[Pages H4940-H4958]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT OF 2009
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the bill
(H.R. 1913) to provide Federal assistance to States, local
jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for
other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 372, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill, modified
by the amendment printed in House Report 111-91, is adopted and the
bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 1913
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 2009''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.
In this Act--
(1) the term ``crime of violence'' has the meaning given
that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;
(2) the term ``hate crime'' has the meaning given such term
in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and
(3) the term ``local'' means a county, city, town,
township, parish, village, or other general purpose political
subdivision of a State.
SEC. 3. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS
BY STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICIALS.
(a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance.--
(1) In general.--At the request of a State, local, or
tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may
provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form
of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of
any crime that--
(A) constitutes a crime of violence;
(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or tribal
laws; and
(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or
perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender,
sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the
victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or tribal hate
crime laws.
(2) Priority.--In providing assistance under paragraph (1),
the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed
by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one State
and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the
extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or
prosecution of the crime.
[[Page H4941]]
(b) Grants.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General may award grants to
State, local, and tribal 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, or tribal 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, or tribal 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, or tribal 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 180 business days after the date on
which the Attorney General receives the application.
(5) Grant amount.--A grant under this subsection shall not
exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any 1-year
period.
(6) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2011, the Attorney
General shall submit to Congress a report describing the
applications submitted for grants under this subsection, the
award of such grants, and the purposes for which the grant
amounts were expended.
(7) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011.
SEC. 4. GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Authority To Award Grants.--The Office of Justice
Programs of the Department of Justice may award grants, in
accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may
prescribe, to State, local, or tribal programs designed to
combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs
to train local law enforcement officers in identifying,
investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST
STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department
of Justice, including the Community Relations Service, for
fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012, such sums as are necessary
to increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to
alleged violations of section 249 of title 18, United States
Code, as added by section 7 of this Act.
SEC. 6. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 13 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 249. Hate crime acts
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color,
religion, or national origin.--Whoever, whether or not acting
under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any
person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous
weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to
cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or
perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any
person--
``(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in
accordance with this title, or both; and
``(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for
life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
``(i) death results from the offense; or
``(ii) the offense includes 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, a dangerous weapon, or an
explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily
injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived
religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender
identity, or disability of any person--
``(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in
accordance with this title, or both; and
``(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for
life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
``(I) death results from the offense; or
``(II) the offense includes 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.
``(3) Additional federal nexus for offense.--Whoever, in
the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the
United States, or in Indian country, engages in conduct
described in paragraph (1) or in paragraph (2)(A) (without
regard to whether that conduct occurred in a circumstance
described in paragraph (2)(B)) shall be subject to the same
penalties as those provided for offenses under those
paragraphs.
``(b) Certification Requirement.--No prosecution of any
offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the
United States, except under the certification in writing of
the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the
Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General
specially designated by the Attorney General that--
``(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to
believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion,
national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity,
or disability of any person was a motivating factor
underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and
``(2) such certifying individual has consulted with State
or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution
and determined that--
``(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not
intend to exercise jurisdiction;
``(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government
assume jurisdiction;
``(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government
assuming jurisdiction; or
``(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State
charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal
interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.
``(c) Definitions.--
``(1) In this section--
``(A) the term `explosive or incendiary device' has the
meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;
``(B) the term `firearm' has the meaning given such term in
section 921(a) of this title; and
``(C) the term `State' includes the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, and any other territory or possession of the
United States.
``(2) For the purposes of this chapter, the term `gender
identity' means actual or perceived gender-related
characteristics.
``(d) Statute of Limitations.--
``(1) Offenses not resulting in death.--Except as provided
in paragraph (2), no person shell be prosecuted, tried, or
punished for any offense under this section unless the
indictment for such offense is found, or the information for
such offense is instituted, not later than 7 years after the
date on which the offense was committed.
``(2) Death resulting offenses.--An indictment or
information alleging that an offense under this section
resulted in death may be found or instituted as any time
without limitation.
``(e) Rule of Evidence.--In a prosecution for an offense
under this section, evidence of expression or associations of
the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence
at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that
offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules
of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 13 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following
new item:
``249. Hate crime acts.''.
SEC. 7. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this
Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any
person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the
remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and
the application of the provisions of such to any person or
circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act,
shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct
protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities
protected by, the Constitution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Debate shall not exceed 1 hour and 20
minutes,
[[Page H4942]]
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on the Judiciary, each of whom may yield control of
blocks of that time.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith) each will control 40 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
General Leave
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield control of
10 minutes of the debate to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Mark Kirk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Members of the House, the measure before us enables the Department of
Justice to come to the aid of State and local law enforcement agencies
in investigating and prosecuting bias-based brutality and helping defer
the costs when they overwhelm State and local resources. And when
necessary--and if approved by the highest, Senate-confirmed Department
officials--it authorizes the Department to step in and prosecute at the
Federal level.
What we are doing here today is expanding existing Federal hate
crimes law beyond the confines of protecting access to a limited set of
specified protected activities. What we do is add to the current list
of group characteristics deservedly recognized for protection, the
reason being due to their being well-known targets for bias-based
violence. So we add new ones that also clearly belong on the list, and
this is after careful scrutiny and hearings on this issue--they are
sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability.
These crimes of violence are directed not just at those who are
directly attacked; they are targeting the entire group with the threat
of violence. So the groups in the bill differ from other groups that
some have been trying to add on--and I understand some of their reasons
for that--but which do not share the same kind of history of being
targeted over a period of time for hate-based violence.
Our approach is consistent with the judgment made by the States that
have hate crimes laws--45 of them. They have made the same judgment as
we have made for Federal law, that these many other groups should be
protected elsewhere in the law, not in hate crimes law.
I close by reminding Members that under Lyndon Johnson in 1968 we
first started the hate crimes bill under the church arson bill. The
President called us into the White House with the governors of southern
States to advise them that the burning of churches, the arson, the
cross burnings were so out of control in many States that there was no
other remedy except by Federal statute. The Federal Government would
have to be authorized to intercede where they invited them to do so.
From that has grown this bill, based on law that has been tested in the
Supreme Court and many other lower courts.
And so we come before you with a bill that does not encroach upon the
First Amendment, or the Fourth Amendment, or the part of the
Constitution that leaves all other powers to the States. I urge your
continued careful consideration of it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, every year thousands of violent crimes are committed out
of hate, but just as many violent crimes, if not more, are motivated by
something other than hate--greed, jealousy, desperation or revenge,
just to name a few. An individual's motivation for committing a violent
crime is usually complex and often speculative.
Every violent crime is deplorable, regardless of its motivation.
Every violent crime can be devastating, not only to the victim and
their family, but also to the larger community whose sense of safety
has been violated. That's why all violent crimes should be vigorously
prosecuted.
Unfortunately, this bill undermines one of the most basic principles
of our criminal justice system--equal justice for all. Under this bill,
justice will no longer be equal. Justice will now depend on the race,
gender, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status of the
victim. It will allow different penalties to be imposed for the same
crime. This is the real injustice.
One of the most troublesome aspects of this bill is that it divides
America. It divides America by race, again, gender, sexual orientation,
disability, or other status. We should focus on the opposite, uniting
America, not dividing our country.
The bill also could have a chilling effect on the words of religious
leaders or members of religious groups. For example, religious
individuals who feel strongly about some values may hesitate to discuss
their personal beliefs about homosexuality or gay marriage for fear of
criminal investigation.
Some of my colleagues on the other side claim that the bill protects
religious speech. But religious leaders could still be subjected to
criminal investigations and be reluctant to preach the teachings of
their faith as a result of this bill.
In addition, the bill itself is probably unconstitutional and will 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 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 extend
to ``noneconomic, violent criminal conduct'' that does not cross State
lines.
{time} 1430
Nor is the proposed legislation authorized under the 14th and 15th
Amendments. Those amendments extend only to State action and do not
cover the actions of private persons who commit violent crimes.
While the 13th Amendment reaches private action such as individual
criminal conduct, it is difficult to argue that one's religion or
national origin constitutes a ``badge'' or ``incident'' of slavery, the
subject of the 13th Amendment.
Also this bill purports to federalize crimes that are being
successfully prosecuted by our States and local governments.
Furthermore, FBI statistics show that the incidence of so-called hate
crimes has actually declined and substantially declined over the last
10 years. In 2007, for example, of the approximately 17,000 homicides
that occurred in the U.S., only nine of the 17,000 murders were
determined to be motivated by bias.
This legislation blurs the lines between violent belief, which is
constitutionally protected, and violent action, which is not. If we go
down this road, where does it end? With speech monitors and thought
police?
I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and would recognize the
work of President Bush 19 years ago when he signed the first hate
crimes information bill into law. That law allowed us to collect data
showing two hate crimes in my district, 191 in the State of Illinois,
and 7,600 in America.
This legislation is backed by the National Sheriffs' Association, the
International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National District
Attorneys Association, and 26 State Attorneys General.
Much of this bill may not have been needed in the earlier days of our
country when we were, frankly, much less diverse. But unlike those
earlier times, we have now built the freest country on Earth, with the
largest economy and also the most diverse population.
This bill provides Federal help to fight violent crime. It can be
important, especially to suburban police departments like Palatine,
Illinois, that could be overwhelmed as two groups
[[Page H4943]]
squared off, overwhelming the resources of a small suburban police
department.
While this bill does provide modest Federal support to help preserve
order against violent crime, in my heart I support this bill for a
different reason. We have witnessed diverse societies in other
countries crack up and go through much pain and anguish and suffering
when one group attacks another simply because of their membership or
identity.
In the United States military, I saw this most clearly in Bosnia and
Kosovo. Part of the modern Yugoslavia, well-entrenched in Western
European values, they thought their diverse society would always remain
calm and peaceful with different groups relating to one another. In
those societies, the arrogance of that idea was laid bare and the
countries cracked up and we saw the darkest part of the human heart
open, only a few hundred miles from the capitals of Europe where we
draw our own cultural heritage. It would be the height of arrogance to
say something like this could never happen in the United States of
America, and it is the job of this Congress to make sure that never
happens.
We see violence in other countries, like in Mexico, attempt to come
across into this country. We see various groups try to bring their
struggles from Asia or the Middle East to the United States. Our job is
to make sure not just big city police departments, but also suburban
and rural police departments, have what they need to quickly respond
and make sure that a kind of identity violence that has plagued so many
other countries who may have thought that they were immune can never
come to our shores.
If this bill in any way tried to interfere with the First Amendment
or other speech of this country, I would not support it. But, instead
it is directed against violent crime, and that is why I support it.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), a former chairman of the Judiciary
Committee and now the ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.
The motivation behind this bill is extremely well-intentioned. We
should punish violent crime. We should punish violent crime where the
animus is motivated by hate against an individual or against a group
because of characteristics that they may have.
But this is the wrong way to go about it. What we should be doing is
we should be insisting on sentence enhancements for those who are
convicted of a violent crime, a murder, an aggravated battery, a simple
battery, an assault. The reason we should do it that way is that way we
make sure that those who are guilty of a violent crime which is
motivated by hate against an individual or a group to which he belongs
gets punished more severely.
What can happen under this bill by setting up a separate hate crime
is that someone could be indicted for the violent crime and the hate
crime simultaneously. At the first trial, the person is acquitted of
the violent crime, and at the second trial the person is convicted of
the hate crime, meaning what the defendant says during the commission
of that crime. And that ends up criminalizing free speech, because the
actual act of violence the jury determined that the defendant was not
guilty, but because of what the defendant said during the commission of
the crime aimed at the victim, the person is convicted of saying that.
That is where we have the First Amendment slippery slope. And I think
if this ever happens, you will find this bill declared to be
unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment in the blink of
an eye.
Now, I know that there are a lot of groups that are strongly in favor
of this type of legislation. One of our jobs here in the Congress of
the United States, and particularly on the Judiciary Committee, is to
make sure that what we consider and what we ask the House of
Representatives to pass is well thought out and does not have this
glaring gap that I have just described.
I would hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle who have
been pushing this legislation would stop and think about what happens
to this legislation if a defendant is acquitted of the crime of
violence and then convicted for what that person says while committing
the crime for which he was acquitted. Please think about that and come
back with sentence enhancements, because that is the way to deal with
this problem, not this bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished majority leader, himself a longtime member of the bar and
a supporter of civil rights, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman for yielding.
