in targeting and preventing hate crime in our Nation. The measure importantly applies only to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge free speech in any way. In fact, it explicitly states: "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."
H.R. 1592 is supported by virtually every major law enforcement organization in the country. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1592.
Mr. Jordan of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my opposition to H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
This measure represents an unprecedented departure from the deeply rooted American principle of equal justice under law.
Justice should be blind. It should be equal for all Americans, and it should be rendered in a criminal justice system that does not take such issues as race, gender, and religion into consideration.
It makes no sense to me that crimes committed against one citizen should be punished any more or any less than crimes committed against another, which is what this bill will do.
Violent crimes that are not aimed at a certain class of people, like those committed recently at Virginia Tech, are just as reprehensible as those that are committed for other reasons.
Yet this bill would likely treat the senseless, random violence at Virginia Tech less harshly than other, less "random" crimes.
Even worse, the bill asks local law enforcement to infer if a crime was committed "because of" bias toward a protected group. This essentially means that one's "thoughts" or "feelings" might be evidence of hate, and can be considered when determining whether a crime was indeed a "hate" crime.
Let me say that again. The bill would ask law enforcement to consider one's potential "thoughts" as evidence of "hate."
Mr. Speaker, this is the dangerous, likely unconstitutional threat that has caused great concern to so many residents of Ohio's 4th Congressional District.
Upon consideration of this bill in the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Speaker, I sent you a letter, co-signed by many of my Republican colleagues on the committee. The letter expressed concern about H.R. 1592's "thought crime" provisions and their potential to categorize individuals who share spiritual or gospel messages as hate criminals.
In the letter, we noted that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed Resolution 060356, which castigated Cardinal William Levada and the Catholic Church for opposing the adoption of children by homosexuals. The resolution, perhaps prophetically, describes the Church's policy using such words as "hateful," "discriminatory," "insulting," and "callous."
It is easy to see how this type of inflammatory anti-religious assertion emanating from a governmental body is disconcerting to those who espouse deep religious beliefs.
This so-called hate crimes bill not only discards the fundamental American legal principle of equal justice, it also lays the groundwork to criminalize individuals and groups that might not share the liberal values of places like San Francisco.
It is rather ironic that on this, the National Day of Prayer--a day where Americans gather to celebrate our religious heritage--liberal members of this House are uniting to pass a bill that could deem their prayerful voices as "hateful."
I urge a "no" vote on this bill.
Ms. Hirono: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. I would like to thank the chief sponsor of this legislation, Congressman Conyers, for his work and dedication in bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor for debate.
H.R. 1592 will strengthen existing Federal hate crimes laws in two meaningful ways. First, the bill removes the requirement that victims of violent bias-motivated crimes be engaged in a federally protected activity, such as voting, when the crime is committed. Federal entities would then be able to provide technical and grant support for the hate crimes investigations of State and local law enforcement agencies. Second, the bill provides for a more comprehensive definition of hate crimes to include those motivated by gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
In 2005, the FBI documented 7,163 hate crimes directed against institutions and individuals because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, or disability. These statistics were gathered from 12,417 law enforcement agencies across the country. Yet it is not the frequency or number of crimes alone that distinguish these acts of violence from other crimes.
We know that hate crimes are more than individual assaults--they send shock waves and fear throughout a whole community and segments of our diverse population. Hate violence is also a message crime and the messages are clear: "know your place" and "your kind is not welcome here." Hate crimes clearly pose a serious threat to our Nation's security and the very values upon which our country were founded.
As an original cosponsor of H.R. 1592, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of final passage.
Ms. Solis: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. Violent crimes committed against anyone because of their race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability should not be taken lightly. H.R. 1592 would make this kind of violent crime a Federal offense and authorizes Federal grants to assist state and local law enforcement agencies in prosecuting violent hate crimes.
I believe that it is necessary for the Federal Government to secure the lives of all people and bring justice to individuals who have been victims of a violent hate crime. By allowing the Federal Government jurisdiction in certain, limited cases of violent hate crime, this bill provides much-needed support to local law enforcement agencies. This piece of legislation is particularly important at a time when the number of hate groups has grown over the past years. The Southern Poverty Law Center reported that the number of hate groups has seen a 40 percent increase since 2000 and attributed much of this growth to the immigration issue.
Hate crimes that are motivated by bigotry and bias against minority populations affect entire families and communities. We must stand to protect our communities from hateful actions. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 1592.
Mr. Gingrey: Mr. Speaker, while I was unavoidably absent from the floor today to attend the funeral of a close personal friend and great Georgian, C.W. Matthews, I want to express my strong opposition to H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. Had I been present during the actual vote, I would have voted "no" to H.R. 1592 because I believe all crimes should be prosecuted equally without special rights based on gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. All criminal acts are committed with the intention of harming or depriving another individual, and trying to elevate crimes against certain individuals would be an arbitrary way to punish. I absolutely believe that those who commit crimes against anyone should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Furthermore, I would have voted "yes" in strong support of the motion to recommit which would have amended the legislation to protect seniors and veterans.
Mrs. Christensen: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1592, the Local law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act and to oppose attempts to weaken the bill by removing certain groups from its protection.
