Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minority Leader for affording not only myself, but other members of the Republican Study Committee, the House conservative caucus on the Republican side of the aisle, the opportunity to take advantage of these opportunities on the House floor periodically in the form of a Special Order.

While I come to the floor today with the objective, Mr. Speaker, of addressing this week's momentous events concerning the President's second veto in the history of this administration and the war supplemental bill, I wanted to also speak about an issue that House conservatives have been heard on and have been active on in the course of this week, and it has to do with today's passage, by a vote of 237- 180, of H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This legislation passed the House today, but not without the strenuous opposition of both the Republican Study Committee, and virtually all of its members who represented a lion's share of the 180 Members who opposed this legislation.

And to lead is to be misunderstood. And it is very likely, Mr. Speaker, that both yourself and maybe others that might be looking in would question why anyone would oppose hate crimes legislation. And I thought I might, before I move on to the attendant topic of the day, address the concerns that House conservatives had with this legislation and why, last night, with the leadership of our caucus chairman, Jeb Hensarling of Texas, and with the support of myself as a former chairman of our caucus, Mrs. Sue Myrick of North Carolina, a former chairman of our conference, and John Shadegg of Arizona, we urged the President of the United States to issue a veto threat of this hate crimes legislation, which he did so earlier today by way of a statement of administration policy.

So let me speak to our concerns about this bill before I move on to the topic of the Iraq supplemental. Thomas Jefferson said, famously, ``Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative power of government reach actions only, and not opinions,'' Jefferson went on to say, ``I contemplate with sovereign reverence that the act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.''

Again, Thomas Jefferson, framing, as perhaps only he in American history could, the issue that grounded conservative concern in the hate crimes legislation today, that legislative powers of government should reach actions only and not opinions, and then reflected on that as the core central logic behind the first amendment protections of the freedom of religion.

In the case of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, we did not meet that standard today, Mr. Speaker. I believe this legislation was bad public policy, and unnecessary, and many House conservatives in the Republican Study Committee agreed.

Violent attacks on people or property are already illegal, regardless of the motive behind them. And there is no evidence presented on the floor today or before the Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, that underlying violent crimes at issue are not already being fully and aggressively prosecuted in the States. Therefore, hate crimes laws truly serve no practical purpose and instead serve to penalize people for thoughts, for belief, for opinions.

Now, let's grant the point. Some thoughts, beliefs and opinions, like racism or sexism are abhorrent, and I disdain them and condemn them. However, hate crimes bills, as the one we passed today, are broad enough also to include legitimate beliefs, and protecting the rights of freedom and speech and religion must be paramount in cases like the bill we consider today.

The first amendment to the Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Now, America was founded on the notion that the government should not interfere with the religious practices of its citizens. Constitutional protections for the free exercise of religion are at the very core of the American experiment in democracy.

But what does that have to do with the hate crimes bill? Well, there is a real possibility that this bill, as written, religious leaders or members of religious groups could be prosecuted criminally, based on their speech and protected activities under conspiracy law or section 2 of title XVIII, which holds criminally liable anyone who aids, abets, counsels, commands or induces or procures its commission, or one who willfully causes an act to be done by another.

In the debate in the Judiciary Committee, much was made of the fact that there was an amendment adopted by my friend and colleague, Mr. Davis of Alabama. But that amendment did not go far enough in making it clear that this bill would not limit religious freedom. The sponsor of the amendment even admitted in open markup testimony before the committee, that a pastor could, theoretically, still be targeted under the bill for incitement of violence for simply preaching his religious beliefs having to do with moral issues related to life or family or sexual preference.

For example, if a pastor included a statement in a sermon that sexual relations outside of marriage are morally wrong, and even quoted the Bible to make that point, and then a member of perverse intention in that congregation caused bodily injury to a person having such relations, that sermon could be used as evidence against that pastor.

Now, the real world effect of this, in addition to the possibility of prosecution, is the much greater and geometric possibility of a chilling effect. Putting a chill on pastors' words or religious broadcasters' programming or an evangelical leader's message, or even the leader of a small group Bible study is quite simply a blatant attack on the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of religion.

Now, last week, when the Judiciary Committee took up the bill, I offered an amendment in good faith to make it clear, crystal clear, that this bill would not affect the constitutional right to freedom of religion. The Pence amendment stated plainly, ``Nothing in this section limits the religious freedom of any person or group under the Constitution.'' Unfortunately, the Pence amendment was defeated and rejected by the majority of the Judiciary Committee.

Yesterday, I took another bite at the apple. I submitted the Pence religious freedom amendment to the Rules Committee for consideration. But, again, that committee chose to adopt a closed rule, effectively blocking my amendment and many other good amendments offered for consideration.

Now, I would say very emphatically, we must guard against the potential for abuse of hate crimes laws. And very humbly put, the Pence amendment would have done so by stating once and for all that people and groups will not have their constitutionally guaranteed right to religious freedom taken away, even as an addendum to or unintentionally as a result of the aiding and abetting clause of current law.

Mr. Speaker, House conservatives rose, as one man and one woman today, in opposition to this legislation. But it did pass. Again, Congress today adopted legislation, 237-180, but not without a fight.

Members of the Republican Study Committee came together late last night, called on President George W. Bush to veto this legislation should it reach his desk. And as I mentioned earlier today, the administration, in no small measure, due to House conservatives and the leadership of the Republican Study Committee, the administration issued a veto threat pertaining to the Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. They did so as House conservatives did, out of a belief that this bill threatens religious freedom by criminalizing ultimately religious thought.

And I must say before I move to my next topic, it was particularly grievous to many of us that the Democrat majority in Congress chose the National Day of Prayer to bring this bill to the floor; a bill that intentionally or unintentionally, could put in jeopardy the very religious expression that was being celebrated at tens of thousands of locations across the United States today.

I, myself, began my day in the east room of the White House with the President of the United States and religious leaders representing every faith in America to initiate and kick off this National Day of Prayer in, I believe, its 56th consecutive year.

In the ceremonies that took place here just off the Capitol, across the street in the Cannon Office Building, I learned that due to the leadership of Shirley Dobson and the organizers of the National Day of Prayer, by their estimates, there were some 50,000 venues in the United States of America where people were coming together, Mr. Speaker, not for politics, not for the purpose of political demonstrations, not to support one party over another, but as happened in Anderson, Indiana today at City Hall, for the purpose of coming together in prayer, believing that the effective and fervent prayers of a righteous Nation availeth much, believing that our prayers reach heaven and the throne of grace as Americans, by the millions, have believed from the very inception of our Nation.

And again I say I don't believe it was intentional. I would not ascribe this to the Democrat majority. But it was grievous, I can say, to many of us that this legislation, which we believe in our hearts threaten the very fabric of the first amendment, freedom of religion, was scheduled to come to the floor on the National Day of Prayer.

On the floor today, I closed with the thought that on this National Day of Prayer, we ought to take a stand for the right of every American to believe and speak and pray in accordance with the dictates of their conscience, that we ought to take a stand for religious freedom and the first amendment in opposing the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

And with that let me yield to the planned topic of the day, and I may well be joined by colleagues on the attendant question that has been the preoccupation of much of official Washington, much of the national media, and, understandably, much of the American people over the last week. It has to do, of course, Mr. Speaker, with the President's decision to exercise his authority in the executive branch under the Constitution to veto legislation delivered to him by the Congress of the United States. This was, in fact, the President's second veto. And today's Republican Study Committee leadership hour was organized to speak to the issue of Iraq and specifically the Iraq supplemental.

It was, as I said, a momentous week. We began with the delivery to the President of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act on May 1. The President very promptly addressed the Nation at the dinner hour and announced his intentions to veto the legislation, just his second veto in the history of the 43rd President of the United States.

The President made his objections clear, that, in effect, he vetoed this legislation because he believed, as I do, as House conservatives do, that the legislation was constitutionally flawed and fiscally irresponsible.

The President made reference specifically to the arbitrary date for beginning withdrawal of American troops without regard to conditions on the ground. He spoke of the effort by Congress, his words now, ``to micromanage the commanders in the field by restricting their ability to direct the fight in Iraq.'' And he also mentioned that this legislation ``contained billions of dollars of spending and other provisions completely unrelated to the war.''

The President spoke of the precipitous withdrawal from Iraq not being a plan for peace in the region. The mandated withdrawal in the legislation, he argued, would actually embolden our enemies and it could lead to a safe haven for terrorism in Iraq.

The President probably focused most of his objections in his message to the Nation on the micromanagement of the war by Congress. I have said many times on this floor, as many House conservatives have, under the Constitution of the United States, Congress can declare war. Congress can choose to fund or not to fund military operations. But Congress may not conduct war. And in the President's veto message to the Nation, it was precisely that effort by Congress, that constitutional overreach, in his words, to ``micromanage''

this war in Iraq that he found most unacceptable. The President would say the legislation is unconstitutional ``because it purports to direct the conduct of the operations of the war in a way that infringes upon the powers vested in the Presidency by the Constitution, including as commander in chief of the Armed Forces.''

In a very real sense this is an issue, Mr. Speaker, that the Founders of this Nation thought about, I would argue, more deeply than maybe any other issue in that balmy summer of 1787. It was the debate over whether or not we want a unified chain of command in the commander in chief, centered in the Presidency, or whether we wanted to risk creating the possibility or the prospect of what our Founders would call ``war by committee.''