I am pleased to follow the distinguished gentleman who just spoke
because what he said was he agrees with the objectives of this
legislation. One could argue, I suppose, about the means, but really it
is the objective that is the most important, and the objective is to in
this country make a statement that violence against individuals because
of the group of which they are a member or their nationality or their
race or their religion or their sexual orientation, whatever the
distinction might be, we in America have said that we believe all
people ought to be treated equal.
This legislation, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention
Act, is a powerful statement, I suggest to you, of some of our most
important American values, Mr. Kirk spoke of those just a little
earlier; tolerance, respect for differences, and accountability for
those who are driven to violence by hate.
I disagree with my friend from Illinois when he said perhaps we
didn't need this earlier in our history. Yes, we have become more
diverse, but in our early history, those whose skin was black were
subjected to violence not because of their character, not because of
anything they had done, but because of the fact that their skin was
black, and because violence was visited against them, all who were
similarly situated were put in fear. That is why this crime is
different from simply violence animated, as the distinguished ranking
member indicated, so many of our crimes are. He is right. But this is a
particular character of crime that not only puts the victim at risk,
but puts all members of the group to which that victim belongs at risk
and at fear.
This bill allows us to expand the existing Federal hate crimes law,
which was enacted nearly 40 years ago, and, as was pointed out, was
signed by one of our previous Republican presidents. Under existing
law, Federal jurisdiction over hate crime 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.
My friends, if America stands for anything, it stands for equality
under the law; of inclusion; of not making arbitrary and capricious
distinctions based on factors other than American citizenship, endowed
by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
What hate crimes do is to put that at risk. What hate crimes do is
adopt the premise that somehow there are some citizens less than the
rest of us because of the group to which they belong.
That is what this bill is all about, the basic fundamental tenet of
America that all men and women are created equal. God does not see the
distinctions sometimes that we see, arbitrary, capricious, and, yes,
tragically sometimes hateful, that then lead to violence and injury and
death.
This legislation broadens this provision to cover all violent crimes
motivated by race, religion or national origin, as I said. It also
expands current law to prohibit the same conduct when motivated on the
basis of a victim's gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or
disability.
``All men and women.'' No parentheses, ``except . . . '', no comma,
``not these . . . '', no further comma, ``but we don't mean these
Americans . . . ''. ``All,'' our Constitution and Declaration of
Independence say. The principle is the same. Hate crimes sow fear and
division in our communities, no matter what group is targeted.
Expanding the protections of the law responds to the reality in
America today. For instance, hate crimes motivated by sexual
orientation are almost
[[Page H4944]]
as equally common as hate crimes motivated by religion. The gentleman
from Illinois suggests there are less crimes, and we are pleased about
that, but one is too many.
This bill would also allow the Federal Government to provide
assistance to State and local law enforcement officials to investigate
and prosecute hate crimes. Why? Because it is not simply a local
threat. It is a threat to all Americans everywhere in every State if
the group to which they belong, the distinction that is made because
they are in that group is applied because of that membership. It
clarifies the conditions under which such crimes would be federally
investigated and prosecuted.
I have spoken to why this legislation is necessary, because hate
crimes motivated by race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual
orientation and identify or disability not only injure individual
victims, as I have said, but also terrorize entire segments of our
population and tear at our Nation's social fabric.
That is why this legislation, in my view, is so fundamental to what
America is and means to our own citizens and to people around the
world. This legislation does not affect, does not affect, does not
affect free speech. It is actions, not speech, that is the object of
this legislation.
{time} 1445
It only seeks to punish violent acts. Enacting these important
additions to current law will send a very powerful message. Crimes
committed against any American, simply because of who he or she is, are
a threat to all Americans and will be dealt with as such.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation because it embodies
the essential American values of tolerance, equality and justice.
I congratulate the chairman for his leadership. I thank the ranking
member, notwithstanding his disagreement on this issue, for
facilitating this bill coming to the floor.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who is the vice ranking member of the
Judiciary Committee.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, we all agree that every violent crime is
deplorable, despicable, regardless of its motivation and regardless of
who the victim is. However, this bill, no matter how well-intended,
undermines basic principles of our criminal justice system and raises
significant constitutional and federalism concerns.
Under the provisions of H.R. 1913, justice will no longer be equal
but will depend on the race, sex, sexual orientation, disability or
other protected status of the victim. In my view, all victims should
have equal worth in the eyes of the law.
Why should other groups like senior citizens, veterans, children and
pregnant women not also receive the added protections under this bill?
The distinguished majority leader says that this is not about thought
crime; it's about conduct. But the fact of the matter is that the
identical crime, be it a murder, a rape, an assault, a battery,
whatever it might be, conducted against one of the protected classes
will receive additional penalties, compared to that pregnant woman or
senior citizen or veteran or child, simply based upon the thought
process of the perpetrator of the crime. Every victim is entitled to
the same fair treatment under the law.
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 use any unpopular statements they make against them in
the future.
The bill raises the real possibility that religious leaders or
members of religious groups could be criminally prosecuted based on
their speech or protected activities. No one should be put in fear that
their constitutionally protected free speech about controversial issues
will be subject to efforts by prosecutors attempting to link that
speech to violent action taken by others.
There is no evidence that States are not fully prosecuting violent
crimes involving hate. In fact, 45 States and the District of Columbia
already have specific laws punishing hate crimes.
I abhor acts of violence against any citizen, including crimes
motivated by bias against certain groups, and I believe that such
crimes should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. 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.
I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.
Mr. KIRK. I would now like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Cao).
Mr. CAO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1913, the Local
Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act.
The sharp increase in crimes in Orleans and Jefferson Parishes since
Hurricane Katrina is on the minds of my constituents in every corner of
our district. Because of this serious matter, I am focused on giving
our law enforcement officials the tools they need to fight crime and
return safety to our streets.
All violent criminals must be fully prosecuted. Crimes committed
against individuals based upon their actual or perceived race, color,
religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity
or disability are particularly insidious.
This is a Nation of acceptance, where every individual is protected
by the Constitution. This promise enables them to pursue their dreams
free of persecution and attack. I, as a minority, am acutely aware of
freedoms and protections offered by the laws of this land and what is
expected of my fellow citizens.
The provisions of this bill will assist prosecutors in enforcing the
rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It allows law enforcement
officials to hold those committing violent crimes accountable for their
actions. This is what this bill does.
What this bill does not do is restrict free speech. Freedom of speech
and freedom of association guaranteed by the first amendment are
respected by the language of this bill. Despite concerns to the
contrary, this bill will not subject anyone to prosecution of what they
think, say or preach.
Mr. Speaker, I am supporting this bill because hate crimes are an
assault on a person's dignity and humanity. They represent a type of
behavior that has no place in our dignified society, and it is our
responsibility to enable prosecution of these heinous crimes to the
fullest extent of the law.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), a member of the Judiciary Committee and a
former ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to pound the podium or yell
and scream about this legislation, but I'd just say to the Speaker that
sometimes all the spin that we hear in here about a particular piece of
legislation during debate, or sometimes our getting down into the
specifics of the semantics of the legislation or arguing about what the
courts say it will or will not do, causes us to do what the average
citizen at home does not do, and that is to miss the common sense and
the rightness of a piece of legislation.
The distinguished majority leader came to the floor a while ago and
stated two principles: that all people ought to be treated equally, and
if America stands for anything, it stands for equality under the law.
And that's what this legislation does not do.
Mr. Speaker, just a short time ago there was a pageant in the United
States, the Miss USA pageant. One of the contestants, Ms. California,
went up there, and she was asked a question by one of the judges, who
is an openly gay judge, about her beliefs in marriage. And she stated
what her beliefs were. That judge lambasted her over and over again in
blogs, calling her the most vile names, spewing out hostility and hate,
and even made the statement that if she had won, he would have stormed
on the stage and snatched the tiara off her head. And other bloggers
who had his same orientation and, therefore, were driven to the same
hatred of this young girl, had similar things in their blogs.
Had he done that, had he done what he said he would do and stormed
that stage and pulled that tiara off her head and had bodily harmed
when he did it, there would not have been 1 ounce of protection under
this piece of legislation for that young girl.
But after he did it, if she had, in response, made a statement back
about
[[Page H4945]]
the very sexual orientation that had led him to his hatred and dislike
for her, and if she had responded by slapping him or any physical
injury, she would have had the potential of a 10-year Federal piece of
legislation coming against her.
If her father, sitting in the audience, had gone on that stage to
stop this kind of hatred and orientation that drove him to have this
feeling against that young girl and he had made a statement and he had
responded with any kind of physical action, he could have had a 10-year
Federal piece of legislation that would have come against him.
And, Mr. Speaker, I know you have the votes for this legislation. I
know you have the resources to drive the message and you have the media
to do it, but the weight of all that combined can't do one solitary
thing, and that is make this piece of legislation right, and that's why
I'll vote against it.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Constitution
Committee on the Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler of New York.
Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, this House faces a historic
test. Will we act decisively to deal with some of the most destructive
crimes in our society, violent assaults against victims who are singled
out solely because someone doesn't like who they are?
Whether committed because of the actual or perceived race, color,
religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity
or disability of the victim, these violent acts are particularly
reprehensible because they target not just an individual but an entire
group. These crimes do, and are often intended to, spread terror among
all members of the group. They're intended to say to members of a
group, don't be who you are. Don't go where you're not wanted. Do not
exercise your civil rights to be yourself, to speak publicly, to go
wherever you want.
This bill enables the Federal Government to intervene, so as to
punish such crimes and protect the rights of individuals and of groups
unpopular in some quarters.
Do not believe the scare tactics. This bill does not criminalize
thoughts or speech. No one will be prosecuted because of what they say
or think. No preacher need worry about a sermon. Only crimes of
violence are punishable under this bill.
The law routinely looks to the motivation behind a criminal act and
treats the more heinous of them differently. Manslaughter is different
from premeditated murder, which is different from a contract killing.
We punish crimes differently if they are terrorist acts, defined as
violent crimes that ``appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce the
civilian population.''
Existing civil rights laws take a similar approach. A person who uses
force to interfere with someone's federally protected rights such as
voting, working, attending school and the like, commits a Federal
crime. And that's been the law for many years. We treat an act of
violence more seriously if the intent is to deny someone his or her
civil rights.
The only question this bill presents to Members is whether we believe
people assaulted violently because of their identity deserve Federal
protection.
For many years Congress refused to adopt antilynching laws. Those
were not proud times in our Nation's history. We now have the
opportunity to do the right thing. I hope we do.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, it comes down to this: Free societies
punish acts. Authoritarian regimes punish opinions and thoughts.
Now, the supporters of this bill speak of punishing violent acts, but
we already punish those violent acts, as well we should. This measure
calls for additional punishment, not for the violent act, but for the
opinion behind the act.
Before we embarked down this path, the opinions of the criminal were
irrelevant. It was the act that we proscribed, and it was the act that
we punished. Many civil libertarians warned us then that if we place in
the hands of government the ability to define what opinions it likes
and doesn't like, and then to punish those opinions on top of the acts
themselves, then we've started down a very dangerous and slippery
slope.
That opinion, I think, was clearly illustrated when the committee
voted down an amendment to include veterans, for example, under these
protections under the hate crimes law. Now, the supporters of this
measure made it very clear that they're actively involved in singling
out particular opinions with special protection and for special
prosecution.
Mr. CONYERS. I am pleased now to recognize a senior member of the
House Judiciary Committee, the gentlelady from Texas, Sheila Jackson-
Lee, for 2 minutes.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for your
leadership and your persistence, and I thank my good friends for this
vigorous debate.
I almost don't know where to start. But again, I would like to
emphasize to my friends and colleagues what this legislation is about.
It is about the assistance and the ability to help States in their
prosecution of heinous hate crimes. And, as a very championed citizen
of the State of Texas, I hesitate to make ourselves a poster child.
{time} 1500
But having lived through the heinous crime of the dismemberment of
James Byrd, I cannot help relating this legislation to what is real.
This will not bring down injustice on a person of faith who chooses
to go into their pulpit or stand on a street corner and say that the
wrath of the person they believe in will come down on those who
practice lifestyles that they don't agree with, or a certain race or
religion. They will go even further by saying the sword of justice, the
sword of the Lord will come down and slay you.
That is not what this bill is about, but it is about individuals who
would attack a person of color--in this instance, an African American
male--in the dark of night, tie him to a pickup truck, and drag his
human, alive body through the streets of Jasper, Texas. When they were
finished, he was dismembered, his arms and legs and head were left
along the bloody road. It was this heinous crime that led a State like
Texas to pass its own hate crimes bill. But yet, hate crimes have gone
on since that time, and State legislatures have noted, why haven't
these cases been tried in this State?