Mr. Speaker, no one knows better than a member of the African- American community in this country that hate crimes exist and have been an ugly part of this country's history. And we also know that in the face of all of the apologies offered and passed for slavery and lynching, if we cannot pass this bill today they are but empty words on a piece of worthless paper.
It is time for us to demand through this vote that this country draw the line with a zero-tolerance policy for crimes based on any characteristic of the victim.
This critically needed legislation will provide local police and sheriff's departments with vital Federal resources to address hate crimes; which are crimes against either persons or property where the offender intentionally selects the victim because of their actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation.
I fail to understand why anyone, including members of the clergy would oppose this legislation. This form of hate for one human-being to another should be repugnant to all of us and not be tolerated.
While current Federal law covers hate crimes it is very narrow in scope and does not reach many cases where individuals motivated by hate kill or injure others. H.R. 1592, would strengthen the Federal response to hate crimes by giving the U.S. Justice Department power to investigate and prosecute violence motivated by the victims race color, religion national origin gender or sexual orientation, gender identity of disability.
Sadly, the need for H.R., 1592 is underscored because this problem of violence based on hate for a person of another race, ethnicity, gender or persuasion is getting worse not better. Since 1991, the FBI has received reports of more than 113,000 hate crimes. For the year 2005 (for which the most current data are available), the FBI received reports from law enforcement agencies identifying 7,163 bias-motivated criminal incidents.
It is time that this Congress send a message to the American people that we will not tolerate hate crimes, that they must strengthen the Federal response and prosecution of those who perpetrate them, that we uphold the principles of equality and justice for all upon which this country was founded and that we intend to practice what many of us preach; which is brotherly love.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1592.
Mr. Farr: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.
Simply put, the current patchwork of State laws alone does not fully protect the rights of all Americans from violence based upon actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. I am frankly astounded that current Federal laws are not more inclusive.
It is unconscionable that we are only now voting on this legislation today. Almost 150 years after our country enshrined the freedom from violence based upon race, with the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution, we still have not extended those same protections to all of our citizens. Today, this body has the chance and indeed the responsibility to rectify this injustice.
Hate knows no borders, so even though 38 states already provide some of the protections that would be extended by Federal law if H.R. 1592 is enacted, only a Federal law can ensure equal protection under the law for all Americans.
Remarkably, this legislation faces opposition. These opponents have claimed that H.R. 1592 is somehow an attack on free speech or a person's religious beliefs. H.R. 1592 does not criminalize freedom of speech or religious expression, but it does criminalize violence against a person based upon their perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. In fact, a long and diverse list of religious organizations have spoken out in favor of H.R. 1592, including groups representing Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim and Sikh faiths.
No longer will this body be silent for the millions of Americans that too often have no voice in the world.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.
Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California: Mr. Speaker, I rise to show my support for H.R. 1592, The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.
Freedoms of speech, expression, and equal protection under the law are the founding principles of this country. The Constitution guarantees these rights to all Americans. I believe that it is our duty to fight for the equal rights of all Americans, regardless of their race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
I abhor all violent crimes. Attacks that are motivated by hate are attacks on a whole class of people. Such hate crimes are intended to instill fear in an entire community and are particularly heinous. We must give law enforcement the proper tools to investigate and prosecute crimes that are motivated by hate.
Laws punishing hate crimes are not intended to value one group over another, but rather to acknowledge the historical bias against certain minority groups and opinions so that all can enjoy the same legal protections as the majority. Hate crime laws protect innocent people and allow them to engage in everyday activity without fear.
I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this important legislation. This bill helps to better define a hate crime and prevents the erosion of civil liberties critical to our democracy.
Mr. Engel: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Our country values diversity, values individuality, values different cultures and respects people for who they are. Hate crimes are simply un-American.
In 2005, there were over 7,000 Federal hate crimes committed in this country, but the current law does not cover most true hate crimes.
Late last year in New York, three men lured Michael J. Sandy to a parking lot, beat him and chased him into traffic where he was struck by a car. He died 5 days later, one day after his 29th birthday. Why did these attackers target Michael J. Sandy? Because he was gay.
Today, Mr. Sandy's attackers can not be prosecuted under Federal law for two reasons. First, in order to be a Federal hate crime, a victim must be engaged in a federally protected activity such as voting. Second, the current hate crime law does not consider sexual orientation a protected class.
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act will sensibly expand the definition of a Federal hate crime to cover all violent crimes motivated by race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability when the defendant causes bodily injury or attempts to cause bodily injury through the use of a firearm or an explosive device.
Thankfully, New York law has allowed this case to be prosecuted as a hate crime, but it is time to update our Federal laws to protect our citizens.
The bill will also give local law enforcement the help they need in solving and prosecuting these despicable crimes. Some of these cases can strain local resources, but under this legislation, law enforcement can reach out and secure Federal resources to pursue these complex cases.
Because the bill makes common sense reforms, the bill has enjoyed wide bipartisan support. In fact, the bill is supported by 31 State Attorneys General and over 280 national law enforcement, professional, education, civil rights, religious, and civic organizations.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical legislation.
Mr. Larson of Connecticut: Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which would address the appalling crimes that continue to occur today simply because of a person's race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability or sexual orientation.