Now, this notion of war by committee was actually something our Founders were fairly familiar with. A very cursory study of the early months of the Revolutionary War, from the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, all the way until that famed Christmas Day, 1776, is a classic case of an American military that is being beaten back, chased out of New York, chased across the Hudson River, chased all the way across New Jersey, and was facing great peril by the time they reached the Delaware. And many would observe, in the years that followed the war during the period of the formation of our constitutional government, that it was precisely war by committee that put our Nation in its nascent days most at risk.

History records that every night General Washington would spend a great deal of his time in his tent in the midst of the war, writing back to Congress, handing letters to couriers to send messages to the Congress to gain specific permission for military operations and appropriations and the conduct of the war. And the Congress was very busy engaging in what our Founders came contemptuously to refer to as ``war by committee.''

When the Constitutional Convention came around in 1787, it would be precisely that same generation of Americans that would say ``no,'' we want a unified chain of command, we want to vest in the President of the United States the ability to conduct war as the commander in chief.

And I think singularly the President's objection is grounded there, with the slight addition of some more than $10 billion in additional spending that has nothing whatsoever to do with the conduct of the war in Afghanistan, Iraq, or, to that end, the conduct of the War on Terror.

House conservatives in the past have opposed war supplementals on the grounds that war spending bills ought to be about war spending and emergency war spending bills ought to be about emergency war spending. And the addition of funding, which the President described as ``billions of dollars of spending and other provisions'' that are ``unrelated to the war,'' are not an emergency and are not justified was altogether appropriate, in our judgment. The President said emphatically that ``Congress should not use an emergency war supplemental to add billions in spending to avoid its own rules for budget discipline and the normal budget process,'' and House conservatives agreed.

We were pleased to see the President veto this legislation, because House conservatives and the Republican Study Committee and, for that matter, virtually all House Republicans believed the bill, as the President found it, was constitutionally flawed and fiscally irresponsible. We would vote in a matter of a few legislative hours later to sustain the President's veto and facilitate a meeting that took place just yesterday, I believe, Mr. Speaker, between the leaders of the House and Senate in Congress and the President. And it seems to me that it was a pivot point in the debate, and I want to shift some of this conversation today to the same kind of pivot point.

While, frankly, Democrat leaders emerged from the West Wing speaking very little about compromise and it seems like the rhetoric of the Senate majority leader as well as the Speaker of the House centered around the phrase ``end the war,'' that their objective remained to be end the war, it would be President Bush in the Cabinet room who struck a more conciliatory tone. And I commend him for it.

The President said, and I am quoting now, ``Yesterday was a day that highlighted differences. Today is a day where we can work together to find common ground.'' And I believe House Republicans would share the President's sentiment that we can and should move forward to find common ground; not to compromise on those principles of constitutionality and fiscal discipline that the President articulated and we fully support, but to look for ways that we can ensure that these resources reach our troops in a timely way without strings attached and without fiscally irresponsible spending. And to that end, we will work and labor in the days ahead.

My personal hope and ambition, Mr. Speaker, is that before we return home for Memorial Day, before we return home to that day where we remember those who did not come home, that we would be able to speed the resources to our soldiers in the field in Afghanistan and Iraq without unconstitutional strings and without additional and unnecessary spending.

But there is one other reason why I believe it is imperative that we provide these resources to our troops in the field, and it has not been highlighted as much I believe as it should, but it has been a point that I have felt a burden about ever since my return from Iraq just shortly 1 month ago. I began the month of April in a delegation that took me literally into the heart of Baghdad and to Ramadi and to Tikrit. We met with General David Petraeus and learned a great deal about the beginnings of modest progress on the ground in Iraq. And so I would posit at the beginning of the balance of my time to suggest that the President was right to veto this legislation because it was constitutionally flawed. The President was right to veto this legislation because it was fiscally irresponsible. But I also believe the President was right to veto this legislation and Congress would be right to find a way to deliver these funds to our troops because we are beginning to see evidence that the surge, that our new strategy, that our new diplomatic initiatives in the region are just beginning to take hold; and now is not the time for us to reverse course and to embrace the objective of those who would say the American people, whatever the circumstances on the ground in Iraq, apparently, want us to end the war.

In my district I would say with confidence, the constituents of eastern Indiana want our troops to come home, but they want us to win and come home, and more importantly, they want freedom to win in Iraq and then bring our soldiers home.

And let me say that despite a recent wave of insurgent bombing, this war in Iraq is not lost. In fact, because of the President's surge, because of the brave conduct of U.S. and Iraqi forces on the ground in Baghdad, we are beginning to see the evidence of modest progress in Iraq. Let me say emphatically Baghdad is not safe, but it is safer because of the presence of more than two dozen U.S. and Iraqi joint operating centers that are now spread throughout the capital city of Baghdad.

I had the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of visiting one of these joint operating centers across the river from the Green Zone right in the heart of downtown Baghdad. These facilities represent a sea change in the strategy of U.S. and Iraqi forces in the capital city of Baghdad. The very essence of the surge, first recommended, of course, by the Iraq Study Group on page 72 of the publication that is available for most Americans, the very centerpiece of this surge was not that we could deal with the instability in Iraq strictly with a military solution but, rather, as the Iraq Study Group recommended and the President ultimately embraced, that we could increase forces in the city of Baghdad temporarily to quell violence in Baghdad, to create a sufficient level of stability in the capital city to allow the political process of reconciliation, de-Baathification, and oil agreement and the diplomatic process in the region to take hold. That is the essence of the surge.

Now, to make that possible, as General Petraeus described to me walking down the streets in Baghdad, our strategy now is different from the strategy we have employed the last 3 years. In Baghdad, rather than sending our troops out on patrols, confronting the enemy, and returning to our base installations, now we move into areas

with sufficient forces to clear areas, to hold areas by establishing joint operating centers where U.S. and Iraqi forces live together, and then investing the resources to build up those areas and add further security.

As I said, Baghdad is not safe, and it was not safe the day we were there. But it is safer because American and U.S. forces are beginning to move into these areas, again, more than two dozen of these joint operating centers. Once areas have been cleared in house-to-house searches, clearing out weapons caches, arresting and confronting dangerous insurgents and al Qaeda, then U.S./Iraqi forces move into those joint operating centers and live there and patrol those areas 24/ 7. U.S. forces actually stay at the joint operating centers, bunking in with Iraqi forces.

One of the more moving moments for me on our tour of Baghdad 1 month ago was walking into the bunkhouse with both U.S. and Iraqi military on either side of us and then being told by U.S. commanders on the ground that they had offered the Iraqis, out of sensitivity to their different religious traditions and observances, to build separate sleeping quarters for the U.S. forces and the Iraqi forces.

And it was the Iraqi forces that said absolutely not, that now you've got bunkhouses, which are really pretty informal, just bunk beds kind of slapped together in wood frames the way you would see at almost any military installation. And U.S. and Iraqi forces are bunking in together. They are deploying together. And the result of that is that sectarian violence in Baghdad has been reduced in some neighborhoods of Baghdad by a very significant amount.

Again, let me say again, because I have demonstrated in the past the capacity to be misunderstood; Baghdad is not safe, but it is safer, I believe, because of the surge of U.S. forces into the neighborhoods of the capital city and the establishment of more than two dozen joint operating centers where U.S. and Iraqi forces are working together to confront al Qaeda and insurgents and to quell violence in the capital city.

There has also been another significant development that argues against reversing course, or to borrow the phrase of some leaders in the majority, ``just ending the war'' at this point, and that is specifically in western Iraq, what is known as the al Anbar province, which is known as Ramadi.

Now, I stood at the grave site of an Indiana soldier; I stood and prayed with his parents. He fell on the streets in combat in Ramadi some 2 years ago. It's extraordinary the difficulty U.S. forces have faced. The Marines have been in Ramadi for a number of years. It has been one of the most deeply compromised cities in Iraq. Ramadi is, in effect, the upscale Sunni city in Iraq. During the era of Saddam Hussein, those who did not live in the highly fortified Green Zone in downtown Baghdad lived in upscale Sunni neighborhoods in Ramadi.

And so one can imagine that al Qaeda and the insurgency, in efforts to resist the al Maliki government, their violence would be centered on the streets of Ramadi. And that has absolutely been true until very recently.

Things have changed in al Anbar province and Ramadi. Even The New York Times, perhaps one of the harshest critics of the war in Iraq, I think it was Sunday morning, this last weekend, depicted a huge front page story about the change in al Anbar province. And I would like to say, and I will say that the presence of U.S. Marines, under the command of General Odierno on the ground in Ramadi, have played a vital role in the precipitous decline of al Qaeda and insurgent violence in Ramadi and in al Anbar province. But General Odierno and the others would be quick to say that the real difference that has been made has been because the Sunnis themselves, Iraqi tribal leaders, 20 out of the 22 tribes have stepped forward now and initiated what has been called the ``Iraq Awakening Movement.''

During my trip to Ramadi just one month ago, I had the privilege of meeting with Sheik Sattar, a compelling and impressive man. His father was killed by al Qaeda in Ramadi. His two brothers were killed by al Qaeda in Ramadi. And Sheik Sattar, who presumably had had very little interest in becoming involved in the new government in Baghdad, Sunnis, if you will recall, had largely not participated in the national referendums and elections that have taken place, it would be Sheik Sattar who would go to the Marine Corps base several months ago in Ramadi and say, I'm done with al Qaeda and I'm done with the insurgency, how can I help.