This bill will help those instances.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Poe), a former judge and now the deputy ranking member
of the Crime Subcommittee.
Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, in a courthouse in Houston, Texas, where I worked 8
years as a prosecutor and 22 as a judge, there is a statement that
says, ``Equal justice for all.'' I guess now we need to change that,
but to the phrase, ``but more justice for some.''
This bill makes some victims more important than other victims. If
someone is in a legislated protected class--as this bill does--and a
crime is committed against them, the defendant is treated harsher than
if the crime is committed against a victim in a nonprotected class.
This legislation discriminates against victims that are not special
people. It reminds me of the satire in the book ``Animal Farm'' where
it says, ``all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than
others.'' Likewise, this bill makes some victims of crime more equal
than others. In my opinion, that denies nonspecial victims equal
protection under the law, according to the 14th Amendment of the
Constitution.
The question is, is it fair to treat some victims of crime better
under our law than other people who are not special? This bill makes
classes of victims; first-class victims and second-class victims.
No question about it, Mr. Speaker, motive for a crime has always been
admissible in a court of law. In my experience at the courthouse,
courts and juries nail offenders to the wall that commit crimes based
upon racial hatred. Perfect example is the example that my friend,
Sheila Jackson-Lee, just referred to in the Jasper killing. Without a
hate law in Texas, the individuals that committed that crime
[[Page H4946]]
against that individual, Mr. Byrd, two of them got the death penalty--
and unlike some States, we execute folks in Texas--they have been
executed, and the other person got a life sentence. No question about
it, motive is admissible in all crimes in all courtrooms. However, this
legislation is not the answer. It will chill free speech, while making
some victims less important than others.
American law has always punished the act. This law changes that to
punish the thought process of individuals and does make some people
more special than others when it comes to being victims of crime, and
that ought not to be.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like now to yield 2 minutes to a
senior member of the Judiciary Committee, who is also a chairperson of
another subcommittee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this
important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if our friends on the other side of the aisle
would be singing the same offensive tune if we were talking about hate
crimes based on race or religion. It seems to me that it is the
category of individual that they are offended by rather than the fact
that we have hate crimes laws at all.
We have already heard the powerful story of Matthew Shepard. His
mother, Judy, addressed our caucus this week. As the Speaker noted, we
are all inspired by Judy Shepard's 10-year quest to turn her pain and
tears into change because these cases are tragic and real.
Ryan Skipper was a 25-year-old gay man from Polk County, Florida.
Like Matthew, Ryan's body was found murdered and dumped along the side
of the road about 2 years ago. Ryan's body had been stabbed 20 times
and his throat was slit. His car was found abandoned nearby and
contained the fingerprints of his two killers. One of his killers told
the police his conduct was justified to rebuff unwanted sexual
advances. Because there was no hate crime law with which to charge
Ryan's killer in Florida, only one of Ryan's attackers has been
convicted, and that was of a lesser charge.
Why do we need a hate crimes law? Because hate crimes do more than
threaten the safety and well-being of individuals. Hate crimes do more
than inflict incalculable pain and suffering on individual victims.
Hate crimes target groups and terrorize communities. Left unpunished,
hate crimes send powerful messages of intolerance. Hate crimes leave
both the victim and others in their group feeling isolated, vulnerable,
and unprotected.
I am proud to cosponsor this legislation again this Congress. I want
to commend my colleague, Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, and my
committee colleague, Tammy Baldwin, for their leadership in bringing
this issue forward again this year.
Let's announce here and now that we will not tolerate this kind of
terror in America. Let's vow that we will not turn a blind eye to
hatred and violence in America. And let us pledge to give police and
prosecutors all the resources they need to stamp out this scourge.
Mr. Speaker, Matthew Shepard and Ryan Skipper may be gone, but we can
honor their lives today. I urge my colleagues to support this important
legislation.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee
and the deputy ranking member of the Court Subcommittee.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Our Founding Fathers asserted the self-evident truth
that all men are created equal. For the last two centuries, Americans
of all backgrounds have worked toward the ideal of ``equal justice for
all,'' but the majority's Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention
Act doesn't eliminate inequalities in our justice system; instead, it
creates inequalities. It gives special protected status to a small
group of individuals based on their lifestyle choices. It increases
criminal penalties not based on the criminal act itself, but based on
the thoughts and beliefs of the person who committed the act. It
requires the government to investigate and scrutinize the religious
groups and other organizations with which we might freely associate
under the First Amendment. For these reasons, and a number of others, I
believe this bill is unconstitutional and must be rejected.
In the United States of America, we can all agree that any violent
crime should be deplored. We all should be equally free from violence,
regardless of our background or beliefs. We all should expect our
government officials to provide equal protection under the law. But
this hate crimes bill says some Americans are more equal than others
and deserve special treatment. And religious leaders and others who
hold traditional values of morality and decency should be careful not
to speak too vocally about their beliefs or risk being held accountable
for the actions of those who might overhear and then later commit a
violent crime.
During our Judiciary Committee markup of this bill, when it became
clear that the Democrats planned to report it despite these objections,
my Republican colleagues sponsored amendment after amendment seeking
equal treatment under this bill for senior citizens, men and women of
the Armed Services, pregnant women, and unborn children. All were
rejected by the Democrats.
It is unbelievable to me that the sponsors of this bill think those
who have chosen a different personal lifestyle should enjoy greater
protection under the Federal law than those who have chosen a lifestyle
of service to our country--as our men and women in the military have
done--or that they deserve more protection under the Federal law than
pregnant mothers.
No violent crime should be condoned, and no one on either side of
this issue believes it should. But selectively protecting some while
punishing others more severely based on their thoughts and beliefs is
unequal, unjust, and un-American.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this affront to the Constitution
and to our Nation's heritage and traditions of freedom to think and
believe according to the dictates of our own conscience.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to Steve
Cohen, a State legislator and lawyer for more than 24 years.
Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Chairman Conyers. I appreciate the opportunity
to speak on this bill of which I am a sponsor.
The gentleman who just spoke, who I respect, talked about the
Founding Fathers and what has happened to our country. Well, it is a
great country and I love our country, and it was a great country when
it was founded. But when it was founded, women didn't have the right to
vote and African Americans weren't citizens.
It takes time to perfect your law and to become a more perfect Union,
and that is what this law is doing. It is taking an effort to perfect
and make better our laws to reflect the society we have today and the
thinking and the mindset that we have and the understanding of what
happens in law.
If we go all the way back to always the Founding Fathers, we would
have slaves, we would have second-class citizens--which are women--and
we wouldn't have any rights for anybody that wasn't a white male who
owned property.
Times have changed, and thank God they are changing today, Mr.
Speaker. The fact is, this has no effect on anybody that speaks about
hate crimes. It doesn't affect any minister that speaks from the
pulpit. We have had hate crimes in this country in State legislatures,
and Federal law as well, for decades, and no preacher or person using
the spoken Word has ever been prosecuted or charged with a crime, and
never would.
This law goes further than any law ever because it specifically says
that no First Amendment rights or rights guaranteed through freedom of
speech will be abridged or, because of the exercise thereof, have any
charge brought against a person who exercises those rights. Never
before has that been in a law that we have had here.
So more rights are given to people, even though it is unnecessary to
give them because there is no problem, it is basically simply to
guarantee and assure people, to calm their concerns.
People talk about people not being able to preach against people
being gay. The fact is they can do it, and the fact is the Ten
Commandments tell you not to bear false witness. And people who submit
that preachers could be arrested for preaching against homosexuality,
which they do today, that they
[[Page H4947]]
could be arrested, there is a commandment about that, ``Don't bear
false witness.'' This is a good law.
Mr. GOHMERT. Will the gentleman yield?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GOHMERT. I want a clarification, Mr. Speaker, for a point of
order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. GOHMERT. The gentleman said that there was a commandment against
bearing false witness, as if that is what one does when they say
someone can be prosecuted, and I would ask for a ruling from the Chair
on whether that violates the rule of this body.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a point of
order.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), former judge, and now the ranking member of
the Crime Subcommittee.
Mr. GOHMERT. Well, unlike my friend from Tennessee, I am not going to
allege that anyone on the other side of this issue is trying to bear
false witness.
I believe the motivation is good, but we even heard the majority
leader say this bill stands for equality under the law. I don't believe
he meant to misstate the truth, but the truth is this bill sets out
different classifications that are more special than others. Someone
suggested that perhaps people would be happy if we just said, I'll tell
you what. If you assault a white male, then you just get half the
sentence of assaulting someone else.
We want equal justice under the law; that's what we are supposed to
have. I have a letter here from the National Black Church Initiative
that was sent to Senator Leahy 2 years ago. It is signed by one, two,
three, four, five, six, seven--well, I can't count them all. There are
four pages of names. But the first is Anthony Evans, President of the
D.C. Black Church Initiative. But it says things including, ``The
National Black Church Initiative is a coalition of 16,000 churches.''
``We have 18,000 sister churches.'' They are located in virtually every
congressional district in America. ``If the U.S. Senate passes this
bill and thus codifies sexual orientation as a protected legal class,
it will open up a constitutional war between the church and the radical
gay community. We know the gay community plans to use this piece of
legislation to try to legally force the church to recognize their
abominable lifestyle''--some very strong statements there.
I have just received a letter dated April 29 from the United States
Commission on Civil Rights. ``We write today to urge you to vote
against the proposed Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention
Act.'' They said, ``We believe the bill will do little good and a great
deal of harm.'' They say some suggest it will only apply to hate
crimes. But they point out, It is sufficient if he acts because of
someone's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin,
gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. Consider,
rapists seldom are indifferent to the gender of their victims. They are
virtually always chosen because of their gender. A robber might well
steal from women or the disabled. Why? Because they perceive them to be
weaker and more vulnerable.
Moreover, they say, The objective meaning of the language and
considerable legal scholarship would certainly include these being
covered. So all of these things would now become Federal crimes.
{time} 1515
There is no epidemic. There are fewer numbers now than 10 years ago.
There is no nexus. Ryan Skipper and Matthew Shepard's cases keep being
brought up. For the defendants in those cases, I would have been happy
to have signed an order for death. They got life. It would not affect
them.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. GOHMERT. This law would not affect the Matthew Shepard case. It
would not affect the Ryan Skipper case.
My friend from Florida brought up the Ryan Skipper case in Florida
when I was talking in Judiciary and was asking: Is there a case you can
give me where this would make a difference? That case was brought up.
We did the research after the hearing. Well, guess what? Two
defendants. One has already got life plus extra years on top of life.
The other is about to go to trial. They didn't need a hate crimes law,
a Federal hate crimes law.
This divides America. We don't need to divide America. Everybody
deserves equal justice. The gangs who pick their victims based on
violence against random targets get acquitted under this bill. They get
acquitted for acting randomly.
We've got to vote ``no'' on this.
Mr. CONYERS. I am pleased to yield now 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Colorado (Ms. Markey).
Ms. MARKEY of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, Matthew Shepard died in a
hospital less than 5 minutes from my home in Fort Collins, Colorado.
The depth of hate that drives such an act of violence leaves all of
those it touches bereft in the knowledge that such ugliness can exist
on this Earth.
Angie Zapata was an 18-year-old transgender woman who was brutally
murdered in Greeley, Colorado this past July. It took a jury just 2
hours to convict Angie's killer under Colorado's first application of
the hate crimes statute earlier this month.
This bill does not punish speech, thoughts, words or beliefs. It does
not even punish hate speech. It punishes actions. It provides State and
local authorities with Federal assistance in investigating and in
prosecuting hate crimes. In this country, 45 States already have hate
crimes legislation on the books. Many of these statutes are more robust
than the current Federal law.
Matthew Shepard and Angie Zapata were two victims of hate crimes in
my district. I have a duty to their memories that I take seriously.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, there are two very good reasons to vote ``no''
on this bill. This bill is called the hate crimes bill.
The first major reason to vote ``no'' is that this bill increases
hatred in America. I will say it again. This bill increases hatred in
America. How does that happen? It can be easily illustrated. Let's say
that you're a parent and that you have a number of children but that
you don't give the children equal laws. Some you favor and some you
don't. What quicker formula to create animosity between children?
This law violates the most basic principle of law. Lady Justice is
always supposed to have a blindfold across her face because, regardless
of who you are when you appear before Lady Justice--whether you're
black or white, male or female, rich or poor, fat or skinny--Lady
Justice does not notice. This bill violates that basic principle. It
creates animosity by elevating one group over another group; thus, it
creates hatred. This is counter to everything American law has ever
stood for, and it will increase hatred in America. For that reason
alone, there should be a vote of ``no.''