I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 1592 because it is the government's responsibility to defend the civil liberties of every American and prosecute acts of aggression directed at a specific group of individuals. Current federal law provides for enhanced sentencing for hate crimes, however, the vast majority of these crimes are not tried in federal court. This bill would make it a federal crime to cause, or attempt to cause, bodily harm to another person through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device because of the victim's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender or sexual orientation. Opponents of this bill claim that it would chip away at First Amendment rights. On the contrary, H.R. 1592 would protect First Amendment speech and is only intended to prosecute acts of violence.
The bill would also provide federal assistance to states and local jurisdictions to prosecute hate crimes. Specifically, the measure would authorize the Attorney General to make grants available to state and local law enforcement agencies that have incurred extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. Currently, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) collects statistics on crimes based on race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and disability. This legislation would require that the FBI collect statistics on gender and gender identity-related bias crimes.
I applaud Chairman Conyers and members of the House Judiciary Committee for their tireless efforts and leadership on this landmark legislation. I would also like to single out the efforts of the gentlewoman from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin, and the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank, for their leadership on this issue. During my tenure in the House of Representatives and as a father of three children, I have been a consistent supporter of this measure and believe it is a tragedy that terrible injustices continue to occur in the 21st century. Our nation was founded on the principles of liberty and justice for all and these hate crimes run counter to our national conscience.
I believe Robert F. Kennedy spoke most eloquently on this issue while commenting on the loss of Dr. Martin Luther King: "What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence or lawlessness; but love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country * * *" Today's legislation takes us one further step towards the kind of nation Senator Kennedy and Dr. King worked for and I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting for it.
Mr. Terry: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Let me say from the outset: I am strongly opposed to violent crimes committed against an individual, regardless of the motivation of the person committing it. That is why I support strong state and local prosecution measures to curb violent crime and increase safety in our communities. In fact, I am a principal supporter in Congress for increasing Federal funding for state and local law enforcement officers to curb gang and drug crimes, which often leads to violent crimes.
I have also spent considerable time in my district meeting with groups who have experienced discrimination or have been targets of violent behavior simply due to their race, religion or sexual orientation. The concerns they have raised with me have weighed heavily on my mind, and have caused me to reconsider my views on our Constitution's Tenth Amendment.
In the past, I have not supported Federal hate crimes legislation since it has traditionally been the responsibility of state and local prosecutors rather than the Federal Government. States have the right to apprehend and prosecute criminals under their own criminal codes, which must be respected. They also have the right to enhance penalties as they see fit, and many states have taken that step. My own state of Nebraska enacted comprehensive hate crimes legislation in 1997.
The Nebraska legislation authorizes judges to impose harsher penalties in criminal cases when a determination is made that the crime was committed due to the victim's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability or because of his or her association with persons who fit the specified classifications. The enhanced penalties for hate crimes provided for in the statute would be the next highest penalty classification above the one statutorily imposed for the crime, with the death penalty as the only exception. A broad variety of criminal charges could be enhanced, including manslaughter, assault, terroristic threats, stalking, kidnapping, false imprisonment, sexual assault of an adult or child, arson, criminal mischief, and criminal trespass. Our state statutes also provide victims with the authority to bring civil actions against attackers.
The actions taken by Nebraska and so many other states are appropriate because the states have the ability to expand their criminal codes as each sees fit. At the same time, there is no Federal nexus and thus no need for duplicative Federal legislation.
The Tenth Amendment is clear: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." At some point, we have to stop federalizing every problem in the country, no matter how large or small. When the states are addressing a problem effectively, there is no need for the Federal Government to add an extra layer of bureaucracy. Crime and punishment, with few exceptions, are in the purview of state legislative authority. I am unwilling to interfere with that constitutional balance, no matter how worthy the underlying subject matter might be. For these reasons, I must oppose H.R. 1592.
Mr. Udall of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, in my view an act of violence against one person is an act of violence against all of us Our actions toward each other should--and our policies as a nation must--be based on compassion and understanding of human experiences if we are to truly have a nation of liberty and justice for all.
In other words, I think in our country all of us, regardless of our race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, should be able to live our lives free from violence, intimidation, and discrimination.
That is why I believe Congress must pass legislation to make it more likely that people who are guilty of violent crimes based on bias are properly prosecuted, convicted, and punished.
The result will not be to end hate--nor to make hate a crime--but to establish that our government will not tolerate hate and bigotry that manifests itself in violence against anyone.
Because I support that result, since first coming to Congress I have cosponsored and voted for legislation similar to the measure now before us.
And that is why I will vote for this bill today.
The bill will amend the Federal criminal code to prohibit willfully causing bodily injury to any person because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of that person.
It also will authorize the Department of Justice to provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or other assistance to help local law enforcement agencies investigate and prosecute acts that are both crimes of violence under Federal law or a felony under State, local, or Indian tribal law; and also are motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim. And to further assist State, local, and tribal officials with the expenses related to hate crime cases, the bill would authorize the Attorney General to establish a grant program to be administered by the Office of Justice Programs that would have a particular focus on combating hate crime committed by juvenile offenders.