And Sheik Sattar has now organized this Iraq Awakening Movement. To be specific, 22 of the 24 Ramadi area tribes are now cooperating with coalition forces, U.S. and Iraqi forces. And the decline in violence in Ramadi is that U.S. troops have established four bases, along with 40 joint security stations and observation posts throughout the city of Ramadi where they work and deploy and live alongside Iraqi soldiers. There are also 23 police stations in the city and in the surrounding area, as has been reported in the media in recent days.

Al Anbar province is not safe, but significant progress is occurring because the tribal sheiks have begun cooperating with American and Iraqi forces to fight al Qaeda, providing intelligence. And we are beginning to see a significant shift in al Anbar province. And I cite no further than the front page of The New York Times that actually had what I found to be a deeply moving photograph above the fold that showed a city where there has been war for some time.

The rubble of war shown along streets and torn asunder buildings, but there walking on the street were people and couples and children. And I caught sight of people on bicycles. When I was in Ramadi, we were presented with information of areas that had been protected from suicide bombs and car bombs, where soccer fields had opened back up. Children were returning to the streets.

Al Anbar province is changing. Is it safe? No. But is it improving? Yes. And the truth is that the progress that we're making on the ground in Baghdad, the modest progress demonstrated in the reduction of sectarian violence in the capital city, and what appears to be the beginnings of a sea change in the entire western half of Iraq, including in what was a war-torn city of Ramadi, give me hope. In fact, I characterized in an editorial in USA Today that what we saw a month ago in Baghdad could be evidence of just the sprouting of a springtime of hope in Iraq.

Let me say with confidence, Mr. Speaker, I know there is great frustration in this Congress and there are profound visions in this Congress over the role of this institution in developing policy in Iraq, and we will continue to have those arguments. But I would defy anyone to prove to me that there is one single Member of Congress who would like to see freedom lose in Iraq. I don't accept that.

Some may have come to the conclusion that freedom has lost and it can't be saved. I disagree with that. I don't believe freedom is lost. I don't believe the war is lost. But I believe in their heart of hearts, even the most hard-over opponent of continued U.S. involvement in Iraq who serves in this Chamber does not want to see freedom lose.

So I come to the floor today on behalf of the Republican Study Committee, on behalf of my own franchise in Congress, to essentially just suggest that there are many good reasons why the President vetoed the war supplemental this week. Number one, it's constitutionally flawed. It's simply wrong for Congress to place arbitrary timelines for withdrawal, to tie the hands of commanders on the ground, to engage in the kind of micromanagement that is beyond the purview of the Constitution of the United States. Congress can declare war; Congress can choose to fund or not to fund war; but Congress cannot conduct war. And that was reason enough for the President of the United States to veto this bill.

The bill was also fiscally irresponsible. We ought to ensure that war spending bills pertain exclusively to war spending. And particularly emergency war spending bills ought to be emergency war spending and not domestic projects that should be dealt with in the regular budget process.

The third thought I had today was simply to say that we ought to now find a way to come together, without

compromising core principles on either side of the aisle, we ought to find a way to come together to get our troops the resources they need to get the job done, because the unspoken fact this week, in the midst of a lot of political conflagration and argument, is the fact that, as General David Petraeus told us here on Capitol Hill last week, there is evidence that the surge, and there is evidence that because of Sunni leadership, tribal leadership in al Anbar province in Ramadi, there is evidence that Iraq is beginning to make modest progress toward exactly the kind of stability that will make possible the political progress and the diplomatic progress that are the real long-term answer here.

Let me emphasize that point one more time. I don't think there is a military solution in Iraq; we simply cannot surge troops to the four corners of Iraq. That is not the President's plan. It would not be workable in any event. I believe the President's plan is sound, to surge troops into the capital city to quell violence sufficient to give the al Maliki government in Baghdad the credibility to move a de- Ba'athification agreement, to move an agreement for sharing the revenues of oil proceeds with all of the people in Iraq on an equitable basis, to move new provincial elections, including in al Anbar province, where many of the Sunni leaders that we met with had expressed an interest in participating in provincial elections, should they be scheduled in the next month or two. But it is that kind of political process that will encourage ownership by Iraqis in this new constitutional republic that will be the real victory for freedom.

As the President said this week, we cannot define success in Iraq as the absence of violence. The day that freedom wins, whatever that day would be, the day that we can know with a moral certitude that this new democratically elected government in Iraq is able to defend itself, able to defend its people, the day we have the moral certitude that they can do that and we can begin then to come home in good conscience, there will likely be insurgent and al Qaeda violence taking place somewhere in Iraq. Therefore, we cannot define victory as the absence of violence, but we can define victory as the presence of a stable democratic, constitutional republic that can defend itself. And that, it seems to me, beyond the issues that the President raised when he vetoed the legislation, is the most compelling argument for finding a way forward, finding the common ground necessary to get our soldiers the resources they need to get the job done and to come home safe.

This is a tough time in Iraq. General Petraeus told me on the ground in Baghdad a month ago, he told Members of Congress gathered in a bipartisan briefing last week that there are difficult days ahead, that there is no guarantee that the surge, which seems to be beginning to take hold in Baghdad, will ultimately succeed. But it seems to me the fact that, despite the recent wave of insurgent bombings, or the fact that sectarian violence is down in Baghdad, the fact that Ramadi and al Anbar province appears, because of Sunni Iraqi leadership and U.S. and Iraqi forces, al Anbar province appears to be taking a turn for the better, however modest, that that argues for us finding a way forward, finding common ground where we can give our soldiers the resources they need. Because in Baghdad, despite the recent bombings, sectarian violence is down.

Baghdad is not safe, but it is safer because of the presence of more than two dozen U.S. and Iraqi joint operating centers in that capital city, more than 40 joint operating centers now spread throughout Ramadi, and the fact that in al Anbar province, more than 20 Sunni sheiks across the region have united together to oppose insurgency and al Qaeda.

This war is not lost. Congress should find the common ground necessary to give our soldiers the resources they need to get the job done, to stand up this government, to ensure this new democracy in Iraq can defend itself, and then lay the framework for us to come home.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this time. It is my fondest hope that what the President called us to in his remarks from the Cabinet room this week will characterize much of the debate between now and Memorial Day, and I want to quote his words again. The President, in thanking the leaders for coming down, said, ``Yesterday was a day that highlighted differences. Today,'' he said, ``is the day when we can work together to find common ground.'' But he also added, ``It is very important we do this as quickly as we possibly can.'' And he expressed confidence that we can reach agreement.

I will close with that, Mr. Speaker. I truly believe in all my heart that it is possible for a majority of this Congress to come together in a manner that we can deliver to our soldiers the resources that they need within a constitutional framework that doesn't intrude on the President's role as commander in chief, in a way that reflects fiscal discipline and in a way, also, that continues to provide the resources that if, in fact, the modest progress we are beginning to see continues to widen through the summer, that we, in fact, provide the resources for an expanding success for the surge, an expanding success for Iraqis stepping forward to oppose al Qaeda and insurgency in Al-Anbar, and ultimately a success for freedom in Iraq. I am confident of this, I am confident the common ground is there; and it will be my hope and my prayer and my pledge to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to accomplish just that.

On behalf of the Republican Study Committee and our many members, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Republican leadership for yielding us this hour.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 535) commending David Ray Ritcheson, a survivor of one of the most horrific hate crimes in the history of Texas, and recognizing his efforts in promoting Federal legislation to combat hate crimes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is with celebration and recognition that I rise today to honor and pay tribute to David Ray Ritcheson, first 17, and, in the loss of his life, only 18, yet an American hero, a teenager who experienced harshness in his life, but yet out of his courage, tenacity and spirit we stand here on the floor of the House today.

I rise in strong support of H. Res. 535, which honors the short life, but big contributions of David Ray Ritcheson, a victim, as I said earlier, of a horrific hate crime, who became an exceptionally effective advocate for Federal hate crimes legislation.

Over the years I have been privileged to take the floor many times to speak on behalf of my constituents and those who live in the greater Houston-Harris County area. On those occasions my heart has filled with joy on the knowledge that so many people entrusted me with the honor of giving voice to their hopes and aspirations. But as I rise today, my heart is enormously heavy, for I have the sad duty of informing the House of the tragic death of David Ray Ritcheson, a Texas teenager, and as I've said earlier, experienced and was a victim of a horrible hate crime only at the age of 17, who went on to become an effective advocate for Federal hate crimes legislation.

To his parents, to his attorney Mr. Leon, for their spirit, his wonderful family, his brothers and sisters, all who showed the great love and tenacity and courage to stand by David, I call them the stand- by-David family.

This tragedy should serve as a wake-up call to the Nation of the need to redouble our efforts to prevent hate crimes by juveniles, which I believe is, in the long run, the best and most effective way of eliminating the scourge of hate-motivated crimes from our society.

I have long believed, and research confirms, that if a person does not acquire a proclivity to hate as a juvenile, he or she is not likely to be motivated to commit crimes out of hate as an adult. But once a child or juvenile has learned to hate, it is a short step to learning and liking to act out of hatred.

We will have, I hope soon, coming to this floor a bill named after David. Many in the community have asked that H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, be likewise named after him. You wonder why. It is because of the outstanding courage that this young man has shown.