A second good reason to vote ``no'' on this bill is that our courts
have a large backlog of various cases. Our judges and juries have to
take a look at a certain set of facts and must determine whether or not
somebody did or did not do something that is specifically illegal in
the law. This law says that now we're going to try and turn them all
into psychologists and have them figure out whether the criminals had
good attitudes or not when they did the crimes. That does not make
sense to waste precious judicial resources in trying to make everybody
psychologists to determine whether or not some specially protected
class gets a special privilege.
It's a good reason, and there are many good reasons to vote ``no.''
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize for 1 minute
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who has been the cochair
of the Progressive Caucus for many years.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, the Local Law
Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, is about protecting every
member of our community from violence.
We understand that hate crimes don't just affect the victims of these
horrible acts but that they also threaten and affect the fundamental
rights of
[[Page H4948]]
every single one of us. Intolerance and prejudice are still a part of
our world, but when the bigotry leads to violence, this Congress has a
responsibility to stand up and say, ``No more.''
With this bill, we will extend and expand on the protections for
victims of hate crimes, for victims of crimes based on gender, sexual
orientation, gender identity, and on disability. All children and their
families must have the freedom to celebrate who they are, and they
should be protected under Federal law from personal attacks based on
bigotry.
The time has come for Congress to pass this bill in order to send a
clear message throughout the world that violence and hate are not
acceptable. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this
legislation.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle).
Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of the Local Law Enforcement
Hate Crimes Prevention Act, H.R. 1913.
This legislation will provide needed assistance to State and local
law enforcement agencies, and it will make changes to Federal law to
facilitate the investigation and prosecution of violent, biased-
motivated crimes against people for no other reason than their
perceived or actual race, religion, natural origin, sexual orientation,
gender, gender identity or disability.
We must work together to protect all Americans from hate-motivated
violence, which is alarmingly prevalent and so often goes unreported.
Such crimes of hate have dramatic impacts on individuals, families and
communities, and they must be subject to comprehensive Federal law
enforcement assistance and prosecution. While State and local
governments will maintain principal responsibility, an expanded Federal
role will help ensure the investigation and prosecution of serious
forms of hate crimes in cases when local authorities are either unable
or are unwilling to do so.
Concerns have been raised that the measure will impinge free speech.
I would like to reiterate that H.R. 1913 applies only to biased-
motivated, violent crimes, violent actions that result in death or
bodily injury. It does not restrict speech in any way. In fact, the
bill 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 clause of, the First Amendment to the
Constitution.''
H.R. 1913 is supported by virtually every major law enforcement
organization in the country as well as by civil rights, education,
religious, and civic organizations. I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act today.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and
who is also deputy ranking member of the Administrative Law
Subcommittee.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in opposition to
H.R. 1913, which unfortunately is being debated under a closed rule
today.
This bill represents an unconstitutional, unprecedented departure
from a deeply rooted American principle of equal justice under the law.
Justice should be blind. It should be equal for all Americans. All
violent crime is deplorable, and it should be punished to the fullest
extent. Crimes that are not aimed at a certain class of people are just
as reprehensible as those committed for other reasons; but this bill
would treat senseless, random violence less harshly than ``hate''
crimes.
Justice will depend on whether a victim is a member of a category
deemed worthy of protection under this bill--a list, for the record,
that does not include the unborn, pregnant women, the elderly, and
others who are among society's most vulnerable.
In fact, during committee markup, I offered an amendment to add the
unborn to this list. The amendment was ruled nongermane on the
outrageous grounds that the unborn are not ``persons.'' So much for
defending our most defenseless.
In addition, this bill raises the very real possibility that
religious teachers of every faith could be prosecuted on what they say
in the pulpit, on what they preach, by permitting legal action against
anyone who willfully causes an act to be done by another person. It is
not hard to imagine charges being filed against a pastor if a
prosecutor believes that the pastor's message caused someone to commit
an act of violence. Subjecting pastors' sermons to prosecutorial
scrutiny in this way would have a chilling effect on the rights of all
individuals to freely practice their religion.
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 certain
values. Crimes committed against one citizen should not be punished any
more or any less than crimes committed against another.
I would urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to give 2 minutes to the Crime
Subcommittee chairman for many years, Bobby Scott of Virginia.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, bias crimes are disturbingly prevalent and pose a
significant threat to the full participation of all Americans in our
democratic society. Despite the deep impact of hate violence on
communities, current law limits Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes
to incidents directed against individuals only 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. Further, the statutes do not permit Federal involvement in a
range of cases where crimes are motivated by bias against the victim's
perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability.
We need to change the law so that the Federal Government will have
the authority to be involved in investigating and in prosecuting these
cases when the State authorities cannot or will not do so.
Mr. Speaker, the bill is narrowly drawn. It only applies to bias-
motivated, violent crime, and it has specific protections to ensure
that it does not impinge on public speech, religious expression or on
writing in any way. In fact, the only way that expressions could
involve the defendant in this crime is if the language were such that
it would already qualify as something like inciting a riot or other
violent crimes.
Mr. Speaker, law enforcement authorities and civic leaders have
learned that a failure to address the problem of bias crime can cause a
seemingly isolated incident to fester into widespread tension that can
cause damage to the social fabric of a community.
This problem cuts across party lines, and so I hope we will pass the
bill on a bipartisan basis just as we did last year.
Washington, DC, April 27, 2009.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of thousands of clergy
members, pastors, and African American community leaders
within our African American Ministers In Action (AAMIA)
network of People For The American Way, I urge you to support
the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009
(LLEHCPA)--H.R. 1913.
As people of color, we are well aware of the hideous nature
of race-based violence, and understand the importance of
legislation that protects Americans who are victims of hate
crimes. We also are not blind to the fact that violent hate
crimes are motivated not just by racism. Knowing this, as
clergy members and pastors who affirm the humanity of every
person, we fully understand and embrace the call to advocate
for an inclusive federal law that will extend protection to
victims of hate crimes based on disability, sexual
orientation, gender, or gender identity. H.R. 1913 is the
bill that will make equal protection under the law for
victims of hate crimes a reality and not just an American
dream.
Unfortunately, propaganda and lies have prevented the
protections that H.R. 1913 proposes from becoming law. One
such falsehood is that this bill will eliminate churches'
first amendment rights; that this legislation will ``muzzle
our pulpits'' or dictate what we as clergy or religious
communities can or cannot say. This is not true. In fact,
H.R. 1913 protects freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
It only punishes violent acts like assault and murder, not
religious beliefs.
[[Page H4949]]
The law makes clear that it cannot be used to prohibit any
``expressive conduct'' or ``activities protected by the
Constitution.''
The AAMIA is passionate about protecting the civil rights
of all Americans, especially those that protect people who
are discriminated against because of who they are. Victims of
violent hate crimes often come to our churches in search of a
safe haven from enduring assaults, and they are in need of
federal protections. Thus from our houses of worship to your
house of policy, we trust that we can count on your support
for the protection of American citizens from violent hate
crimes. Please vote in favor of H.R. 1913.
Sincerely,
Timothy McDonald,
Founder and Chair,
African American Ministers In Action.
____
Hate Crimes Fact Sheet
The African American Ministers in Action has joined those
urging Congress to expand the current federal law to protect
victims of hate crimes based on disability, sexual
orientation, gender, or gender identity. As believers who are
called to love our neighbors as ourselves, we do not support
VIOLENCE against any human being.
About the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009
We support The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention
Act of 2009 (H.R. 1913) because it does in fact protect
individuals against the incidence of VIOLENCE motivated by
the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national
origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or
disability of the victim. The legislation also provides
strong first amendment protections ensuring that the
religious liberty and free speech rights of pastors, such as
ourselves, and others are protected.
H.R. 1913 is crucial to protecting the rights of all
Americans. This can be accomplished by strengthening law
enforcement and closing loopholes in the current law, and is
overwhelmingly supported by the civil rights community, law
enforcement, and many religious organizations. As we work to
secure the rights of women and minorities worldwide, we must
also act to secure the rights of all Americans here at home.
Incidence of hate crimes
Crimes against people based upon their disability, sexual
orientation, gender, or gender identity are all too common.
According to the most recent hate crimes statistics from the
FBI (available at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/index.html),
there were 9,535 victims (defined as persons, businesses,
institutions, or society as a whole) of hate crimes in 2007.
Of these, 1,512 were victims of hate crimes based on sexual
orientation, and 84 were victims of hate crimes based on
disability. Hate crimes legislation seeks to extend federal
hate crimes protections to these and other (gender and gender
identity) groups of people.
Religious liberty
H.R. 1913 protects free speech and religious liberty. The
First Amendment of the Constitution will always protect
preaching or other expressions of religious belief--even
name-calling or expressions of hatred toward a group. This
legislation punishes only violent actions that result in
death or bodily injury.
There is strong language in the legislation that explicitly
says that evidence of expression or associations that are not
specifically related to a violent hate crime may not be used
as evidence.
____
Hate Crimes Myths of the Right
MYTH: Hate crimes legislation is a threat to religious
liberty and will ``criminalize Christianity'' by restricting
what pastors and other religious leaders are able to preach.
Pastors will be arrested for preaching against homosexuality.
FACT: H.R. 1913 protects freedom of speech and freedom of
religion. It only punishes violent acts like assault and
murder, not religious beliefs. The law makes clear that it
cannot be used to prohibit any ``expressive conduct'' or
``activities protected by the free speech or free exercise
clauses of the First Amendment.''
MYTH: Hate crimes legislation will lead to prosecution for
``thought crimes.''
FACT: This legislation does not restrict anybody's First
Amendment rights. The law doesn't create something called a
``thought'' crime for a particular group of people. H.R. 1913
strengthens law enforcement's ability to fight violent
crime--not vigorous debate, not sermons against
homosexuality, not hateful speech, not the spreading of
misinformation that thrives on constitutionally protected
right-wing television, radio, and blogosphere, not even the
infamous ``God hates fags'' protesters.
MYTH: Hate crimes legislation gives ``special rights'' to
some people.
FACT: Freedom from violence isn't a ``special right.'' It's
a human right. No one should be assaulted or killed because
of who he or she is.
H.R. 1913 punishes only violent crimes and the hateful
motivation directly related to such crimes. Distinctions like
this are common place in our criminal justice system. For
example, the intent of a suspected killer determines the
difference between a first and second-degree murder charge.
What Can You Do to Help End Violent Hate Crimes?
Contact your Representative and Senators and tell them that
you want all Americans, regardless of their race, religion,
national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender,
or gender identity, to enjoy freedom from violence. Urge them
to support hate crimes legislation, such as H.R. 1913, so
that no American is treated as a second-class citizen. Sign
up for People For the American Way action alerts, and we will
keep you updated on new developments concerning this issue.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).
Mr. LANCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, which
provides needed assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies
and allows the Department of Justice to investigate crimes committed on
the basis of the victim's race, color, religion, national origin,
gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.
This legislation mirrors laws passed in 28 States, including in the
State of New Jersey. We in New Jersey are proud of the legislation we
have enacted in this regard. Violence based on prejudice is a matter of
national concern. Federal prosecutors should be empowered to help
States.
Mr. Speaker, on the wall of the national memorial honoring Franklin
Roosevelt, the following words are written: ``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.'' This
statement is as true today as when Franklin Roosevelt spoke it nearly
70 years ago.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I
look forward to its passage and, I hope, to its signature into law this
year.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), who is also the chairman of the Values
Action Team.
Mr. PITTS. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1913, the hate crimes
legislation.
This bill would be more appropriately termed the ``thought crimes
act,'' as it seeks to criminalize certain types of thoughts. Our legal
structure was established to punish actions, not thoughts or beliefs,
and this bill would set a dangerous precedent.
{time} 1530
It will threaten our most basic right to free speech established
under the First Amendment. Religious groups who hold certain
convictions based on their faith could, in fact, be targeted by this
law. In Sweden, a pastor was convicted by a trial court and sentenced
to jail time for a hate crime after preaching a sermon that discussed
biblical views of homosexuality. And in New York, the State hate crimes
laws were used to justify taking down billboards on sexual immorality
that a local pastor had paid to post.
This legislation seeks to create categories of citizens who are
either more or less protected under the law depending on what category
they fall into. This framework flies in the face of one of the most
fundamental principles of our justice system. Chiseled in stone across
the front of the Supreme Court building are the words ``Equal Justice
Under Law.'' This means that all citizens, regardless of sexual
identity or anything else, are to receive equal protection from the
law. I support this basic principle that has long guided our Nation's
system of justice.