The bill also will broaden Federal coverage of hate crimes under two scenarios. First, under any circumstance, it will prohibit willfully inflicting bodily injury to any person, attempted or otherwise, through the use of fire, a firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, if such conduct were motivated on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person. Second, it will prohibit the same conduct, if such conduct were motivated on the basis of the victim's gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, in addition to the four bases covered by the first scenario, in circumstances involving specific jurisdictional ties to the Constitution's interstate commerce clause.
Under either scenario, offenders could be sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment and a fine, or for any term to life imprisonment if the crime resulted in the victim's death, or involved murder, kidnapping, attempted kidnapping, rape, or attempted rape.
The bill addresses two deficiencies in current law that limit the Federal Government's ability to work with State and local law enforcement agencies and have led to acquittals in some cases in which Federal jurisdiction has been asserted to backstop local efforts.
One is the fact that current Federal law provides no coverage for violent hate crimes committed because of the victim's perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. The other is that current law requires proof that the crime was committed with the intent to interfere with the victim's participation in one of six specifically defined federally protected activities. The bill addresses both those limitations and provides the Justice Department tools to effectively act against bias-motivated violence by assisting States and local law enforcement agencies and by pursuing Federal charges where appropriate. This is the same approach Congress took in the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996.
It is important to note that even after enactment of this bill, State and local authorities will deal with the overwhelming majority of hate crimes--and the bill is drafted to ensure that the Federal prosecution of hate crimes will be limited to cases that implicate the greatest Federal interest and present the greatest need for Federal intervention.
The bill is not intended to federalize all rapes, sexual assaults, acts of domestic violence, or other gender-based crimes.
In fact, for a hate crime case to be prosecuted federally, the Attorney General, or a high-ranking subordinate, would have to certify that pertinent state or local officials (1) were unable or unwilling to prosecute; (2) favored Federal prosecution; or (3) prosecuted, but the investigation or trial's results did not satisfy the Federal interest to combat hate crimes.
This certification requirement is intended to ensure that the Federal Government will assert the new hate crimes jurisdiction in a principled and properly limited fashion, consistent with procedures under the current Federal hate crimes statute.
It should also be noted that the bill respects and protects First Amendment rights. It will not bar or punish name-calling, verbal abuse or expressions of hatred toward any person or group--it deals only with violent criminal actions--and includes a provision explicitly stating that conduct protected under the speech and religious freedom clauses of the First Amendment is not subject to prosecution. In short, the bill does not criminalize speech or advocacy, and its enactment will not jeopardize anyone's right to associate, to denounce, to hold fast to a religious belief, or to do anything else protected by the Constitution's First Amendment.
Mr. Speaker, crimes motivated by bias are not as rare as many of us would like to think. Since 1991 the FBI has received reports of more than 113,000 hate crimes. In 2005, the latest year for which data are available, the FBI received reports from law enforcement agencies identifying 7,163 bias-motivated criminal incidents, with more than half being racially-motivated and others reflecting religious bias (17.1 percent), sexual orientation (14.2 percent) and ethnicity/ national origin bias (13.7 percent). And, unfortunately, Colorado is not immune--in 2005 our state reported 59 crimes based on racial bias, 22 reflecting religious prejudice, 16 related to sexual orientation, 27 involving ethnic bias, and 1 involving a person's disability, and there have been more since then.
These sobering statistics demonstrate that the legislation before us is appropriate and necessary--especially because it is generally understood that hate crimes are often not reported as such.
Accordingly, I support the bill and urge its passage.
Mr. Honda: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.
As Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, I know that Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders have faced a long history of hate crimes, from the 1880 lynching of Chinese in Denver's Chinatown, to the brutal killing of Vincent Chin in 1982, to post-September 11 violence against Arabs, Sikhs, and Muslims, including the murder of Balbir Sigh Sodhi, and more recently, the killing of Cha Vang, a Hmong individual, in Wisconsin just this year.
Hate crimes are under-reported and under-prosecuted. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act provides the resources necessary for all levels of government to investigate and prosecute hate crimes based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability.
Hate crimes are unique in that they are motivated by hostility toward an entire community, and are oftentimes rooted in a wider public sentiment of discrimination, xenophobia, and intolerance. The passage of this Act is a step in the right direction in promoting tolerance in our intgrated society.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Snyder): All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 364, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
Mr. Smith of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The Speaker pro tempore: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. Smith of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I do oppose it, in the current form.
The Speaker pro tempore: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Smith of Texas moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1592 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the same back to the House promptly with the following amendments:
Page 12, line 5, after "orientation," insert "status as a senior citizen who has attained the age of 65 years, status as a current or former member of the Armed Forces,".
Mr. Smith of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The Speaker pro tempore: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The Speaker pro tempore: Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. Smith of Texas: Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is straightforward. It seeks to protect America's senior citizens and those who serve in our Armed Forces.
My colleagues on the other side contend that a new law is needed to cover crimes against persons based on race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. The motion to recommit makes sure that seniors and our military personnel are added to the list of protected groups.
We all care greatly about the safety and security of our senior citizens. We all understand that they are particularly vulnerable to crime. Criminals who prey on our senior citizens because they are senior citizens should be vigorously prosecuted and punished.