I remember meeting with him in the offices of his attorney, Carlos Leon, and his family members way back in 2006. He was in the midst of several of his surgeries that had to be implemented or had to be done in order to help cure him. Quiet, determined, smiling, generous in his time, we spoke about what he could do and how he could support legislation to turn things around. I believe that that courage exudes today on the floor of the House.

A year ago last April, the people of Harris County and those in and around my congressional district saw just how easy and how dangerous it is for young people to commit a crime of hate. In a case that drew national attention, 16-year-old David Ray Ritcheson, a Mexican American, was severely assaulted on April 23, 2006, by two youths while attending a party in the Houston suburb of Spring, Texas. One of his teen attackers, a skinhead, yelled ethnic slurs and kicked a pipe in an inappropriate place, severely damaging his internal organs and leaving him in the hospital for 3 months and 8 days, almost all of it in critical care.

For the supposed crime of allegedly kissing a white girl, this Hispanic young man was punched unconscious, kicked in the head, suffered 17 cigarette burns sadistically inflicted that still scar his body. His assailants poured bleach on his face and body and then assaulted him with a pipe taken from a patio umbrella. He was left lying unconscious and unattended in the back yard of a house for more than 8 hours. He has endured more than 30 operations to restore his appearance and regain the normal use of his bodily functions.

Might I say to you that he was the cause and the inspiration behind the passage of H.R. 1592. And I just want to share with my colleagues this young man's picture, along with his attorney. He was a young man who came here with a business suit on because he meant business. We honor him today with a resolution that acknowledges his life.

In addition, I will soon be introducing additional legislation intended to fill a big gap in current hate crimes prevention. And we must do more to assist the victims of hate crimes and their families recover from their physical, emotional and psychological wounds.

My legislation will authorize programs to provide psychological and emotional support services and appropriate economic assistance to the victims of hate crimes and their families. The legislation will focus on three main areas: counseling, prevention, and economic support.

Let me just say, in closing, that I indicated that it is with a heavy heart that I stand on the floor today. It is certainly with great celebration that I acknowledge to the world and to America, the youth of America, the name of David Ray Ritcheson, someone who, in essence, sacrificed his life so that America might be better, sacrificed his life so that those of us who want to be able to preach love, opportunity and quality maybe, sadly, will have a message of joy out of his living, and that is that you can move to move hearts and minds, and that we can provide America with a better moral compass and legal system to prevent hate crimes in America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 535, which honors the short life but big contributions of David Ray Ritcheson, a victim of a horrific hate crime who became an exceptionally effective advocate for Federal hate crimes legislation.

Over the years I have been privileged to take the floor many times to speak on behalf of my constituents in the Eighteenth Congressional district of Texas. On those occasions my heart was filled with joy in the knowledge that so many people entrusted me with the honor of giving voice to their hopes and aspirations.

But as I rise today, my heart is heavy. I have the sad duty of informing the House of the tragic death of David Ray Ritcheson, a Texas teenager and victim of a horrible hate crime, who went on to become an effective advocate for Federal hate crimes legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this tragedy should serve as a wakeup call to the Nation of the need to redouble our efforts to prevent hate crimes by juveniles, which I believe is in the long run the best and most effective way of eliminating the scourge of hate motivated crimes from our society.

I have long believed, and research confirms, that if a person does not acquire a proclivity to hate as a juvenile, he or she is not likely to be motivated to commit crimes out of hate as an adult. But once a child or juvenile has learned to hate, it is a short step to learning and liking to act out that hatred.

A year ago last April, the people of Harris County, Texas, and in my congressional district, saw just how easy and how dangerous it is for young people to commit a crime out of hate.

In a case that drew national attention, 16-year-old David Ray Ritcheson, a Mexican-American, was severely assaulted on April 23, 2006, by two youths while attending a party in the Houston suburb of Spring, Texas. One of his teenage attackers, a skinhead, yelled ethnic slurs and kicked a pipe up his rectum, severely damaging his internal organs and leaving him in the hospital for 3 months and 8 days--almost all of it in critical care. For the supposed crime of allegedly kissing a white girl, this Hispanic young man was punched unconscious, kicked in the head, suffered 17 cigarette burns sadistically inflicted that still scar his body. His assailants poured bleach on his face and body, and then assaulted with a pipe taken from a patio umbrella. He was left lying unconscious and unattended in the back yard of a house for more than 8 hours. He has endured more than 30 operations to restore his appearance and regain the normal use of his bodily functions.

Mr. Speaker, no one deserves to be tortured and victimized like David Ray Ritcheson was simply because he is of a different nationality, or race, or religion, or ethnic group, or sexual orientation or preference. It is for that reason that I introduced the David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, H.R. 254, earlier this year, key provisions of which were incorporated into H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. For example, my bill increased the penalties to 10 years in prison for any person whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person. Also, H.R. 1592 incorporated another key component of my hate crimes prevention bill: the establishment of a grants program administered by the Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice to 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.

I will soon be introducing additional legislation intended to fill a big gap in the current hate crimes prevention regime. We must and can do more to assist the victims of hate crimes and their families recover from their physical, emotional, and psychological wounds.

My legislation will authorize programs to provide psychological, emotional support services and appropriate economic assistance to the victims of hate crimes and their families. The legislation will focus on three main areas: counseling; prevention; and economic support.

Hate Crime victims lose their jobs at least in part because of the impact of hate crime violence and lack of financial and economic support during recovery. By giving hate crime victims economic and financial support, Congress makes it more likely that employees who are victims of hate crimes could stay at work while they deal with the violence or promptly return to work if they have to take temporary leave. Therefore hate crime victims must be provided access to: (1) Healthcare support including counseling and therapy to prevent in the future severe depression, violent outbreaks, suicide; (2) construction and personnel cost for shelters and hate crime support centers; (3) direct services providers; (4) healthcare insurance for counseling and therapy; (5) hotline services; and (6) short- and long-term individual counseling and support groups for hate crime victims and their families.

Since prevention is always better than cure, my legislation also seeks to prevent violent hate crime attacks before it happens. The legislation will provide funding for outreach and educational programs to raise awareness against racist and discriminatory beliefs.

Specifically, it will lead to:

(1) Development community responses and public education campaigns working with elementary, middle and secondary school to raise awareness of racist crimes as unacceptable behavior.

(2) Provide educational programs working with teenagers and young adults in college and university campuses.

(3) Adoption of hate crime awareness programs in the workplace.

When he testified in support of H.R. 1592, David Ray Ritcheson challenged this committee to take a big step toward making hate a thing of history. Hear the words this young man, wise and courageous beyond his years, spoke to the Judiciary Committee:

It has been a blessing to know that the most terrible day

of my life may help put another human face on the campaign to

enact a much needed law such as the ``Local Law Enforcement

Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007''. I can assure you, from

this day forward I will do what ever I can to help make our

great county, the United States of America, a hate free place

to live.

I ask unanimous consent that to place a copy of David Ray Ritcheson's entire statement in the Record.

I believe the best thing we can do to hasten the day that the United States is a hate free place to live is to work at least as hard toward preventing hate crimes as we must at prosecuting and punishing those who commit them.

As important as it is to apprehend, prosecute, convict, and punish severely those who commit hate crimes, we can all agree that in the long run it is even more important and better for society if we can increase our effectiveness in eradicating the desire to commit a hate crime in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, I have never been as proud of any constituent as I was of David Ray Ritcheson that day when he spoke such eloquent truth to power. By force of his own example and moral courage he helped clear the way for House passage of strong and long overdue hate crimes legislation. In the process, he made America better, and he made Texas stand tall. That is why it is so fitting to honor his memory. And that is why I am pleased to announce that the introduction of a resolution in tribute to this remarkable young man.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read into the Record the text of this resolution.

H. Res. 535

Whereas David Ray Ritches, Mexican-American, was a friendly

and cheerful student at Klein Collins High School in the

Houston suburb of Spring, Texas, and a popular and talented

football athlete who was loved and admired by his family and

friends;

Whereas on April 23, 2006, at the age of 16, David Ray

Ritcheson was severely assaulted while attending a party in

Spring, Texas;

Whereas the former running back and freshman homecoming

prince spent more than three months in the hospital as a

result of the injuries he suffered in the assault and endured

more than 30 surgeries to restore his appearance and regain

the normal use of his bodily functions;

Whereas no human being deserves to be tortured and

victimized like David Ray Ritcheson simply because he is of a

different background, race, religion, ethnic group, or sexual

orientation;

Whereas of all crimes, hate crimes are most likely to

create or exacerbate tensions that can trigger larger

community wide racial conflict, civil disturbances, and riots

in communities at-risk of serious social and economic

consequences;

Whereas hate-motivated violence disrupts the tranquility

and safety of communities, impedes the movement of members of

targeted groups, and prevents members of targeted groups from

purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining

employment, and fulfilling the American Dream;

Whereas the courageous, eloquent, and compelling testimony

of David Ray Ritcheson before a committee of the House of

Representatives brought into vivid relief the human face of

victims of hate crimes and the terrible suffering that such

crimes inflict on victims and their families, friends, and

communities;

Whereas David Ray Ritcheson, in his testimony, emphasized

that he was a survivor who urged the Federal Government to

take the lead in deterring individuals like those who

attacked him from committing violent crimes against others

because of where they are from, the color of their skin, the

God they worship, the person they love, or the way they look,

talk, or act;

Whereas David Ray Ritcheson's powerful testimony helped

inspire the House of Representatives to pass the Local Law

Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1592 of

the 110th Congress), which incorporates key provisions of the

David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 254 of the

110th Congress);

Whereas David Ray Ritcheson vowed to do whatever he could

to help make the United States a hate-free place in which to

live;

Whereas the courage displayed by David Ray Ritcheson is an

inspiration to all Americans and reinforces the message that

acts of bigotry and hate are unacceptable in the United

States; and

Whereas, on July 1, 2007, David Ray Ritcheson died at the

age of 18: Now, therefore be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives mourns the

passing of David Ray Ritcheson and commends him for his

activism in contributing and raising awareness toward the

eradication and elimination of hate crimes in the United

States.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to place into the record the testimony David Ray Ritcheson gave before the Judiciary Committee in April of this year in support of H.R. 1592.