But this bill undermines that principle. It seeks to establish
different groups of citizens with different levels of protection under
the law. And the bottom line is that this legislation simply isn't
necessary.
If someone commits a violent crime, they should be punished to the
full extent of the law regardless of who the victim is.
I urge you to preserve equal justice under the law and oppose H.R.
1913.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York, Eliot Engel.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, my good friend from Michigan, for yielding me this
time. And as a proud cosponsor of this bill, I am proud that it's on
the floor today.
This bill is a carefully crafted measure that would provide
desperately needed resources to State and local governments for the
investigation and
[[Page H4950]]
prosecution of violent crimes based on sexual orientation, gender
identity and disability. It is a bill long, long due to add sexual
orientation and the others, including gender, to the list of hate
crimes.
To my friends on the other side of the aisle who say that we are
creating a special class, well, by that logic, right now we have race,
color, religion and national origin protection. So by that logic, we
should eliminate those as well. It's ridiculous.
To those who say, ``Why should we protect people who have chosen a
different personal lifestyle?'' our gay and lesbian friends don't
choose this lifestyle. They are what they are and they should be
protected just like anybody else who has a religion, who has a gender
obviously, color, religion or national origin.
This bill does not violate free speech or First Amendment
protections. Nothing in this bill would prohibit the lawful expression
of one's religious beliefs. This bill only punishes violent crimes
motivated by bias. Congress is saying clearly, unequivocally, that the
people of this country reject and condemn all forms of hate violence.
That's why this bill is here.
Today, we uphold the principles that are considered the foundation of
American democracy that all people are created equal and that all
people are entitled to equal protection under the law. It includes gays
and lesbians and includes everybody.
Pass this bill.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the
ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership
in opposition to this issue and for yielding.
The gentleman, the previous speaker, just said this bill only
punishes violent crimes. I take you to the language from the bill.
Here's the definition of a crime of violence. It means an offense that
has, as an element, the threatened use of force against the property of
another. If one threatens to use force against the property of
another--this is verbatim from the section that is referenced in the
existing code--property crimes are included in this, threats against
property crimes are included in this. Hate crimes, the definition of
hate crimes in the Federal statutes means a crime when the perpetrator
selects property because of the property owner's actual or perceived
sexual orientation.
This isn't just violent crimes. It is in some of the Federal segment
of it but not in the assistance that goes to local governments. And in
local governments it also states in the bill that any local
jurisdiction's hate crimes ordinance or legislation can be supported by
supporting the prosecution of the local hate crimes legislation that's
there.
And so whatever local jurisdiction may determine is a hate crime is
covered under this bill. It might be a city, a county, a municipality;
it might be a parish, it might be a State. It might be San Francisco's
ordinance that says, Thou shalt not discriminate against the short, the
fat, the tall, or the skinny. That is hate crimes ordinances that could
be prosecuted with Federal assistance under this bill. The short, the
fat, the tall, the skinny. That will cover some regular people, I
think.
And so I would ask this: Why are you dividing us? Why are you pitting
Americans against Americans? That's a rhetorical question, Mr. Speaker.
This divides us and pits Americans against Americans. And the
definitions in this bill are broad, ambiguous and undefined anywhere
with any consensus, even among the professionals that deal with this on
a daily basis.
In the committee, I asked specifically the question, ``What is the
definition for sexual orientation?'' The answer that I got back from
the gentlelady from Wisconsin was, ``This bill only covers
homosexuality and heterosexuality.'' Now it presumably excludes
bisexuality, but in the rule debate, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings) said, ``No, no. Here's what we have,'' and he read through a
whole list of philias, he called it.
There are 547 specific paraphilias that are listed by the American
Psychological Association. About 30 of them have been read into this
Record. I've got a list of these 30 philias. Among them pedophilia--the
obsession with children--which specifically was excluded from the bill
when I offered the amendment by the Judiciary Committee.
So, Mr. Speaker, we're going down the path here of no one really
knows. Am I going to buy into the statement made by the very senior
member of the Rules Committee who says I want to protect all philias
whatsoever no matter what the proclivity? And many of them are
perversions, Mr. Speaker. We're going to grant that protected status to
people who are actually breaking the law if they act on their
particular sexual orientation, or are we going to limit it to--as the
gentlelady from Wisconsin says--homosexuality and heterosexuality, not
bisexuality.
I tried to explain this to the press as they asked me questions. And
finally my answer became, ``If this sounds confusing and gibberish, it
is.'' And it leaves it open to any judge, any lawyer, anyone for
anything that is in their head or might be their plumbing or might be
in the perception of the perpetrator as well as, and/or, the perception
of the alleged victim.
There is no precedent for this in law, this broad, broad idea that
we're going to punish what is in the head of the perpetrator by
dividing what may or may not have been in the head of the victim.
That's where this legislation takes us.
Why are they dividing us, Mr. Speaker?
I oppose this legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, would you advise us with regard to how much
time remains on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 11\1/2\
minutes. The gentleman from Texas has 8\1/2\ minutes. The gentleman
from Illinois has 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous
consent request to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chaka Fattah.
(Mr. FATTAH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman for the time and for his work on
this legislation. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act,
H.R. 1913, is a long overdue effort to address the scourge of bias
motivated crimes in communities across the country. This is not simply
about criminalizing violent acts, those are already illegal. This is
about recognizing that these crimes affect more than just the
individual involved, they are meant to instill fear in whole
communities.
Hate crimes in this country have a terrible history. For decades
African Americans, particularly those who spoke out for justice and
equality, were brutally lynched in communities across the country while
law enforcement officials and upstanding members of the community stood
by. Murder was illegal then too, but it took the brave efforts of
citizens, including Ida B. Wells, for the problem to be addressed.
These murders were meant to send a signal to newly freed men and women
and often targeted veterans returning from war.
Our Jewish neighbors have been subjected to campaigns of terror with
property destruction and symbols of hate sprayed across synagogues and
community centers. Irish, Italian, Catholic, Latino, Muslim and Asian
Americans have all seen ``disagreements'' and ``displeasure'' expressed
with barbaric crimes meant to convey the message that they were
unwelcome in this nation of immigrants.
Opponents have suggested that this legislation will affect what can
and cannot be said in houses of worship. This is false. H.R. 1913
explicitly recognizes the right of individuals to be ignorant, narrow-
minded, or malicious whether motivated out of faith, conscience, or
generic hatred. This bill will have no effect on any interpretation of
the Bible or religious tradition. They say that they worry there will
be a ``chilling effect'' on religious speech. This is nonsense. This
bill is about criminal acts, those that are already illegal, and
enables law enforcement to carry out responsibilities they already have
under current law.
The man whose name is now associated with this bill, Matthew Shepard,
was tortured and killed because he was gay. This crime wasn't about him
as an individual, it was about what he represented. Every day there are
smaller incidences in neighborhoods around the country. Individuals are
targeted coming out of certain bars, wearing certain clothes, or
walking with too much flair. This is a systemic problem that requires a
systemic approach. This bill will go a long way in allowing local law
enforcement to do their job and providing Federal assistance where it
belongs. It is about time.
[[Page H4951]]
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I now recognize the distinguished gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Al Green) for 1 minute.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
Declaration of Independence. All persons are created equal, endowed by
their Creator, with certain inalienable rights, among them life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not some people, not people of a
particular race, not people who just happen to be heterosexual; all
persons are created equal.
And for the record, I support the rights of gay people. Gay people
have the same rights as any other Americans, and they have the right to
pursue happiness. I support this--the Declaration of Independence
speaks of it--and but for the grace of God, we all ought to realize,
There go I. Any one of us could become the victim of a hate crime
regardless of your race, your creed, or your color. We should support
people and the rights of people.
For those who say that we are creating a separate class of people, we
already have a class that we've distinguished in the State of Texas for
peace officers. If you assault a police officer, your punishment is
going to be enhanced.
That is what this is all about: enhancement of punishment.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the
distinguished gentlelady from Maryland, an attorney herself, Donna
Edwards, for 1 minute.
Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act
of 2009, H.R. 1913.
This really is about civil rights. Now, in an ideal world, I wouldn't
be standing here speaking here before you now because we wouldn't need
legislation like this. But this is anything but an ideal world. And
sadly, violent hate crimes are still an unfortunate reality in our
society. Last year there were 150 reported hate crimes in my home State
of Maryland, and local law enforcement estimates that the actual
numbers are higher due to reporting discrepancies.
Now, recent statistics also say there were more than 9,000 reported
hate crimes. So the time to do something about this is now. And as a
long-time violence prevention advocate, I believe we have to do
everything in our power to eradicate violence in all its forms.
By passing this legislation, we're saying that acts of violence
motivated by hate will simply not be tolerated, not for any person, not
for any reason.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you and I thank the leadership of the Matthew
Shepard family for keeping us on mark about what it means to protect
people.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, under this legislation, criminals who kill certain
people will be punished more harshly than people who kill a police
officer, a member of the military, a child, or a senior citizen.
Is a murder motivated by hatred for something other than the victim's
membership in a particular group any less devastating or tragic? All
crime victims should have equal worth in the eyes of the law.
Ordinarily, criminal law does not concern itself with motive, why a
person acted, but rather with intent, whether the perpetrator intended
or knew that they would cause harm. If someone intends to harm a
person, no motive makes them more or less culpable for their conduct.
This legislation will force law enforcement officials and prosecutors
to gather evidence about the offender's thoughts and words regardless
of the criminality of their actions.
When the government starts to punish thoughts, this is a dangerous
road to travel. And where does it end? With thought police?
Mr. Speaker, we cannot legislate away hate, nor should we criminalize
a person's thoughts, no matter how much we might disagree with them. I
urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted
to control the remainder of the time that I previously yielded to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to recognize the
gentlelady from Wisconsin who has served ably on the Committee on the
Judiciary for a number of years, Tammy Baldwin, for 5 minutes.
Ms. BALDWIN. I want to thank Chairman Conyers for the time and for
your diligent work on this measure. It has been an honor and a
privilege to work closely with you.
Today, by passing the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention
Act, the House has a historic opportunity to reinforce the principles
of equal rights and equal protection embodied in our Constitution.
Hate crimes are acts of violence motivated by prejudice and committed
against individuals that end up victimizing entire groups of people.
In 1968 in response to horrific hate-based violence in our country,
cross burnings, lynchings, fire bombings and the like, we acted to
protect people who were victimized on the basis of their race, color,
religion or national origin. Today, we strengthen our response to this
form of domestic terrorism by adding protections for people targeted
for violence because of their gender, disability, gender identity, or
sexual orientation.
We add these characteristics to the hate crimes legislation not
because they deserve special protection, but because of a history and
pervasive pattern of heinous violent crimes committed against
individuals because of these characteristics.
Some opponents of this legislation are disseminating misinformation
in order to derail this bill. But make no mistake--this legislation we
pass today has been carefully crafted to protect our First Amendment
rights to free speech, expression, and association.
The First Amendment protects these freedoms, but it does not protect
violence. This is not a hate thought bill. This is not a hate speech
bill. This is a hate crimes bill that will provide needed Federal
resources to local law enforcement authorities when they confront
violent crimes motivated by prejudice and hate.
{time} 1545
I want to share with you a few reasons why I believe the passage of
this legislation is so urgently necessary.
I'm thinking today of Angie Zapata, an 18-year-old transgender woman
who was brutally murdered in Greeley, Colorado, last summer. Angie's
killer beat her to death with his fists and a fire extinguisher when he
learned that she had been born a male. Thankfully, Angie's killer was
brought to justice under a State hate crimes law. But we know that with
staggering frequency, those who commit similar acts of violence and
murder based on hate are not.
I think of Lawrence King, a 15-year-old in Oxnard, California. Larry
had suffered harassment from his peers and then was killed by a 14-
year-old classmate because of his sexual orientation and gender
identity.
Americans across the country, young and old alike, must hear Congress
clearly affirm that hate-based violence targeting gays, lesbians,
transgender individuals, women, and people with disabilities will not
be tolerated.
I think today of Matthew Shepard, who was brutally attacked by his
homophobic assailants and left to die on a fence in Wyoming 10 years
ago. Matthew's death generated international outrage by exposing the
violent nature of hate crimes and the horrific effect on the targeted
community.
I think of Judy Shepard, Matthew's mother, who is here with us today,
still courageously advocating for the passage of this legislation more
than 10 years after losing her son.