The statistics paint a disturbing picture of violence against senior citizens in our country. A recent Justice Department study found that each year over the last 10 years, for every 1,000 persons over 65, four are violently assaulted. This includes rape, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assaults. Approximately 65 percent of these crimes against senior citizens are committed by strangers or casual acquaintances. In my hometown, the San Antonio police report rising crime against the elderly, with over 6,200 crimes just this last year.
We were all horrified by the recent videotaped robbery in New York City committed against 101-year-old Rose Morat. Rose was leaving her building to go to church when a robber, who pretended to help her through the vestibule, turned and delivered three hard punches to her face and grabbed her purse. He pushed her and her walker to the ground. Rose suffered a broken cheekbone and was hospitalized. The robber got away with $33 and her house keys. Police believe the same man robbed an 85-year-old woman shortly after beating Rose.
These are horrible crimes that strike fear into the hearts of America's senior citizens and make them wonder whether they will be victimized next.
This motion to recommit also adds the category of current or former members of the Armed Forces to the list of groups in this bill. We honor our men and women of the military because of their patriotism, their commitment to protecting our freedom and their service to our country. In times of controversy surrounding the use of our military, we have seen unfortunate acts by those who use their hostility towards the military to further their political agenda.
With the rising debate over the Iraq war, we are seeing increasing threats to Iraqi war veterans. Recently, a Syracuse woman pleaded guilty to spitting in the face of a Fort Drum soldier at an airport.
Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to make it clear to everyone that we honor our veterans and current members of our Armed Forces. Congress can make the message clear that hate of our Armed Forces will be punished at a heightened level, just like the other groups under this act.
If Congress rejects this motion to recommit, who will explain to the thousands of victims who are senior citizens or military victims that their injuries are less important than those of others protected under the hate crimes law? Are we really prepared to tell seniors and our men and women in uniform across our country that crimes committed against victims because of race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability are, as a rule, more worthy of punishment than those committed against seniors and military personnel?
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, would he yield for a unanimous consent request that the bill be amended as follows: Page 12, line 5 after "orientation" insert "status as a senior citizen who has attained the age of 65 years; status as a current or former member of the armed services."
Would the gentleman yield for a unanimous consent request on that?
Mr. Smith of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully object.
The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman does not yield.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, the proponent of the motion to recommit, yield for a unanimous consent request that the motion be amended by striking the word "promptly" and inserting the word "forthwith?"
Mr. Smith of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I also object to that request.
The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Texas does not yield for that purpose.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the motion being offered by the gentleman provides the bill be reported back to the House "promptly" rather than reported back "forthwith."
Is it true, as I believe to be the case, that the effect of the word "promptly" is that the House is not being asked to amend this bill, but to send it off the Floor and back to the Judiciary Committee?
The Speaker pro tempore: The adoption of a motion to recommit with instructions to report back "promptly" sends the back bill back to committee, whose eventual report, if any, would not be immediately before the House.
Does the gentleman from Michigan seek time in opposition to the motion to recommit?
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I do.
Mr. Price of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker pro tempore: Does the gentleman from Michigan yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I am not inclined to at this time.
The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the motion to recommit.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the motion to recommit, which would not operate as a simple amendment, but, listen to me, would instead send the bill back to the Committee on the Judiciary, in essence killing the bill for the remainder of the Congress.
The categories of individuals included in the amendment, seniors and members of the armed services, are entitled to protection under the law, and in point of fact they have protection under the law at both Federal and State levels. I note that it is already a Federal crime to kill or attempt to kill any member of the armed services under 18 U.S.C. 1114.
We also have programs in the law to provide assistance to prosecutors and law enforcement in the enforcement of crimes against elders, as well as a variety of senior services that will help them in their homes, safety and elder care.
The purpose of the bill is to protect classes of individuals who have been and are the group-wide victims of systemic violence: hanging a man because of his race, dragging someone to death because they are disabled. These are crimes that are designed to target and intimidate entire groups of individuals, and we all know it. That is why they are labeled hate crimes and why this legislation is before us.
As much as any Member here, I believe we can and should do more to protect other members of society. That is why our Committee on the Judiciary approved a COPS bill yesterday, reauthorizing a program to provide for 100,000 local police on the beat and other safety officials. That is why I have in the past pushed for an Elder Justice Act.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. Hoyer: I thank the distinguished chairman.
This motion, my colleagues, reeks with the stench of cynicism. Let me tell you why. The distinguished chairman rose and asked for unanimous consent to add the protections to members of our Armed Forces who are either serving or have served, and he then asked to protect our senior citizens. He asked for unanimous consent to do that, and the gentleman from Texas objected, so it was not added.
Then the chairman rose and asked that we substitute "forthwith" for "promptly" so their amendment could be immediately adopted, and the gentleman from Texas objected.
How cynical can you be to offer an amendment, I tell my friend, which in its own framework will kill the very proposition you are making? For if this amendment prevails, what will happen is, the bill will be killed and the protection of the Armed Forces that he seeks, the protection of the seniors that he seeks, will be killed.
My friends on this side of the aisle, this is a political game. The American public knows it is a political game. Let's reject this cynical political game and pass this legislation.
The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Price of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Price of Georgia: Isn't it true, Mr. Speaker, that under the motion to recommit there is nothing that precludes the Judiciary Committee from dealing with the bill when it goes back to the committee and sending it back to the floor of the House?