Statement of Mr. David Ritcheson at the Hearing on H.R. 1592, the

``Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007''

I appear before you as a survivor of one of the most

despicable, shocking, and heinous acts of hate violence this

country has seen in decades. Nearly one year ago on April 22,

2006, I was viciously attacked by two individuals because of

my heritage as a Mexican-American. After hanging out with a

few friends at a local crawfish festival, my friend and I,

along with the two individuals who would eventually attack

me, returned to the home in Spring, Texas where I was to

spend the night. It was shortly after arriving at this

private residence that a minor disagreement between me and

the attackers turned into the pretext for what I believe was

a premeditated hate crime. This was a moment that would

change my life forever. After I was surprisingly sucker

punched and knocked out, I was dragged into the back yard for

an attack that would last for over an hour. Two individuals,

one an admitted racist skinhead, attempted to carve a

swastika on my chest. Today I still bear that scar on my

chest like a scarlet letter. After they stripped me naked, I

was burned with cigarettes and savagely kicked by this

skinhead's steel toed army boots. After burning me in the

center of the forehead, the skinhead attacker was heard

saying that now I look like an Indian with the red dot on my

forehead. Moreover, the witnesses to the attack recalled the

two attackers calling me a ``wetback'' and a ``spic'' as they

continued to beat me as I lay unconscious. Once the attack

came to an end, was dragged to the rear of the back yard and

left for dead. Reportedy, I lay unconscious in the back yard

of this private residence or the next 8-

9 hours. It was not until the next morning that I was found

and the paramedics came to my aid. I am recounting this

tragic event from the testimony I heard during the trial of

the two attackers this past fall. God spared me the memory of

what happened that night. As I sit before you today, I still

have no recollection of those life changing twelve hours or

the weeks that followed.

Weeks later I recall waking up in the hospital with a

myriad of emotions, including fear and uncertainty. Most of

all, I felt inexplicable humiliation. Not only did I have to

face my peers and my family, I had to face the fact that I

had been targeted for violence in a brutal crime because of

my ethnicity. This crime took place in middle-class America

in the year 2006. The reality that hate is alive, strong, and

thriving in the cities, towns, and cul-de-sacs of Suburbia,

America was a surprise to me. America is the country I love

and call home. However, the hate crime committed against me

illustrates that we are still, in some aspects, a house

divided. I know now that there are young people in this

country who are suffering and confused, thirsting for

guidance and in need of a moral compass. These are some of

the many reasons I am here before you today asking that our

government take the lead in deterring individuals like those

who attacked me from committing unthinkable and violent

crimes against others because of where they are from, the

color of their skin, the God they worship, the person they

love, or the way they look, talk or act.

I believe that education can have an important impact by

teaching against hate and bigotry. In fact, I have encouraged

my school and others to adopt the Anti-Defamation League's No

Place for Hate' program. If these crimes cannot be

prevented, the federal government must have the authority to

support state and local bias crime prosecutions.

As the weeks in the hospital turned into months, I began

hearing the stories of support that came from literally all

over the world. The local community pulled together in a

really majestic way, reaffirming my hope in the good of

humanity. My family told me about the crowded waiting rooms

full of the great friends from past and present. I heard

about prayer groups before school in front of my school, the

Klein Collins Campus. The donations that helped my family and

me get through an unthinkable time poured in from generous

people scattered across the globe. These donations would help

pay for the enormous hospital bills from the over thirty

surgeries I underwent during the first three months after the

attack. Most of these operations were essential to saving my

life--and others were necessary just to make my body able to

perform what would be normal functions.

As the recovery process continued, my family began to

slowly inform me of what had happened to me. They went on to

tell me of the effective response by the Harris County

Sheriff's Department and the Harris County Constables who had

investigated the hate crime committed against me. I slowly

began learning the about the background of the two

individuals who had been arrested for attacking me. I was

informed that one of the attackers, David Tuck, was a self

proclaimed racist skinhead who had viciously attacked at

least two other Hispanics in the past few years, almost

killing one of them. I learned that he had been in and out of

several juvenile facilities. Most surprising, I learned that

he had been released from the Texas Youth Commission a little

over a month before he attacked me. In fact, he was still on

probation the night he nearly ended my life. I was told that

he had ``white power'' and swastikas tattoos on his body. I

was informed that his older step brother, a major influence

in his life, was also a self-proclaimed skinhead currently

serving time in a Texas jail. Here I was, learning shocking

details of a person who lived only miles from me and who had

at one time attended the same high school that I attended.

How could this type of hate be breeding just miles from my

home in a city as diverse as Spring without anyone taking

notice?

I quickly learned of and benefited from the support of

groups such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and League of

United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). Both groups

immediately provided whatever support they could to help me

and my family. From setting up fundraisers to help my family

with unanticipated expenses to providing emotional support

confirming that I was not going through this alone, both

groups were instrumental in assisting me and my family in the

process of moving forward. There are so many people to

thank for the support they have given me, including the

ongoing encouragement to appear before you today.

Last November and December I sat in a courtroom in Harris

County, Texas and faced my attackers for the first time as

they went through their respective trials. I am glad to say

that justice was done. I am proud of the job our county

prosecutors and investigators did in ensuring life sentences

for the two individuals who attacked me. Specifically, I want

to recognize the great job that Assistant District Attorney

Mike Trent did during the prosecution of these two

individuals. However, despite the obvious bias motivation of

the crime, it is very frustrating to me that neither the

state of Texas nor the federal government was able to utilize

hate crime laws on the books today in the prosecution of my

attackers. I am upset that neither the Justice Department nor

the FBI was able to assist or get involved in the

investigation of my case because ``the crime did not fit the

existing hate crime laws.'' Today I urge you to take the lead

in this time of needed change and approve the ``Local Law

Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007''. I was

fortunate to live in a town where local law enforcement

authorities had the resources, the ability--and the will--to

effectively investigate and prosecute the hate violence

directed against me. But other bias crime victims may not

live in such places. I ask you to provide authority for local

law enforcement to work together with federal agencies when

someone is senselessly attacked because of where they are

from or because of who they are. Local prosecutors should be

able to look to the federal government for support when these

types of crimes are committed. Most importantly, these crimes

should be called what they are and prosecuted for what they

are, ``hate crimes''!

In fact, because there was so much attention focused on the

fact that my case was not being prosecuted in Texas as a hate

crime, the Anti-Defamation League and the Cook County

(Illinois) Hate Crimes Prosecution Council published a

Pamphlet called ``Hate Crimes Data Collection and

Prosecutions: Frequently Asked Questions,'' designed to

address some of the basic legal and practical considerations

involved in labeling and charging a hate crime.

My experience over the last year has reminded me of the

many blessings I took for granted for so long. With my

humiliation and emotional and physical scars came the

ambition and strong sense of determination that brought out

the natural fighter in me. I realized just how important

family and the support of community truly are. I will always

recall my parents at my bedside providing me with strength

and reassurance. They showed me how to be strong during my

whole recovery, a process I am still going through today.

Seeing the hopeful look of concern in the faces of my

siblings, cousins, aunts and uncles everyday was the direct

support I needed to get through those terrible first few

months. As each day passed, I became more and more aware of

everything I had to live for. I am glad to tell you today

that my best days still lay ahead of me.

Thank you for the opportunity to tell my story. It has been

a blessing to know that the most terrible day of my life may

help put another human face on the campaign to enact a much

needed law such as the ``Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes

Prevention Act of 2007''. I can assure you, from this day

forward I will do what ever I can to help make our great

country, the United States of America, a hate free place to

live.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

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

Let me take an opportunity to acknowledge Albert and Laticia Galvin, the parents of David Ray Ritcheson. I mention them, their strength and their sense of dedication.

I also wanted to acknowledge the outpouring of support by the Members of Congress, members of the House Judiciary Committee and our local community. We came together, people from all segments of the community, to honor him in his passing, but also to commit ourselves to ridding our community of hate. Representatives from the NAACP and LULAC, faith leaders, elected officials, all of them put aside differences, as my good friend from Indiana has indicated, partisan differences, and realized that hate is really not the definition of America.