The passage of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act
will not make all hate crime go away. But this bill gives State, local,
and Federal law enforcement authorities the necessary resources and
tools to combat violent crimes based on hate and bias.
Mr. Speaker, the arguments have been made, the evidence has been
proffered, and, sadly, the lives have been lost that more than justify
the passage of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to pass this
bill.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to
the
[[Page H4952]]
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), who is also chairman of the
Republican Conference.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I especially thank
the ranking member of this committee for his strong and principled and
thoughtful opposition to H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate
Crimes Prevention Act.
Mr. Speaker, those who know me, including my colleagues on this
committee and the distinguished chairman of this committee, know that I
abhor discrimination. I have associated myself throughout my career in
Congress with efforts to advance the interests of minorities, and I
will continue to do so. People who know me back home know that I have
no tolerance for unkindness or disrespect to any individual for any
reason, but most especially any disrespect or discrimination that is
based on race, creed, or color is anathema to me. So I don't question
the motives of those who would advance this legislation. I think I know
the heart of many and understand it.
But I rise in opposition to this legislation for three reasons:
Number one, I believe that we should not treat thought the same way
we treat action before the law. Number two, I believe this legislation
is unnecessary when a careful examination of State prosecutions and the
work that's being done at State levels is examined. And lastly and most
ominously, I fear this legislation, intentionally or unintentionally,
could have a chilling effect on the religious expression and the
religious freedom of millions of Americans. So let me speak to each of
those points.
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 and his worship, the legislative powers of
the government reach actions only, not opinions.'' Thomas Jefferson
again stated the core of my objection to hate crimes legislation as a
whole, and that is that violent attacks against people or property are
already illegal regardless of the motive behind them. And it seems to
me that the wisdom expressed by Thomas Jefferson in that quote is
wisdom that ought to discipline this legislative body, that we ought to
focus the reach of government on actions only and not opinions. And
that remains the core of my objection to hate crimes legislation.
But even to those who believe, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation is
appropriate, I must say that it is also important for our colleagues
and anyone looking in to understand that this legislation is also
unnecessary. The underlying offense in each of these crimes is already
fully and aggressively prosecuted in all 50 States.
This bill designates in particular gender identity for federally
protected status without, I might add, any evidence of any hate crimes
occurring against individuals for gender identity. The hate crimes bill
before us today makes a Federal offense out of any violent crime that
is alleged to be motivated by gender identity including, for instance,
people who describe themselves as transsexuals, even though the Hate
Crimes Statistics Act of 1990, as amended in 1994, never collected any
data to show that such hate crimes are even occurring. In fact, the
truth be told, FBI statistics show that the incidents of what are
described as hate crimes has declined over the last 10 years, for which
we have data. In 1997 a total of 8,000 what are called ``bias-motived''
criminal incidents were reported to the FBI. The data for 3 of the last
10 years, 2003 through 2005, demonstrated a steady decline in the
number of those crimes, and the incidents as the present day approaches
decline even further.
And, also, lastly, there is zero evidence that States are not fully
prosecuting violent crimes that are motivated by hate or for any other
reason. Every State in the Nation prohibits a variety of violent crimes
that constitute ``willfully causing bodily injury.'' For whatever the
purpose of the will of causing bodily injury, those crimes are
prosecuted. And for those who advocate hate crimes legislation, a
Federalist note: 45 States and the District of Columbia already have
specific laws punishing hate crimes.
Which brings me to my last objection to this Federal legislation, and
that is the concern that I have about the threat to religious freedom
and religious expression. The gentlewoman who just spoke said,
memorably, that this is not a hate speech bill, this is a hate crimes
bill. But because those 45 States already have legislation involving
hate crimes, we can see how this kind of legislation actually operates
in practice.
One case in particular, in 2004 in Philadelphia, 11 individuals were
arrested at something called OutFest, which is a gay pride festival.
These individuals held signs that displayed segments of the Holy Bible.
They were arrested after protesting peacefully. They were charged with
three felonies and five misdemeanors. Their felony charges included
``possessions of instruments of crime,'' which apparently was a
bullhorn; ethnic intimidation, which was apparently their statement
that they believed as Biblical Christians that homosexuality is a sin;
and also they were charged with inciting a riot for reading passages
from the Bible related to that moral practice. Now, whether or not a
riot occurred involving these Christians was debatable, but they faced
$90,000 in fines and possible 47-year prison sentences.
In San Francisco a city council enacted a resolution urging local
broadcast media not to run advertisements by a pro-family group. In New
York a pastor who rented billboards posting Biblical quotations on
sexual morality had them taken down by city officials who cited hate
crime principles as justification.
We saw a new colleague today take that oath that we all take, and it
was a solemn moment, Mr. Speaker. But we swear to support and uphold
the Constitution, which reads, I remind my colleagues, ``Congress shall
make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof.''
We must not pass this hate crimes bill. It is unnecessary and it
threatens that constitutional obligation that we have.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts, who is Chair of the Finance Committee but previously has
served his entire career on the House Judiciary Committee, and his name
is Barney Frank.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. My thanks to the gentleman from Michigan,
who has been such an extraordinary moral force in his leadership in the
Judiciary Committee and under whom I was proud to serve.
Let me begin by saying apparently we have in Philadelphia one of the
longest pending criminal cases in history because the gentleman from
Indiana mentioned that people were arrested and charged in 2004. But he
didn't tell us what happened to them. Well, he said it was terrible,
they were charged. One would assume that people would be interested in
knowing what happened.
I will tell the House what happened. The charges were dismissed. Now,
the gentleman from Indiana apparently forgot to say that. Those arrests
were false. They should not have taken place. But let me say this: If
we were to repeal every criminal statute because some police officer
may have made an improper arrest, things would be pretty anarchic.
I also do think if you're going to talk about an incident, certainly
would be my practice, and if you talked about criminal charges and they
were dismissed that you would say so, that you wouldn't leave people
wondering. So I do want people who are worried about the fate of those
poor people in Philadelphia who, if you listened to the gentleman from
Indiana, these last 5 years have been facing felony charges, please
don't worry. Those charges should not have been brought and they were
dismissed. Now, you hear about that often because it's apparently the
only case we do have. No one has been successfully prosecuted, nor
should they be, for this.
Now, I do want to say this: I'm delighted to hear some of the most
conservative Members of this House expressing support for free speech
in this context. Only in this context. They have not been conspicuous
in demanding the right of free speech, but I'll take it when I can get
it.
There was a statute proposed here that interfered with the free
speech of
[[Page H4953]]
a member of the clergy. Now, he is a lunatic member of the clergy named
Phelps, and he was going and standing out at cemeteries and denouncing
them on his religious grounds. I did not think people should be allowed
to disrupt funerals, but I voted against the bill, along with my
colleague from Texas (Mr. Paul) and my colleague from Oregon (Mr. Wu),
and all the rest of these great defenders of free speech on the other
side said he couldn't stand half a mile from the cemetery an hour
before with his anti-gay sign. Now, I will confess that when he heard
that I had come to his defense, that caused him more aggravation than
anything else; so it was for me a twofer. I got to defend free speech
and aggravate a lunatic. But I don't remember a lot of free speech
defenses then because it wasn't popular.
Now, in addition to free speech, there is one other thing that's very
interesting. You would think this is the first time hate crimes ever
came up in American history. There are on the books statutes that
increase the penalty for crimes depending on the motivation. And people
say everybody should be treated equally. By the way, I assume Members
know that there was a special statute that makes it particularly
egregious in terms of sentencing if you assault a Member of Congress.
{time} 1600
I assume nobody knew that on that side because they would have moved
to repeal it. They apparently are perfectly comfortable getting a
greater degree of Federal protection against crime than the average
citizen.
Did they forget to repeal that? Where was that motion? Mr. Chairman,
did that come up in the committee? Well, apparently not. But there were
other categories, age and race.
Let's be very clear, Mr. Speaker. It is not the concept of hate crime
protection that is controversial. We have had it and it has been
administered. It is extending it to people like me, to those of us who
are gay, to people who are transgender. And the assertion that there is
no basis for protecting transgender people against violence, that's
Marxist in its oddity.
And I mean by that, of course, Chico Marx, who said at one notable
point when Groucho caught him red-handed, ``Who are you going to
believe--me or your own eyes?''
The fact is that crimes against people who are transgender have been
very serious. I know they are not always prosecuted as well as they
should have been. But I do want to stress, the notion of hate crimes,
of increasing the penalty because of the motivation for certain
characteristics of the victim, has not been controversial on the
Republican side. They have made no effort to change it.
If they were really motivated by what they claim to be saying, or
what they are saying, then they would be for repealing hate crimes in
general. They would be for repealing hate crimes based on race and age
and other categories. It's only when it deals with gay people. And
because in some people's minds saying that it's wrong to assault
someone who is transgender may mean that you have to show some respect
for that person.
Well, let me reassure them. I do think that there ought to be hate
crimes protection against gay, lesbian and transgender people. By that
I mean that if there is a physical crime, actions that are otherwise
criminal, the fact that it is based on that prejudice should count.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the chairman.
I want to make it very clear. Yes, I do want there to be protection
against violence committed against people like me, but let me reassure
those, some on the other side. In asking that transgender people or
people like me or people like my colleague from Wisconsin be protected
against violence, I am not seeking your approval. Your approval of the
way in which I live is not terribly important to me, I would say to
them, Mr. Speaker, so I do want to differentiate.
Those of us who think that violence should be prevented are not
asking for approval from people with whom we are perfectly prepared not
to associate any more than necessary. This is not a request for
acceptance. We don't want it. We don't need it from those people. What
we are talking about is a protection against violence.
The last point is this. Why a hate crime? Because when someone is
assaulted as an individual, that individual is put in fear. But when a
group is assaulted because of race or religion or sexual orientation,
members who aren't assaulted, if there's a pattern to this, are also
put in fear. That's the rationale, and it applies here as well as
elsewhere.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 30 seconds.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank you.
I would like to congratulate the Members of the House for the debate
that's occurred on the hate crimes legislation because of the very
effective way that they have communicated their reservations about the
way we approached the subject.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 of which I am
a cosponsor.
Our country was founded on the bedrock principle of protecting
individual freedoms. We need to protect the rights of individuals who
are assaulted because of who they are.
This bipartisan bill provides local and state law enforcement
agencies with the resources needed to combat the thousands of hate
crimes that occur in our country each year. H.R 1913 allows the Federal
Government to equip our local law offices with the tools they need to
prosecute hate crimes and provides monetary relief to those agencies
that have incurred extraordinary expenses associated with the
investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.
Our nation thrives because of the freedoms we guarantee each of our
citizens. Those liberties are at risk if hateful discrimination and
violence are allowed to flourish and threaten the safety of individuals
and our communities. Current federal hate crimes law authorizes federal
aid in cases of violent crimes motivated by the victim's race, color,
religion, or national origin. H.R. 1913 expands the federal definition
of hate crime, allowing the Department of Justice to assist local
authorities in cases of violent crimes committed against persons
because of their gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or
disability.
I am proud to have voted for this legislation, as it will enhance
civil rights protections and help protect individuals and our
communities from the terror and anguish that hate crimes inflict.
Mr. PERRIELLO. Madam Speaker, although I could not cast my vote today
due to scheduling conflicts, I would like to record my support for the
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This legislation does
two important things: it moves our communities one step closer towards
having the support necessary to ensure that all Americans can live
without fear and it advances the ongoing struggle to defend human
rights.
This bipartisan bill reaffirms our commitment to protecting the
rights of every individual citizen. It defends the dignity of all
individuals and recognizes that no one should live in constant fear of
hatred and discrimination. Importantly, it advances this goal while
also protecting our Constitutional right to freedom of speech and of
religious expression. Unlike many nations where individuals may be
prosecuted for their words and beliefs, the United States remains firm
in defending our ability to express our opinions and exercise our
values without fear of legal action. Since the introduction of
America's first hate crimes laws in 1968, such legislation has focused
only on acts of violence, never on ideas, and this bill continues that
commitment to the Constitution by explicitly stating that it cannot be
used to limit our First Amendment rights, including the rights of faith
leaders speaking from their pulpits. This legislation is a testament to
the strength of our Constitution even in times of change.
The necessity of this bill has recently been highlighted in
Virginia's 5th District, where several weeks ago an 18-year-old
University of Virginia student and his friend were physically attacked
in a parking lot because of their perceived sexual orientation. Such
incidents remind us that there are still individuals who would use
violence to intimidate and isolate others simply for who they are, and
that hate crimes remain a serious and under-addressed problem in our
communities.