The Speaker pro tempore: The adoption of a motion to recommit with instructions to report back "promptly" sends the bill back to committee, whose eventual report, if any, would not be immediately before the House.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The Speaker pro tempore: The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Smith of Texas: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The Speaker pro tempore: Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage of the bill.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 189, nays 227, not voting 17, as follows:
| Roll No. 298 - Recommit H. R. 1592 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YEAS--189 | ||||
| Aderholt | Akin | Alexander | Altmire | Bachmann |
| Bachus | Baker | Barrett (SC) | Barrow | Bartlett (MD) |
| Barton (TX) | Biggert | Bilbray | Bilirakis | Bishop (UT) |
| Blackburn | Blunt | Boehner | Bonner | Boozman |
| Boustany | Brady (TX) | Brown (SC) | Brown-Waite, Ginny | Buchanan |
| Burgess | Burton (IN) | Buyer | Calvert | Camp (MI) |
| Campbell (CA) | Cannon | Cantor | Capito | Carter |
| Chabot | Coble | Cole (OK) | Conaway | Crenshaw |
| Culberson | Davis (KY) | Davis, David | Davis, Tom | Deal (GA) |
| Dent | Diaz-Balart, L. | Diaz-Balart, M. | Doolittle | Drake |
| Dreier | Duncan | Ehlers | Emerson | English (PA) |
| Everett | Fallin | Feeney | Ferguson | Flake |
| Forbes | Fortenberry | Fossella | Foxx | Franks (AZ) |
| Frelinghuysen | Gallegly | Garrett (NJ) | Gerlach | Gilchrest |
| Gillmor | Gohmert | Goode | Goodlatte | Granger |
| Hall (TX) | Hastings (WA) | Hayes | Heller | Hensarling |
| Herger | Hill | Hobson | Hoekstra | Holden |
| Hulshof | Inglis (SC) | Issa | Jindal | Johnson (IL) |
| Johnson, Sam | Jones (NC) | Jordan | Keller | King (IA) |
| King (NY) | Kingston | Kline (MN) | Knollenberg | Kuhl (NY) |
| LaHood | Lamborn | Latham | LaTourette | Lewis (CA) |
| Lewis (KY) | Linder | LoBiondo | Lucas | Lungren, Daniel E. |
| Mack | Mahoney (FL) | Manzullo | Marchant | Marshall |
| McCarthy (CA) | McCaul (TX) | McCotter | McCrery | McHenry |
| McHugh | McKeon | Melancon | Mica | Miller (FL) |
| Miller (MI) | Miller, Gary | Mitchell | Moran (KS) | Murphy, Tim |
| Musgrave | Myrick | Neugebauer | Nunes | Pearce |
| Pence | Peterson (PA) | Petri | Pickering | Pitts |
| Poe | Porter | Putnam | Regula | Rehberg |
| Reichert | Renzi | Rogers (AL) | Rogers (KY) | Rogers (MI) |
| Rohrabacher | Roskam | Royce | Ryan (WI) | Sali |
| Saxton | Schmidt | Sensenbrenner | Sessions | Shadegg |
| Shimkus | Shuster | Simpson | Smith (NE) | Smith (NJ) |
| Smith (TX) | Souder | Stearns | Sullivan | Taylor |
| Terry | Thornberry | Tiahrt | Tiberi | Turner |
| Walberg | Walden (OR) | Walsh (NY) | Wamp | Weldon (FL) |
| Weller | Westmoreland | Whitfield | Wicker | Wilson (NM) |
| Wilson (SC) | Wolf | Young (AK) | Young (FL) | |
| NAYS--227 | ||||
| Abercrombie | Ackerman | Allen | Andrews | Arcuri |
| Baca | Baird | Baldwin | Bean | Becerra |
| Berkley | Berman | Berry | Bishop (GA) | Bishop (NY) |
| Blumenauer | Bono | Boren | Boswell | Boucher |
| Boyd (FL) | Boyda (KS) | Brady (PA) | Braley (IA) | Brown, Corrine |
| Butterfield | Capps | Capuano | Cardoza | Carnahan |
| Carney | Carson | Castle | Castor | Chandler |
| Clarke | Clay | Cleaver | Clyburn | Cohen |
| Conyers | Cooper | Costa | Costello | Courtney |
| Cramer | Crowley | Cuellar | Cummings | Davis (AL) |
| Davis (CA) | Davis (IL) | Davis, Lincoln | DeFazio | DeGette |
| Delahunt | DeLauro | Dicks | Dingell | Doggett |
| Donnelly | Doyle | Edwards | Ellison | Ellsworth |
| Emanuel | Eshoo | Etheridge | Farr | Filner |
| Frank (MA) | Giffords | Gillibrand | Gonzalez | Gordon |
| Green, Al | Green, Gene | Grijalva | Gutierrez | Hall (NY) |
| Hare | Harman | Hastings (FL) | Herseth Sandlin | Higgins |
| Hinchey | Hinojosa | Hirono | Hodes | Holt |