And if I might refresh the memories of my colleagues, just a few weeks ago we stood on the floor to acknowledge July Fourth, the Independence Day for America, again a day of joy. But the points of accolades for this Nation really focused not only on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which gives us the freedom of association, due process so that your rights are protected, but we're reminded of the Declaration of Independence. And it indicated that we all are created equal, with certain inalienable rights of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That's all that David sought in his young life, and I hope that as we move legislation forward, in the other body and here, on stomping out hate crimes, we will be reminded of this young life, not only David, but his mother and father, Albert and Laticia Galvin, who, if you met them, you would know how David was able to be so strong and so determined.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

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

Mr. Speaker, as this bill is intended to do, let me dwell on the life of David Ray Ritcheson and how much he has contributed to moving this country forward. I would like to read just a portion of his statement from his own words in the Judiciary Committee speaking about the experience of his tragedy:

``After burning me in the center of the forehead, the skinhead attacker was heard saying that now I looked like an Indian with a red dot on my forehead. Moreover, the witnesses to the attack recall the two attackers calling me a `wetback' and a `spic' as they continued to beat me as I lay unconscious. Once the attack came to an end, I was dragged to the rear of the backyard and left for dead.''

The bill that David was so articulate in helping us move forward provides resources for our smaller communities in order to ensure that if Federal resources are needed, that nexus, that connection, that assistance would be provided. Therefore, it is clear that David's testimony helped assist rural communities.

I cite, for example, another tragic incident that occurred in a rural area, and maybe the county in that area might not have been able to move forward. This bill, however, is already out of the House. So our tribute today really focuses on the courage which David provided to move that bill forward.

In Wyoming, Matthew Shepard was in a rural area. It was a rural area in Jasper, Texas, with Mr. James Byrd. So we know that the bill that has passed the House truly would provide assistance to those communities that would ask for it if such a tragedy occurred in their community. Again, Mr. Speaker, simply if they asked for it.

I want to emphasize that this is about David, so let me share with you his words. These are the words that he offered to the Judiciary Committee: ``It has been a blessing to know that the most terrible day of my life may help put another human face on the campaign to enact a much needed law such as H.R. 1592. I can assure you from this day forward I will do whatever I can to help America become our great country, the United States of America a hate-free place to live.'' These are David's words.

As we move forward in trying to capture what his life was truly about, this young, friendly, cheerful student at Klein Collins High School in the Houston suburb of Spring, Texas, popular and a talented football athlete, who was loved and admired by his family and friends, we want to ensure that, as we go forward, if such a dastardly act would happen again, we focus on the family.

Mr. Speaker, we would like to see health care support, including supportive counseling and therapy to prevent future severe depression; construction and personnel costs for shelters and hate crime support centers; direct service providers who are trained to try and help those who have been victims of hate crimes; health care insurance for counseling and therapy; hotline services, so for those who witness hate crimes or other acts, we would be able to provide an immediate source of information for them to report what happened; short- and long-term individual counseling and support

groups for hate crime victims and their families.

This is a time to acknowledge this former running back and freshman homecoming prince, who spent more than 3 months in the hospital. But at the same time, it is a time of celebration. That is what this resolution stands for. Let me thank the list of cosponsors who have provided their affirmation of the importance of David's life.

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

I am prepared to close. If the gentleman would close, I will follow.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Indiana for his courtesies. That is the note which I will end on, is a note of courage.

As we look at this young man, and I am going to do something quite unusual, Mr. Pence, the family is watching, and I would hope that that would be the spirit of this resolution, simply to acknowledge the courage of David Ray Ritcheson, this talented young man, as I have said, Laticia and Albert Galvan's child, the brother of so many siblings, that they would understand what it took to come into the Judiciary Committee room.

We would like to thank the cosponsors of this legislation, and I would like them to have a lasting impression of this distinguished young man.

The courage, fortitude, the work he has done has enlightened many. As Mr. Pence said, we can have a number of debates and questions about the underlying issue, but the above-lying issue is simply a resolution thanking a young man who has lost his life in the face of an unspeakable tragedy. And we are all committed, whether it is a moral question or whether it is by legislative initiative, we abhor hatred. This Nation was not founded to promote hatred, although many of us came to this Nation differently.

So I would simply ask my colleagues to join me. And I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) for an inquiry. His family is watching, and I hope this can be perceived, this is an unlikely question to you, be perceived simply as a resolution, making no further statement, on the celebration of his life. We would like to call for a vote, and we would like to have your support. I have heard that you are willing to support this on that basis, and I would like to commend this to my colleagues simply on that basis. This is a resolution honoring a young man who has called to the attention of all of us the idea of the fact that we all abhor hatred of any kind.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

I thank the distinguished gentleman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, with great emotion, I come to this floor.

Congressman Frank, let me thank you. No one that may be listening had the opportunity to listen to Congresswoman Baldwin and you speak of your existence.

So I rise today to make sure that everyone understands that this bill is about hate. Regular order is in place. It is about protecting young people who have an identity that is different from any of us. It is about reflecting the definition of hatred that says that it is an affection of the mind awakened by something regarded as evil. Can we in America regard human life as evil?

Even as Christians, and many of us are not, the Bible dictates about the instruction of loving thy neighbor. This bill reflects on the needs of African Americans and Hispanics and the disabled and those with gender identity. It reflects on the fact that brutality and viciousness because of hate cannot be tolerated by a country that believes we are all created equal.

This is a fair bill. It does not encourage you to change your faith, but it encourages you to adhere to democracy and to the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1592, the ``Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.'' Mr. Speaker, as important as it is to apprehend, prosecute, convict, and punish severely those who commit hate crimes, we can all agree that in the long run it is even more important and better for society if we can increase our effectiveness in eradicating the desire to commit a hate crime in the first place. I have long believed, and research confirms, that if a person does not acquire a proclivity to hate as a juvenile, he or she is not likely to be motivated to commit crimes out of hate as an adult.

Mr. Speaker, Webster's Dictionary defines hate as a ``strong aversion; intense dislike; hate; an affection of the mind awakened by something regarded as evil.''

Mr. Speaker, before I proceed any further, I would be remiss if I failed to note that this legislation is more timely than any of us could have predicted just a month ago. Two weeks ago, at Virginia Tech University, one of the Nation's great land grant colleges, we witnessed the most senseless acts of violence on a scale unprecedented in our history. Neither the mind nor the heart can contemplate a cause that could lead a human being to inflict such injury and destruction on fellow human beings. The loss of life and innocence at Virginia Tech is a tragedy over which all Americans mourn and the thoughts and prayers of people of goodwill everywhere go out to the victims and their families. In the face of such overwhelming grief, I hope they can take comfort in the certain knowledge that unearned suffering is redemptive.

But the carnage at Virginia Tech also commands that we here in this body take a stand against senseless acts of violence taken against persons for no reason other than that they are different, whether in terms of race, religion, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation. It is long past time for our national community to declare that injuries inflicted on any member of the community by another simply because he or she is different poses a threat to the peace and security of the entire community. For that reason alone, such conduct must be outlawed and punished severely. That is why I have, Mr. Speaker, since 1999 introduced and supported strong legislation to deter and punish hate crimes, including as noted earlier, H.R. 254, the ``David Ray Hate Crime Prevention Act of 2007'' pending in this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, every act of violence is tragic and harmful in its consequences, but not all crime is based on hate. A ``hate crime'' is the violence of intolerance and bigotry, intended to hurt and intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.

The purveyors of hate use explosives, arson, weapons, vandalism, physical violence, and verbal threats of violence to instill fear in their victims, leaving them vulnerable to more attacks and feeling alienated, helpless, suspicious and fearful. Others may become frustrated and angry if they believe the local government and other groups in the community will not protect them. When perpetrators of hate are not prosecuted as criminals and their acts not publicly condemned, their crimes can weaken even those communities with the healthiest race relations.

Of all crimes, hate crimes are most likely to create or exacerbate tensions, which can trigger larger community-wide racial conflict, civil disturbances, and even riots. Hate crimes put cities and towns at risk of serious social and economic consequences. The immediate costs of racial conflicts and civil disturbances are police, fire, and medical personnel overtime, injury or death, business and residential property loss, and damage to vehicles and equipment. Long-term recovery may be hindered by a decline in property values, which results in lower tax revenues, scarcity of funds for rebuilding, and increased insurance rates.

Mr. Speaker, a study funded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics released September 2000, shows that 85 percent of law enforcement officials surveyed recognize bias-motivated violence to be more serious than similar crimes not motivated by bias.

Hate crimes are destructive and divisive. A random act of violence resulting in injury or even death is a tragic event that devastates the lives of the victim and their family, but the intentional selection and beating or murder of an individual because of who they are terrorizes an entire community and sometimes the Nation. For example, it is easy to recognize the difference between check-kiting and a cross burning; or an arson of an office building versus the intentional torching of a church or synagogue. The church or synagogue burning has a profound impact on the congregation, the faith community, the greater community, and the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, some opponents of hate crimes legislation claim that such legislation is a solution in search of a problem. They claim that there is no epidemic of bias-motivated violence and thus no need to legislate. I wish to briefly address this claim.

victims and perpetrators

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, racially motivated hate crimes most frequently target blacks. Six in ten racially biased incidents target blacks, and 3 in 10 incidents targeted whites. Hispanics of all races were targeted in 6.7 percent of incidents and Asians in 3 percent. Younger offenders were responsible for most hate crimes and most of their victims were between 11 and 31. The age of victims of violent hate crimes drops dramatically after age 45. Thirty-one percent of violent offenders and 46 percent of property offenders were under age 18. Thirty-two percent of hate crimes occurred in a residence, 28 percent in an open space, 19 percent in a retail commercial establishment or public building, 12 percent at a school or college, and 3 percent at a church, synagogue, or temple.

examples of CRS hate crime cases

In Harris County--Houston--Texas, in a case that drew national attention, 16-year-old David Ray Ritcheson, a Mexican-American, was severely assaulted April 23, 2007, by two youths while attending a party in the Houston suburb of Spring, Texas. One of his teen-age attackers, a skinhead, yelled ethnic slurs and kicked a pipe up his rectum, severely damaging his internal organs and leaving him in the hospital for 3 months and 8 days--almost all of it in critical care. For the supposed crime of allegedly kissing a white girl, young David Ray's assailants punched him unconscious, kicked him in the head, sadistically inflicted 17 cigarette burns that still scar his body, poured bleach on his face and body, and then assaulted with a pipe taken from a patio umbrella. He was left lying unconscious and unattended in the back yard of a house for more than 8 hours. He has endured more than 30 operations to restore his appearance and regain the normal use of his bodily functions.