These crimes not only target individual victims, but also terrorize
entire communities. All individuals deserve to live free of fear of
such attacks, and we must not allow violence inspired by hatred to go
unpunished. Throughout our nation's history, we have been reminded that
the principles of our founders endure, and so does their charge to us
to remain vigilant in each generation about expanding
[[Page H4954]]
those freedoms. We continue to emerge from these struggles a stronger
and better nation, truer to our values and closer to fulfilling our
highest aspirations.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1913, the
``Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Preven of 2009.'' As an original
cosponsor of this legislation, I believe that H.R. 1913 is critically
important to ensuring that those who commit hate crimes are
appropriately prosecuted and punished. I want to commend Chairman
Conyers and the Democratic Leadership for bringing this legislation
before the House of Representatives early in the 111th Congress so that
we may finally get this bill to the President's desk.
Each story is tragic, someone who is assaulted or murdered because of
nothing more than his or her race, gender, sexual orientation, or
religion, for example. Someone who may have done nothing other than
walk down a particular street, attend a certain house of worship, or
simply be who they are. Today we send the important message that we
will not tolerate these acts of violence by ensuring that local law
enforcement agencies have the necessary resources to investigate and
prosecute hate crimes.
On June 11, 2000, at the annual Puerto Rican Day parade in New York
City, more than fifty women were sexually harassed and assaulted by a
group of men. I was outraged not only that the attacks occurred, but
that according to many of the victims, the police did not take their
allegations seriously. Unfortunately, women are all too often targeted
because of their gender.
Although the bill as reported out of committee does not include
provisions from legislation that I have introduced, H.R. 823, the
``Hate Crimes Statistics Improvement Act of 2009,'' I understand that
this language will be included in future legislation that Chairman
Conyers intends to bring before the House of Representatives. The
provisions included in my bill would ensure that hate crimes motivated
by gender are accounted for by the FBI and local law enforcement
agencies. Violence against women is a serious problem in this country.
With accurate data, local communities will be better able to identify
gender-based hated crimes in their area, ensure that the prosecution of
such crimes is a priority, and chart their progress toward eliminating
them.
H.R. 1913 is landmark legislation that I believe will go a long way
in reducing violence in communities across this nation. I urge my
colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to support the Local
Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act which will help prevent
violence and ensure that justice is served.
The special attention that hate crimes require can easily stretch
local law enforcement beyond their capacity. Many of these crimes go
unreported, allowing the perpetrators to escape punishment. This is
unacceptable.
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act provides the
necessary resources to state and local governments for the
investigation and prosecution of these crimes. This kind of commitment
to justice is the only way to prevent such random acts of violence from
occurring in the first place.
In my home state of Oregon, four hate crimes have been reported this
year and in 2008, twenty-nine hate crimes were reported. Just last
month, a man and his boyfriend were on a spring-break trip over the
weekend when they were beaten unconscious on a beach in Seaside,
Oregon. Last November, a 20-year-old woman was walking along a street
in Aloha, Oregon, when the man asked for a cigarette. He asked if she
was gay and when she said yes, he then started berating her about her
sexual orientation. Eventually he pushed her and she fell to the
ground. She tried to defend herself, but he knocked her back down and
struck her in the head with a rock.
These violent crimes effectively terrorize the entire community and
chip away at our freedoms. We must protect all our citizens--whether
they are black, disabled, Christian, or gay.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of
H.R. 1913--the Federal Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act
of 2009. This legislation has had bipartisan support during the 106th,
108th, 109th and the 110th Congresses.
Many law enforcement organizations throughout the nation have
endorsed the bill. We have their support because local police and
sheriffs' departments will get resources they need to help investigate
and prosecute violent criminals.
The bill allows 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.
Everyone deserves to be protected and to feel safe in their
communities. African Americans, Hispanics, disabled Americans,
Christians, members of the GBLT community, and every other American
deserve this right. And we should give our local law enforcement the
tools and support necessary to ensure our safety. We are all created
equal and should be afforded the same freedoms and protections.
H.R. 1913 will provide assistance to state and local law enforcement
agencies and amend Federal law to facilitate the investigation and
prosecution of bias-motivated crimes of violence.
I ask my colleagues to join me as we pass this much needed civil
rights legislation.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1913, the
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 and I am
pleased to see the bill we reported out of the Judiciary Committee last
week is on the House floor today.
I believe we finally have the opportunity to see this legislation
signed into law and I encourage my colleagues to do the right thing
today and support this bill.
We must ensure that all Americans can exercise their civil rights and
be free from threats of violence against them because of their race,
color, nationality, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation. It
is past time to protect gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered
individuals from hate crimes. We must never again allow an 11-year-old
child to be so bullied and harassed that he sees no other option to end
his torture by taking his own life.
In 2004 in Los Angeles, the 15-year-old son of movie producer Lee
Caplin and his wife, Gita, received death threats by a group of
students at his private high school. According to the police complaint,
some of the messages directed at their son were anti-gay slurs among
other epithets.
In 2007 in Los Angeles, a mentally disabled man was beaten to death
by an unidentified man wielding an aluminum baseball bat. The victim
was James McKinney, 41, who was walking to the store from his home, a
mental health care facility. The attack was caught on surveillance
camera, but the attacker is still at large.
The most recent data from the FBI is from 2007. It shows that in Los
Angeles, there were 279 crimes categorized as motivated by bias: 132
crimes based on race; 50 crimes based on religion; 43 crimes based on
sexual orientation; and 54 crimes based on ethnicity.
While I strongly support this bill today, I know that more work is
needed, particularly in the area of crimes against the homeless. As
Chair of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing, I can tell you
that with the housing and foreclosure crisis we are facing, more and
more Americans are becoming homeless. Sadly, the number of violent
crimes against the homeless are increasing, and I believe a significant
portion of these attacks are indeed hate crimes. The State of Maryland
just recently became the first state in the nation to add homelessness
to their hate crimes statute. They noted that from 1999 through 2007
there were 774 acts of violence against homeless men, women and
children in 45 states and Puerto Rico. These attacks resulted in 217
deaths.
I'm looking forward to working with Chairman Conyers and our Crime
Subcommittee Chairman Scott to get accurate data on violent crimes and
hate crimes against the homeless. It is important to get this data
promptly, and then, after an appropriate hearing, we can determine if
additional legislation is needed.
In closing, I commend Chairman Conyers for his tireless work on this
legislation and urge my colleagues to do the right thing today and vote
to pass this bill.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in
support of H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention
Act. I have been a strong supporter of increased law enforcement
support and protections against hate crimes for many years, and today's
vote represents a historic step forward in recognizing and fighting
against violent bias-motivated crimes.
Each year there are thousands of individuals who are targets of
violent crime based solely on their appearance, means, or lifestyle.
These hate crimes are not only meant to physically harm the victim, but
degrade all individuals of similar identity and instill a pervasive
sense of fear amongst that community. While each and every violent
crime is traumatic, hate crimes are not only devastating for
[[Page H4955]]
the victim and their family, but for all individuals who identify with
the victim, whether or not they actually knew that person.
Hate crimes are more prevalent than many may realize. Despite
significant underreporting, more than 100,000 hate crimes have been
reported since 1991. In addition, the number of hate groups that exist
within our country continues to rise; espousing a message of hatred and
often plans of targeted violence.
This legislation will allow for much needed federal assistance in the
prevention and prosecution of hate crimes, and provide money to states
to develop hate crimes prevention programs. No American deserves to
feel a threat to their physical safety simply because of who they are
or how they look.
While I strongly support the passage of this legislation, I do
believe there is a strong need to include homeless individuals into
this bill. Often nameless and faceless victims of violence, homeless
individuals are amongst the highest targeted groups for hate violence.
According to statistics collected by the National Coalition for the
Homeless, there have been 774 violent acts perpetrated against homeless
individuals since 1999. These attacks occurred in 235 cities throughout
our country, in 45 states, and in one territory. 217 of these attacks
resulted in death ranging from these individuals suffering severe
beatings to being set on fire. Many of these incidents were committed
by groups targeting the homeless, and some were even video-taped for
future sale and amusement.
It is important that we recognize these acts as hate crimes at a
federal level. Many states are currently considering the recognition of
these violent acts as hate crimes, with Maryland having already done
so. We cannot continue to ignore the plight of this group, and the fear
and violence that have been experienced by scores of homeless
individuals.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following
letter from four members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights who are
opposed to H.R. 1913:
United States Commission
on Civil Rights,
Washington, DC, April 29, 2009.
Re: H.R. 1913
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Steny H. Hoyer,
Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. James E. Clyburn,
Majority Whip, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John Boehner,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Eric Cantor,
Minority Whip, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker and Messrs. Boehner, Cantor, Clyburn and
Hoyer: We write today to urge you to vote against the
proposed Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act
(H.R. 1913) (``LLEHCPA''). Although time does not permit this
issue to be presented for formal Commission action, we
believe it is important for us to write as individual members
to communicate our serious concerns with this legislation.
We believe that LLEHCPA will do little good and a great
deal of harm. Its most important effect will be to allow
federal authorities to re-prosecute a broad category of
defendants who have already been acquitted by state juries--
as in the Rodney King and Crown Heights cases more than a
decade ago. Due to the exception for prosecutions by ``dual
sovereigns,'' such double prosecutions are technically not
violations of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S.
Constitution. But they are very much a violation of the
spirit that drove the framers of the Bill of Rights, who
never dreamed that federal criminal jurisdiction would be
expanded to the point where an astonishing proportion of
crimes are now both state and federal offenses. We regard
the broad federalization of crime as a menace to civil
liberties. There is no better place to draw the line on
that process than with a bill that purports to protect
civil rights.
While the title of LLEHCPA suggests that it will apply only
to ``hate crimes,'' the actual criminal prohibitions
contained in it do not require that the defendant be inspired
by hatred or ill will in order to convict. It is sufficient
if he acts ``because of someone's actual or perceived race,
color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation,
gender identity or disability. Consider:
Rapists are seldom indifferent to the gender of their
victims. They are virtually always chosen ``because of their
gender.
A robber might well steal only from women or the disabled
because, in general, they are less able to defend themselves.
Literally, they are chosen ``because of their gender or
disability.
While Senator Edward Kennedy has written that it was not
his intention to cover all rape with LLEHCPA, some DOJ
officials have declined to disclaim such coverage. Moreover,
both the objective meaning of the language and considerable
legal scholarship would certainly include such coverage. If
all rape and many other crimes that do not rise to the level
of a ``hate crime'' in the minds of ordinary Americans are
covered by LLEHCPA, then prosecutors will have ``two bites at
the apple'' for a very large number of crimes.
DOJ officials have argued that LLEHCPA is needed because
state procedures sometimes make it difficult to obtain
convictions. They have cited a Texas case from over a decade
ago involving an attack on a black man by three white
hoodlums. Texas law required the three defendants to be tried
separately. By prosecuting them under federal law, however,
they could have been tried together. As a result, admissions
made by one could be introduced into evidence at the trial of
all three without falling foul of the hearsay rule.
Such an argument should send up red flags. It is just an
end-run around state procedures designed to ensure a fair
trial. The citizens of Texas evidently thought that separate
trials were necessary to ensure that innocent men and women
are not punished. No one was claiming that Texas applies this
rule only when the victim is black or female or gay. And
surely no one is arguing that Texans are soft on crime. Why
interfere with their judgment?
We are unimpressed with the arguments in favor of LLEHCPA
and would be happy to discuss the matter further with you if
you so desire. Please do not hesitate to contact any of us
with your questions or comments. The Chairman's Counsel and
Special Assistant, Dominique Ludvigson, is also available to
further direct your inquiries at dludvigson@usccr.gov or at
(202) 376-7626.
Sincerely,
Gerald A. Reynolds,
Chairman.
Gail L. Heriot,
Commissioner.
Todd Gaziano,
Commissioner.
Peter N. Kirsanow,
Commissioner.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.
This legislation will include penalties in the federal code for
crimes that are motivated by race, color, religion, national origin,
gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
Further, H.R. 1913 allows the Department of Justice to make grants to
support State and local programs designed to combat hate crimes,
particularly those committed by juveniles. Finally, the bill supports
programs to train local law enforcement officers in investigating,
prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes. In this way, the bill empowers
state and local officials to investigate and prosecute these crimes
without limiting their jurisdiction or authority.
I have heard concerns from some of my constituents that this
legislation could infringe on the right to free speech. I could never
support a bill that does that. In fact, Section 10 of the bill contains
a specific exemption that clarifies that speech, no matter how hateful,
is not criminalized under this act. Only violent acts by those who
willfully cause bodily injury are prohibited. I strongly oppose
attempts to limit anyone's right to free speech or put one class of
people above another.