| Honda | Hooley | Hoyer | Inslee | Israel |
| Jackson (IL) | Jackson-Lee (TX) | Jefferson | Johnson (GA) | Jones (OH) |
| Kagen | Kanjorski | Kaptur | Kennedy | Kildee |
| Kilpatrick | Kind | Kirk | Klein (FL) | Kucinich |
| Langevin | Lantos | Larsen (WA) | Larson (CT) | Lee |
| Levin | Lewis (GA) | Lipinski | Loebsack | Lofgren, Zoe |
| Lowey | Lynch | Maloney (NY) | Markey | Matheson |
| Matsui | McCarthy (NY) | McCollum (MN) | McDermott | McGovern |
| McNerney | McNulty | Meehan | Meek (FL) | Meeks (NY) |
| Michaud | Miller (NC) | Miller, George | Mollohan | Moore (KS) |
| Moore (WI) | Moran (VA) | Murphy (CT) | Murphy, Patrick | Murtha |
| Nadler | Napolitano | Neal (MA) | Oberstar | Obey |
| Olver | Pallone | Pascrell | Pastor | Payne |
| Pelosi | Perlmutter | Peterson (MN) | Platts | Pomeroy |
| Price (GA) | Price (NC) | Pryce (OH) | Rahall | Ramstad |
| Rangel | Reyes | Reynolds | Rodriguez | Ros-Lehtinen |
| Ross | Rothman | Roybal-Allard | Ruppersberger | Rush |
| Ryan (OH) | Salazar | Sanchez, Linda T. | Sanchez, Loretta | Sarbanes |
| Schakowsky | Schiff | Schwartz | Scott (GA) | Scott (VA) |
| Serrano | Sestak | Shays | Shea-Porter | Sherman |
| Shuler | Sires | Skelton | Slaughter | Smith (WA) |
| Snyder | Solis | Space | Spratt | Stark |
| Stupak | Sutton | Tauscher | Thompson (CA) | Thompson (MS) |
| Tierney | Towns | Udall (CO) | Udall (NM) | Upton |
| Van Hollen | Velazquez | Visclosky | Walz (MN) | Wasserman Schultz |
| Waters | Watson | Watt | Waxman | Weiner |
| Welch (VT) | Wexler | Wilson (OH) | Woolsey | Wu |
| Wynn | Yarmuth | |||
| NOT VOTING--17 | ||||
| Cubin | Davis, Jo Ann | Engel | Fattah | Gingrey |
| Graves | Hastert | Hunter | Johnson, E. B. | Lampson |
| McIntyre | McMorris Rodgers | Ortiz | Paul | Radanovich |
| Tancredo | Tanner | |||
The Speaker pro tempore (during the vote): Members are advised there are 2 minutes remaining on the vote.
Messrs. Hobson, Garrett of New Jersey and Buyer changed their vote from "nay" to "yea."
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Frank of Massachusetts): The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Gohmert: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The Speaker pro tempore: This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237, nays 180, not voting 16, as follows:
| Roll No. 299 - H.R. 1592 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YEAS--237 | ||||
| Abercrombie | Ackerman | Allen | Altmire | Andrews |
| Arcuri | Baca | Baird | Baldwin | Barrow |
| Bean | Becerra | Berkley | Berman | Biggert |
| Bishop (GA) | Bishop (NY) | Blumenauer | Bono | Boswell |
| Boucher | Boyd (FL) | Boyda (KS) | Brady (PA) | Braley (IA) |
| Brown, Corrine | Butterfield | Capps | Capuano | Cardoza |
| Carnahan | Carson | Castle | Castor | Chandler |
| Clarke | Clay | Cleaver | Clyburn | Cohen |
| Conyers | Cooper | Costa | Costello | Courtney |
| Crowley | Cuellar | Cummings | Davis (AL) | Davis (CA) |
| Davis (IL) | DeFazio | DeGette | Delahunt | DeLauro |
| Dent | Diaz-Balart, L. | Diaz-Balart, M. | Dicks | Dingell |
| Doggett | Doyle | Edwards | Ellison | Emanuel |
| English (PA) | Eshoo | Etheridge | Farr | Ferguson |
| Filner | Frank (MA) | Frelinghuysen | Gerlach | Giffords |
| Gilchrest | Gillibrand | Gonzalez | Green, Al | Green, Gene |
| Grijalva | Gutierrez | Hall (NY) | Hare | Harman |
| Hastings (FL) | Herseth Sandlin | Higgins | Hill | Hinchey |
| Hinojosa | Hirono | Hodes | Holden | Holt |
| Honda | Hooley | Hoyer | Inslee | Israel |
| Jackson (IL) | Jackson-Lee (TX) | Jefferson | Johnson (GA) | Jones (OH) |
| Kagen | Kanjorski | Kaptur | Kennedy | Kildee |
| Kilpatrick | Kind | Kirk | Klein (FL) | Kucinich |
| Kuhl (NY) | LaHood | Langevin | Lantos | Larsen (WA) |
| Larson (CT) | Lee | Levin | Lewis (GA) | Lipinski |
| LoBiondo | Loebsack | Lofgren, Zoe | Lowey | Lynch |