In Jasper, Texas, an African-American man, James Byrd, Jr., was brutally murdered by being kidnapped, beaten unconscious, spray painted in the face with black paint, tied to the back of a pick-up truck, pants dropped down to his ankles, dragged 2.5 miles over pavement through a rural Black community in Jasper County called Huff Creek, leaving his skin, blood, arms, head, genitalia, and other parts of his body strewn along the highway, his remains were dumped in front of a Black cemetery.

In Springfield, Missouri, an African-American male in the company of a white female was stabbed at local Denny's restaurant by a group of white males.

Near San Diego, California, elderly immigrant workers were attacked by white youths. The body of a Latino immigrant youth was also discovered in the same vicinity as the attacks on the workers.

An African-American employee of a construction company in Marquette, Kansas, reported that he had been racially harassed for several months by fellow employees through racist graffiti and name-calling.

A Jewish synagogue was vandalized by four Arab-American males in the Bronx, New York.

Every individual's life is valuable and sacred, and even one life lost is too many. There is ample evidence that violent, bias-motivated crimes are a widespread and serious problem in our Nation. But it is not the frequency or number of these crimes alone, that distinguish these acts of violence from other types of crime; it is the impact these crimes have on the victims, their families, their communities and, in some instances, the Nation.

Evidence indicates that bias-motivated crimes are underreported; however, statistics show that since 1991 over 100,000 hate crime offenses have been reported to the FBI, with 7,163 reported in 2005, the FBI's most recent reporting period. Crimes based on race-related bias were by far the most common, representing 54.7 percent of all offenses for 2005. Crimes based on religion represented 17.1 percent and ethnicity/national origin, 13.2 percent. Crimes based on sexual orientation constituted 14.2 percent of all bias-motivated crimes in 2005, with 1,017 reported for the year.

The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP), a non- profit organization that tracks bias incidents against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, reported 1,985 incidents for 2005 from only 13 jurisdictions, compared to the 12,417 agencies reporting to the FBI in 2005.

Additionally, the Hate Crimes Statistics Act makes the reporting of bias-motivated crimes by State and local jurisdictions voluntary, resulting in no participation by many jurisdictions each year. Hawaii, for instance, did not participate in reporting at all in 2005. Underreporting is also common. Wyoming, for instance, reported only 4 incidents for 2005. Six States reported 10 or fewer incidents in 2005. Some large cities have been egregiously deficient in reporting hate crimes. Jacksonville, Florida, for example, reported only 5 incidents in 2005.

Sadly, statistics only give a glimpse of the problem. It is widely recognized that violent crimes on the basis of sexual orientation often go unreported due to fear and stigmatization. A Department of Justice report released in October 2001 confirms that bias-motivated crimes are under-reported; that a disproportionately high percentage of both victims and perpetrators of these violent crimes are young people under 25 years of age; and that only 20 percent of reported hate crimes result in arrest.

A December 2001 report by the Southern Poverty Law Center, SPLC, a nonprofit organization that monitors hate groups and extremist activity in the United States, went so far as to say that the system for collecting hate crimes data in this Nation is ``in shambles.'' SPLC estimates that the real number of hate crimes being committed in the United States each year is likely closer to 50,000, as opposed to the nearly 8,000 reported by the FBI.

Next, Mr. Speaker, let me address the specious claim that H.R. 1592 abridges free speech. Opponents seem to be complaining that the legislation would prohibit pursuant to Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the introduction of substantive evidence of the defendant's expression or associations, unless the evidence specifically relates to the offense or is used to impeach a witness. In this way, the legislation strikes the appropriate balance between two competing interests: the interest of the government in punishing hate crimes and the rights of the defendant.

Hate crimes legislation allows society to prescribe greater punishments for hate crimes because of the distinct emotional harm they cause their victims, the community unrest they incite, and the likelihood that they will provoke retaliatory crimes. See Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 488 (1993) (upholding a hate crimes punishment enhancement statute). However, H.R. 1592 also protects a defendant's rights by only permitting the introduction of evidence within the confines of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the First Amendment.

The First Amendment protects speech and expressive conduct. Our bill only punishes criminal conduct, which is not protected by the First Amendment. Any argument that this legislation punishes expressive conduct would likely be unsuccessful because using violence to convey one's ideas is outside the scope of the First Amendment. NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 916 (1982). In Wisconsin v. Mitchell the Court distinguished between statutes that are explicitly directed at expression and statutes that are directed at conduct. 508 U.S. at 487. The Court upheld the statute in Wisconsin v. Mitchell because it was directed at criminal conduct, unlike the statute at issue in R.A.V. v. St. Paul, which the Court struck down because it was explicitly directed at expression. Id. The critical flaw with the statute at issue in R.A.V. was that it was viewpoint discriminatory: It prohibited otherwise permissible speech based on the subject and perspective of the speech. R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 391 (1992).

H.R. 1592 does not ban religious, political, or offensive speech, or even punish expressive conduct, such as cross burning or flag burning. Rather, the legislation is only directed at criminal conduct that is independently criminal, such as assault or murder. It punishes conduct that is already criminal more severely because of the defendant's motivation in choosing the victim. Thus, evidence of a defendant's expressions and associations properly can be admitted under certain circumstances.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, nothing in this legislation would prohibit the lawful expression of one's deeply held religious beliefs. If they wish, any person will continue to be free to say things like: ``Homosexuality is sinful''; ``Homosexuality is an abomination''; or ``Homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.'' This is because H.R. 1592 only covers violent actions committed because of a person's sexual orientation that result in death or bodily injury.

Mr. Speaker, the American public opinion strongly favors this legislation. According to a recent survey by Peter Hart and Associates, voters overwhelmingly favor expanding the definition of hate crimes to include crimes against people based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Three in four (73 percent) voters favor Congress's expanding the definition

of hate crimes in this way, including 62 percent who strongly favor it. Just 22 percent oppose this action, with 17 percent who strongly oppose it.

Support for hate crimes definition expansion is strong across the board. Large majorities of every major subgroup of the electorate-- including such traditionally conservative groups as Republican men (56 percent) and evangelical Christians (63 percent)--express support for this proposal. Support also crosses racial lines, with three in four whites (74 percent), African Americans (74 percent), and Latinos (72 percent) favoring Congress's including sexual orientation and gender identity in the definition of hate crimes.

Voters believe strongly in government's obligation to protect all citizens, the fact that crimes based on prejudice are directed against an entire community, and that it would give local law enforcement extra help in solving crimes.

Voters soundly reject arguments against this proposal. Whether it is the idea that it creates unequal treatment under the law; that it attacks the moral and religious beliefs of those opposed to homosexuality; or that it equates being gay with being Black or a woman, arguments against the hate crimes bill are not compelling to the public.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, by passing H.R. 1592 we also pay fitting tribute to David Ray Ritcheson of Spring, Texas, my constituent, friend, and a very courageous young man. David Ray, a victim of one of the most horrible hate crimes in Harris County, Texas came forward to tell his story to the Crime Subcommittee in the hopes of saving others from experiencing a similar brutal ordeal. In coming forward, he has performed a valuable service to our Nation. In going forward with H.R. 1592 and seeing it through to final passage, this Committee is also performing a great service to our Nation by hastening the day when we make hate history.

In conclusion, let me say that I strongly support H.R. 1592 and will vote to report the bill favorably to the full Committee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, while we have made progress toward equality in many facets of our society, hate crimes continue to spread in cities and towns across the country.

The main reason why we have been unable to aggressively pursue and prosecute hate crimes is because law enforcement agencies in our States and towns lack the tools and resources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

April 16, 2007.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local Law Enforcement Hate Crime Prevention Act of 2007

law enforcement support for this legislation

This legislation has received bipartisan majority support

in Congress. In the last session of Congress, on September

14, 2005, the House of Representatives approved the measure

as an amendment to the Children's Safety Act by a vote of

233-199. The Senate has approved the bill on two occasions

since 2000, most recently in June, 2004 by a vote of 65-33.

Unfortunately, in the past, the House leadership has acted to

block approval of this legislation.

The measure also enjoys the support of over 210 civil

rights, professional, civic, and religious groups, 31 state

Attorneys General, former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh,

and a number of the most important national law enforcement

organizations, including:

Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Hispanic

American Police Command Officers Association, Hispanic

National Law Enforcement Association, International

Association of Chiefs of Police, International Brotherhood of

Police Officers, Major Cities Chiefs Association, National

Asian Peace Officers Association, National Black Police

Association, National Center for Women & Policing, National

Coalition of Public Safety Officers, National District

Attorneys Association, National Latino Police Officers

Association, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement

Executives, National Sheriffs' Association, Police Executive

Research Forum, Police Foundation.