While all acts of violence are deplorable, hate crimes are
specifically meant to intimidate and frighten an entire group of people
because of prejudice on the part of the perpetrator. Violent acts that
are meant to terrorize American citizens should not go unpunished.
I urge you to support H.R. 1913.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong
support of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
This bill will extend federal hate crimes law to protect individuals
targeted because of their sexual orientation, gender, gender identity,
or disability. Since the federal government began collecting data in
1991, over 100,000 hate crimes have been reported by state and local
officials; but, most analysts believe this data significantly
underreports the actual number of hate crimes. During this time period,
approximately 16% of hate crimes were perpetrated because of a person's
sexual orientation. With 1,265 reported incidents in 2007, sexual
orientation is the third most common target of hate-based violence,
trailing only race and religion. This bill is a logical improvement to
existing federal law and is needed to ensure that the federal
government has the jurisdiction to assist in all cases of hate-based
violence.
In addition to expanding the categories of hate crimes, this
legislation would allow the Justice Department to aid the investigation
and prosecution of hate crimes at the local level through technical
assistance and supplemental funding. The cost of investigating and
prosecuting these often high-profile cases can be prohibitive for a
local community, forcing them to spend precious resources on one case.
In these instances, it is essential for the federal government to be
able to provide assistance to ensure that justice is served without
unduly burdening local resources.
Finally, this bill would require the Justice Department to expand its
tracking of hate
[[Page H4956]]
crimes to include crimes based on gender or gender identity. The
federal government currently collects data on hate crimes committed due
to sexual orientation and disability, but not for gender or gender
identity. This expanded resource will provide law enforcement officials
the information they need to more accurately gauge the prevalence of
hate crimes and to evaluate efforts to combat this violence.
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act is an overdue
step towards addressing all forms of hate-based violence that
traumatize communities across the country. Hate crimes have a chilling
effect beyond a particular victim, spreading fear of future attacks
among the targeted group. Congress cannot prevent hate from motivating
individuals to commit violence, but we can ensure that the proper laws
and resources are available to prosecute these cases to the fullest
extent of the law. That is what this bill does, and I ask all of my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support H.R. 1913, the Matthew Shepard Act.
Many of my colleagues have already spoken informatively about the
bill's provisions, how it will focus on enhancing resources at the
local and state level for combating hate crimes, and how it will enable
local and state officials to prosecute people who commit hate crimes.
These are all important reasons to vote for this bill.
I want to tell you the story of a hate crime that happened in my
community.
Marcelo Lucero lived in Patchogue, NY and was walking home one
evening when a car load of teenage boys surrounded, beat and murdered
him.
He was walking home, and they were out looking for someone who looked
Hispanic. One of the defendants later told the police, ``I don't go out
and do this very often, maybe once a week.''
Now, what happened to Marcelo Lucero is wrong when it happens to any
person.
But what makes a hate crime so disturbing is that it's not simply
aimed at the victim.
An entire community gets the message--you are not welcome here. And,
what makes the story of his attackers so disturbing is the casualness
of their attitude.
It reflects a comfortableness that is unacceptable in any community.
That is why I'm supporting this bill and why I urge my colleagues to
support this bill: it sends a message back to those who would commit a
hate crime. And that message is that hate is not welcome in my
community.
I would like to thank Chairman Coyers for the time to speak and his
leadership on this important issue.
Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a
cosponsor and strong supporter of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes
Prevention Act of 2009.
Ten years have now passed since a University of Wyoming student was
tied to a fence and fatally beaten just because he was gay. In the time
since, we've seen a Texas man dragged to his death by a truck just
because he was black and a woman brutally beaten and killed with a fire
extinguisher just because she was transgendered. We've even seen young
children at day camp shot just because they were Jewish.
Passage of comprehensive federal hate crime legislation that would
allow the Department of Justice to assist state and local jurisdictions
unable or unwilling to prosecute violent, bias-motivated crimes is long
overdue.
Mr. Speaker, as a former Constitutional law professor at West Point,
I want to make something perfectly clear. Nothing in this bill impinges
the right of an individual's freedom of speech as guaranteed under the
First Amendment of the Constitution. The ability to think or express
sentiments repulsive to most members of society absent the fear of
legal recrimination is part of what makes this country great and free.
The ability to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those who
cause injury or death to an individual because of who they are or what
they believe is also what makes this country great and free.
Ensuring that states and local law enforcement throughout the United
States have the resources they need to go after the perpetrators of
these crimes is not just something we owe to the victims and their
families. It also helps to free the rest of society--particularly
members of the group to which the victim identified--from being
intimidated by the hatred of a few.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and send a clear message
that those who injure or kill another human being because of who they
are will be brought to justice for their crimes.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, hate crimes are fundamentally different from
other crimes. Hate crimes--violent acts that target victims precisely
because of who they are, or are perceived to be--aim to terrorize,
intimidate, and oppress an entire class of people. They are assaults
not just on those victims, but on an entire community. When the
perpetrators of these acts are not held accountable, we suffer as a
nation.
As a cosponsor of the Matthew Shepard Act, I look forward to its
enactment into law. Today there are only 11 States that have hate crime
laws that cover both gender and sexual orientation. By expanding the
federal definition of a hate crime to include one based on sexual
orientation, disability, or gender, we take the first step toward
reducing these violent acts across the country.
This legislation will provide much-needed federal support for local
law enforcement so that police can more effectively identify,
investigate, and prosecute hate crimes. By joining together at all
levels, we can help build safer and more tolerant communities. I urge
my colleagues to support this important bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 372, 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.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. GOHMERT. Yes.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Gohmert moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1913 to the
Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendments:
Page 8, line 11, insert ``and shall be subject to the
penalty of death in accordance with chapter 228,'' after ``or
both,''.
Page 9, line 11, after ``or both,'' insert ``and shall be
subject to the penalty of death in accordance with chapter
228,''.
Page 9, line 4, strike ``or''.
Page 9, line 4, insert ``, age, status as a current or
former member of the Armed Forces, or status as a law
enforcement officer'' after ``disability''.
Page 8, beginning in line 19, strike ``or disability'' and
insert ``disability, age, status as a current or former
member of the armed forces, or status as a law enforcement
officer''.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that there would be
agreement to dispense with that portion of the motion dealing with the
armed services.
Mr. GOHMERT. I would object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Michigan care to
reserve his point of order?
Mr. CONYERS. No, sir, I do not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation is withdrawn.
The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit is simple and
straightforward. It adds three categories to the list of groups in this
bill and provides the death penalty for certain hate crime offenses.
I would like to address what our friend from Massachusetts has
indicated when he talked about the people who were arrested for their
Christian position, nonviolent, and he kept indicating the charges were
dismissed.
But as my friend from Massachusetts would surely know, when you can
arrest people, even if you don't pursue charges, it has a chilling
effect. Over and over it has a chilling effect.
And, also, there was some inference in his comments that we may
believe that transgender individuals who were not worthy of being
defended under the law or were not victims, I wasn't sure, but the
truth is every American deserves to be equally protected. That is the
law. That's the way it should be. That's the way wherever you go in the
country. You don't find cases that are held up as poster cases for hate
crimes that justify the hate crimes.
The James Byrd family, bless their hearts, I grieved with them. And
based on the evidence that was presented, it was clear that these
defendants committed a violent crime for which they should have gotten
the death penalty. The two that did got it appropriately. This bill
will not affect that case one bit. It will not affect it.
So we have tried to say, look, please don't divide us. Don't keep
dividing into different categories and say these deserve more
protection than these. Treat us all the same. That has fallen on deaf
ears.
[[Page H4957]]
Every amendment was voted down in committee that we tried to present
to make it more clear and to treat Americans equally. It's clear the
majority has the votes to move forward and pass this. So our effort is
then to add other worthy classes to this.
For example, in 2004, Private First Class Foster Barton of Grove
City, Ohio, was brutally beaten. Six witnesses who didn't know Barton
said the person that beat him up was screaming profanities and crude
remarks about U.S. soldiers.
In 2007, a Syracuse woman pleaded guilty for spitting in the face of
a Fort Drum soldier she didn't know.
These things happen. My friend from Florida in committee had
indicated that she was not sure it appeared that the military should be
added as a protected class under this bill, that not necessarily were
they victims.
But I can tell you personally, having been spat at and on, after
Vietnam, when I was at Fort Riley, Kansas, and we were ordered not to
wear our uniforms off post in our platoon because of violence that was
being done to servicemembers. It still happens. It still happens.
And witness the unseemly events outside some of our military
hospitals by those who are so very insensitive. Now even the
administration is targeting returning veterans as potential extremists.
As the report said, ``Returning veterans possess combat skills and
experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists.'' Even the
administration is trying to target veterans. So we would hope that they
were included.
And there is absolutely no question that law enforcement officers are
frequently targeted specifically because of who they are and because
they are wearing the uniform and attempting to protect all the rest of
us. We have so many brave public servants. Even in this building people
have given their lives so that others in the building could have
theirs. That needs to be honored.
The statistics show that even though the number of hate crimes, or
crimes reportedly committed because of bias or prejudice, are lower now
than they were 10 years ago. Those crimes have increased against law
enforcement.
Age is another class that should be protected. The statistics are
clear, and we have seen film evidence of elderly being attacked because
they were perceived as elderly and less able to protect themselves.
They deserve to be protected. These are classes that should be.
And then we come to another issue, and that is the fact that the hate
crimes bill, as proposed, will not affect one of the hate crime bills
held up so far as a poster case. We will add the death penalty so it
can make a difference in those places where there was a horrible
heinous crime. This will make a difference.
Mr. CONYERS. I rise in opposition to this motion, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank you.
I suppose this is the parliamentary part of the legislative process
that a motion to recommit has to be entertained, but before I begin my
discussion about the regrets of it, I still insist on complimenting the
Members of the House of Representatives who have understood that there
are particular acts of violence against the law that are intolerable
and should be dealt with as effectively as possible.
The question is what is the most effective way.
Now, what we have been proposing, since 1968, during the civil rights
era, where there was an inability to seek prosecution of violators of
civil rights laws at the State level, a southern President, Lyndon
Johnson, began realizing that there had to be a Federal method of
dealing with certain crimes that were not only violent to the victims
but served to send a message of intimidation to others in that same
class or group. Those groups, we have listed.
These groups are being denied the most fundamental protection of
liberty. They are targeted for the most extreme violence by extremists
who have decided, in their own warped view of how we should exist among
each other in our society, as people who don't deserve to have life.
{time} 1615
The groups that are on this protected list and are identified as
where hate crime laws kick in are being protected in the same way that
has been going on all the way back these many years, since 1968.
The targets are not only the particular individuals who are attacked,
but an extension of everyone in the group. The unmistakable intended
threat to all is that not only are you not welcome, but you are
despised, and you are not safe, and we are coming after you.
But this motion seeks simply to ignore these essential facts.
Let me talk about the three areas mentioned. The armed services, for
example. While people who are disturbed at governmental policies and
may direct anger at the military, members of the armed services are not
victims of bias-based prejudice or hatred. To the contrary, they are
honored for their service to our Nation, with national holidays in
their honor, memorials, and other economic benefits, all of which are
deserved. But they are not in the same situation as the groups we are
seeking to protect in this bill. Besides, specific protections for
members of the armed services already exist in the Federal law----it
makes killing someone in the military a capital crime.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. GOHMERT. 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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 185,
nays 241, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 222]
YEAS--185
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Arcuri
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Holden
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Richardson
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Space
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Walden
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--241
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono Mack
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Cao
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
[[Page H4958]]
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Massa
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Speier
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--7
Berry
Burgess
Butterfield
Granger
Perriello
Stark
Teague
{time} 1644
Messrs. KIND, FARR, BISHOP of Georgia, PETERSON, RUSH, MORAN of
Virginia, WAMP, CARDOZA, McMAHON, LYNCH and ADLER of New Jersey and
Mrs. TAUSCHER, Ms. LEE of California, Ms. WOOLSEY, Ms. SPEIER and Ms.
TITUS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. WILSON of South Carolina, DUNCAN and LUETKEMEYER 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. 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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 249,
noes 175, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 223]
AYES--249
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Bono Mack
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Cao
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gerlach
Giffords
Gonzalez
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--175
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Berry
Burgess
Butterfield
Granger
Miller, George
Murtha
Perriello
Ruppersberger
Stark
Teague
{time} 1655
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________