| Mahoney (FL) | Maloney (NY) | Markey | Marshall | Matheson |
| Matsui | McCarthy (NY) | McCollum (MN) | McCrery | McDermott |
| McGovern | McNerney | McNulty | Meehan | Meek (FL) |
| Meeks (NY) | Michaud | Miller (NC) | Miller, George | Mitchell |
| Mollohan | Moore (KS) | Moore (WI) | Moran (VA) | Murphy (CT) |
| Murphy, Patrick | Murtha | Nadler | Napolitano | Neal (MA) |
| Oberstar | Obey | Olver | Pallone | Pascrell |
| Pastor | Payne | Pelosi | Perlmutter | Platts |
| Pomeroy | Porter | Price (NC) | Pryce (OH) | Rahall |
| Rangel | Reichert | Reyes | Rodriguez | Ros-Lehtinen |
| Rothman | Roybal-Allard | Ruppersberger | Rush | Ryan (OH) |
| Salazar | Sanchez, Linda T. | Sanchez, Loretta | Sarbanes | Saxton |
| Schakowsky | Schiff | Schwartz | Scott (GA) | Scott (VA) |
| Serrano | Sestak | Shays | Shea-Porter | Sherman |
| Sires | Skelton | Slaughter | Smith (WA) | Snyder |
| Solis | Space | Spratt | Stark | Stupak |
| Sutton | Tauscher | Thompson (CA) | Thompson (MS) | Tierney |
| Towns | Udall (CO) | Udall (NM) | Van Hollen | Velazquez |
| Visclosky | Walden (OR) | Walsh (NY) | Walz (MN) | Wasserman Schultz |
| Waters | Watson | Watt | Waxman | Weiner |
| Welch (VT) | Wexler | Wilson (OH) | Woolsey | Wu |
| Wynn | Yarmuth | |||
| NAYS--180 | ||||
| Aderholt | Akin | Alexander | Bachmann | Bachus |
| Baker | Barrett (SC) | Bartlett (MD) | Barton (TX) | Berry |
| Bilbray | Bilirakis | Bishop (UT) | Blackburn | Blunt |
| Boehner | Bonner | Boozman | Boren | Boustany |
| Brady (TX) | Brown (SC) | Brown-Waite, Ginny | Buchanan | Burgess |
| Burton (IN) | Buyer | Calvert | Camp (MI) | Campbell (CA) |
| Cannon | Cantor | Capito | Carney | Carter |
| Chabot | Coble | Cole (OK) | Conaway | Cramer |
| Crenshaw | Culberson | Davis (KY) | Davis, David | Davis, Lincoln |
| Davis, Tom | Deal (GA) | Donnelly | Doolittle | Drake |
| Dreier | Duncan | Ehlers | Ellsworth | Emerson |
| Everett | Fallin | Feeney | Flake | Forbes |
| Fortenberry | Fossella | Foxx | Franks (AZ) | Gallegly |
| Garrett (NJ) | Gillmor | Gohmert | Goode | Goodlatte |
| Gordon | Granger | Hall (TX) | Hastings (WA) | Hayes |
| Heller | Hensarling | Herger | Hobson | Hoekstra |
| Hulshof | Inglis (SC) | Issa | Jindal | Johnson (IL) |
| Johnson, Sam | Jones (NC) | Jordan | Keller | King (IA) |
| King (NY) | Kingston | Kline (MN) | Knollenberg | Lamborn |
| Latham | LaTourette | Lewis (CA) | Lewis (KY) | Linder |
| Lucas | Lungren, Daniel E. | Mack | Manzullo | Marchant |
| McCarthy (CA) | McCaul (TX) | McCotter | McHenry | McHugh |
| McIntyre | McKeon | Melancon | Mica | Miller (FL) |
| Miller (MI) | Miller, Gary | Moran (KS) | Murphy, Tim | Musgrave |
| Myrick | Neugebauer | Nunes | Pearce | Pence |
| Peterson (MN) | Peterson (PA) | Petri | Pickering | Pitts |
| Poe | Price (GA) | Putnam | Ramstad | Regula |
| Rehberg | Renzi | Reynolds | Rogers (AL) | Rogers (KY) |
| Rogers (MI) | Rohrabacher | Roskam | Ross | Royce |
| Ryan (WI) | Sali | Schmidt | Sensenbrenner | Sessions |
| Shadegg | Shimkus | Shuler | Shuster | Simpson |
| Smith (NE) | Smith (NJ) | Smith (TX) | Souder | Stearns |
| Sullivan | Taylor | Terry | Thornberry | Tiahrt |
| Tiberi | Turner | Upton | Walberg | Wamp |
| Weldon (FL) | Weller | Westmoreland | Whitfield | Wicker |
| Wilson (NM) | Wilson (SC) | Wolf | Young (AK) | Young (FL) |
| NOT VOTING--16 | ||||
| Cubin | Davis, Jo Ann | Engel | Fattah | Gingrey |
| Graves | Hastert | Hunter | Johnson, E. B. | Lampson |
| McMorris Rodgers | Ortiz | Paul | Radanovich | Tancredo |
| Tanner | ||||
The Speaker pro tempore (during the vote): Members are advised 2 minutes remain to vote.
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. Fattah: Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on H.R. 1592 I would have voted "yea."
Congressional Records: Iraq War 2007 is
a project of Liberated Text dot org
Web Design by Impietease