Here's what some of them are saying about the legislation:

Police Executive Research Forum

``This measure is critical to helping law enforcement

effectively address the ravaging effects on hate crimes on

both the victims of these crimes and the communities

destabilized by the fear and anger they generate . . . In the

past, PERF has opposed efforts to expand the federal

government's authority over traditionally local crimes.

However, given the unusual nature of hate crimes and the

substantial gaps in state laws, PERF believes in a

significant federal role in combating hate crimes.''--

Excerpts from letter to Members of Congress from Chuck

Wexler, Executive Director, PERF, July 19, 2004.

National Sheriffs' Association

``On behalf of the more than 22,000 members of the National

Sheriffs' Association I am writing to seek your support for .

. . the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act [LLEEA].

Unfortunately, there are situations where state and local

authorities are unable to properly investigate these crimes.

This legislation overcomes those situations . . . The passage

of LLEEA will greatly assist state and local law enforcement

agencies in investigating and prosecuting hate crimes.''--

Excerpts from letters to congressional leadership from

Sheriff Aaron D. Kennard, Salt Lake City, Utah, President,

National Sheriffs' Association, July 21, 2004.

Dick Thornburgh, Former U.S. Attorney General

``I would like to express my strong support for the passage

of . . . the Hate Crimes Prevention Act . . . From my

experiences as a Governor, the Attorney General, and as a

parent of a child with a disability, I can attest to the

importance of this legislation . . . Please add my name to

the list of supporters for the passage of this important

legislation.''--Excerpts from letter to the Honorable Orrin

G. Hatch, Sept. 29, 1998.

International Association of Chiefs of Police

``On behalf of the International Association of Chiefs of

Police (IACP), I am writing to urge you to vote in support of

. . . the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act . . . The

passage of the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act will

greatly assist state and local law enforcement agencies in

investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. The IACP urges you

to vote for [the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act] . .

.''--Excerpts from letter to the Senate from Daniel N.

Rosenblatt, IACP Executive Director, Alexandria, Virginia,

July 19, 2004.

Albany County Sheriff's Department

``As you know, last week saw the conclusion of the trial of

Aaron McKinney for the murder of Matthew Shepard, a case on

which we worked day and night for the last year . . . We

believe justice was served in this case, but not without

cost. We have been devastated financially, due to expenses

incurred in bringing Matthew's killers to justice. For

example, we had to lay off five law enforcement staff. We do

not want the federal take over of hate crimes, but

communities like ours must be able to call upon the expertise

and resources of the federal government. This approach worked

very well in Jasper, Texas in the case of James Byrd Jr.

Because of the multiple jurisdiction granted by current

federal law related to race-based hate crimes, Jasper was

able to access approximately $284,000 in federal Byrne grant

money. These grants are only available when a federal

jurisdictional basis exists. Presently, unlike race, color,

religion and national origin, sexual orientation is not

covered. We believe this is a grave oversight that needs to

be corrected . . . We respectfully urge you to do everything

you can to give law enforcement the tools it needs to fight

crime in this country.''--Excerpts from letter to House

Speaker Dennis Hastert from Sheriff James Pond and Detective

Sergeant Robert DeBree, Albany County Sheriff's Department,

Nov. 11, 1999.

Eric Holder, Former U.S. Deputy Attorney General

``The enactment of H.R. 1082 [bill number for Hate Crimes

Prevention Act, 106th Congress] would significantly increase

the ability of state and federal law enforcement agencies to

work together to solve and prevent a wide range of violent

crimes committed because of bias based on the race, color,

national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or

disability of the victim. This bill is a thoughtful, measured

response to a critical problem facing our Nation.''--Excerpts

from testimony before the House Judiciary Committee hearing

on hate crimes, Aug. 4, 1999.

Jeanine Pirro, District Attorney from Westchester County,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.

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

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

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

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

And why would I be concerned about a failure for us to define this term? Because if you use the term ``sexual orientation'' and use the definition found in the dictionary of those two words, it means any orientation of sexual conduct. Now, why would I be concerned, being a former attorney general of the

State of California and having served in this Congress now for seven terms representing my State? Because I recall some 20 years ago when a debate ensued in my then-existing district in Palos Verdes, California, where the local chapter of NAMBLA, which is the North American Man/Boy Love Association, NAMBLA, and the dispute was that they wanted to have their local chapter meetings at the local library. Some of you may have seen their banners in certain parades that take place in San Francisco, where NAMBLA, instead of hiding, proudly proclaims their position of ``sexual orientation.'' They argue, for instance, that we are denying children their right to have sexual expression with adults and that somehow we are hampering their development.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, hate crimes are a serious issue. That's why 45 out of the 50 States have laws against them. That's why we have an already existing Federal law where there is a Federal interest involved.

Unfortunately, this bill is not necessary or is not drawn appropriately for any specific Federal problem. Some 20 years ago, I remember supporting the gentleman from Massachusetts against an effort by a Member on my side of the aisle to remove homosexuals from protection under the Hate Crimes Act at the time, that is the Hate Crimes Statistics Act. That went to the definition.

I am concerned about the definition in this bill. I mentioned this during the rule. In this rule there is no definition of sexual orientation, which becomes a protected class in the sense of enhanced penalty or a new crime for protection for such a victim.

We asked whether we would put the definition that is noted in the statute that goes to the sentencing commission in the bill. In fact, many on the committee said that I had a good idea. Yet, I was denied the opportunity in committee and in the Rules Committee to present that.

So, therefore, we have no definition of sexual orientation. I wanted the simple definition that's recognized in the note to the sentencing commission, which limits it to homosexual or heterosexual conduct. So, now we have an undefined term of sexual orientation.

Why am I concerned about it? Because I come from the State of California, where, for the past 20 years, we have had a problem dealing with an organization called NAMBLA, North American Man/Boy Love Association. They march in parades. They asserted the right, under the first amendment, to be able to hold their meetings in the local chapter in a library in my district. That's a sexual orientation.

Without limiting the definition, as I asked us to do, we open up the potential for creating a new protected class. I do not understand why the majority refused to allow us a serious amendment to just define what this is and get rid of this problem.

We were told, look at the statute. It defines it. We found out it didn't. It said it does it by reference. We went to it. The only reference is to a note to the sentencing commission. It is not defined.

If this is not taken care of, this bill, I know it's not the intent, but it becomes essentially a NAMBLA Protection Act, because it allows that sort of conduct or any other sexual orientation to be considered because there is a lack of definition.

Why you didn't allow it, I don't know. But you didn't allow it. On that grounds alone, this bill ought not to go forward.

This bill needs to be reviewed, it needs to be amended, it needs to be perfected. It doesn't do what it claims it does. It has an expansion beyond all that anybody would support. At least in the committee they told me they didn't support it.

They said they would take care of it. They didn't take care of it. I asked for a simple amendment in the Rules Committee. We were denied a simple amendment. I don't know why you are doing this, but it is a failure of this bill and will probably defeat this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue, and people ought to recognize it's a serious issue.

There is something called hate crimes. And in the past, the Supreme Court has looked at issues to try and differentiate between mere speech and speech connected with conduct and how you articulate a law in a proper way that does not offend the first amendment, which allows terrible speech. One of the prices of our democracy and one of the prices of this society is to allow terrible speech, not to say you accept it, but to allow it.

And so the Supreme Court has carefully reviewed hate crime legislation. When I was attorney general of California, we issued an amicus brief before the Supreme Court to support one version of the hate crime legislation in one State that was similar to ours in California. We declined to do it in another State. And in that one in which we declined to do it, the Supreme Court found that it was afoul of the law.

That's why I think it's very, very important how we carefully construct a hate crimes bill. The underlying premise of this bill is that we should extend the already existing Federal hate crimes legislation, which has a Federal nexus, based on the individual victim or victims being involved in a protected Federal activity.

This bill goes beyond that and suggests that the constitutional nexus with Federal activity is that hate directed against the particular protected classes here somehow restricts interstate commerce. And I would just suggest that the findings in the bill did not have evidence to back it up. And I think there may very well be a constitutional attack that is successful in the Court on that. That's why we are concerned about the way this is written.

Second, there are those who suggest that we will not have the concern become a reality expressed by some on this floor and by some outside this floor that this somehow will chill free speech. The suggestion is we've carefully crafted the legislation so that's not to be the case.

I would just direct our attention to another section of the bill which calls for participation by the Federal Government in the investigation and prosecution of crimes at the State level which delineates the definition of hate crimes in the first two paragraphs but, in the third paragraph says, or any other hate crime established by State law. So what we are doing is extending it beyond the carefully constructed definitions that we have in this bill, considering the constitutional questions and extended it far beyond that. That is another legitimate concern about this bill.

And so I would just say that I hope we don't get totally involved in the argument that there are no hate crimes and they, therefore, never should be involved in our criminal justice system, versus that they are the worst of all crimes, or they are so essentially different from others that those who are subjected to attacks because of a random attitude by the perpetrator, or for reasons outside the protected class, somehow don't have the sufficiency of interest or the sufficiency of importance to be included.

Hate crimes exist in our society. Hate crimes are to be condemned in our society. As I said before, that's why 45 States have done so, most of them successfully in negotiating the shows of constitutional concern that are created by the first amendment. And therefore, one might suggest that we need to review this in far greater detail than we've been allowed thus far.