Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1592) to provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill, H.R. 1592, for three reasons. First, the bill will result in disproportionate justice for crime victims who do not fall within the categories it contains. Second, it will have a chilling effect on religious freedom and first amendment rights. And third, it is probably unconstitutional and raises significant Federalism issues.

We can all agree that every violent crime is deplorable, regardless of its motivation. Every violent crime can be devastating not only to the victim, but also to the larger community whose public safety has been violated. That is why all violent crimes must be vigorously prosecuted. However, this bill, no matter how well intended, undermines basic principles of our criminal justice system.

Our criminal justice system has been built on the ideal of equal justice for all. Under this bill, justice will no longer be equal, but depend on the race, sex, sexual orientation, disability or status of the victim. It will allow different penalties to be imposed for the same crime. For example, criminals who kill a homosexual or transsexual will be punished more harshly than criminals who kill a police officer, a member of the military, a child, a senior citizen or any other person.

To me, all victims should have equal worth in the eyes of the law. In fact, in 1984, Congress, in a bipartisan manner, enacted the Sentencing Reform Act to ensure the consistent application of criminal penalties to avoid, ``unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants who have been found guilty of similar criminal conduct.''

Why are we departing from the fairness embodied in that Act? Ordinarily, criminal law does not concern itself with motive, but rather with intent.

This legislation forces law enforcement officials to comb the offender's past to determine whether the offender ever expressed hostility toward a protected group. In addition, the bill raises the real possibility that religious leaders or members of religious groups could become the subject of a criminal investigation focusing on a suspect's religious beliefs, membership and religious organizations and any past statements made by a suspect. A chilling effect on religious leaders and others who, press their constitutionally protected beliefs, unfortunately, could result.

Some of my colleagues on the other side will claim that an amendment adopted during committee markup protects religious speech. However, it would not diminish the chilling effect of possible involvement in criminal investigations. Religious speakers and groups will feel in greater jeopardy as a result of this bill.

The facts of the Supreme Court decision in Wisconsin v. Mitchell underscore the danger of this legislation. In that case, Todd Mitchell received an enhanced hate crime sentence because of remarks he made to prior to others attacking a teenager because of his race. Mitchell did not participate in the physical assault of the teenager. His sentence was upheld. He was punished for his words.

My colleagues on the other side have argued that no prosecutor would ever subject members of a religious community to the criminal process. Are we willing to take the risk and leave the first amendment protections to a prosecutor's discretion?

I also believe the bill itself is probably unconstitutional and will likely be struck down by the courts. There is little evidence to support the claim that hate crimes impact interstate or foreign commerce, an important consideration for any Federal court reviewing the constitutionality of this legislation.

In 2000, the Supreme Court in the United States v. Morrison struck down a prohibition on gender-motivated violence. In that case, the court specifically warned Congress that the commerce clause does not apply to noneconomic violent criminal conduct that does not cross State lines, nor does the proposed legislation authorized under the 14th and 15th amendments. Those amendments only extend to State action and do not cover the actions of private persons who commit violent crimes.

While the 13th amendment reaches private conduct such as individual criminal conduct, it is difficult to argue that one's sexual orientation, disability or gender identity constitutes a badge and incidence of slavery. Aside from the constitutional defects of this bill, it purports to federalize crimes that are being effectively prosecuted by our States and local governments.

FBI statistics show that the incidence of so-called hate crimes has actually declined over the last 10 years. Only six of approximately 15,000 homicides in the Nation involved hate crimes.

As the Washington Post stated in a previous editorial, ``Rape, murder and assault--no matter what prejudice motivates the perpetrator--are presumptively local matters in which the Federal Government should intervene only when it has a pressing interest. The fact that hatred lurks behind a violent incident is not, in our view, an adequate Federal interest . . .''

Unfortunately we cannot legislate away the hatred that some feel in their hearts. We need fewer labels and more unity in our country. For all the reasons I have mentioned above, I oppose the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and a former attorney general of California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and a ranking member of the IP subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney), a member of the Judiciary Committee and a former speaker of the Florida house.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), also a member of the Judiciary Committee.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Judiciary Committee, and also the ranking deputy member of the Crimes Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman fro Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, I will yield the balance of my time to my good friend and colleague from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I do oppose it, in the current form.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is straightforward. It seeks to protect America's senior citizens and those who serve in our Armed Forces.

My colleagues on the other side contend that a new law is needed to cover crimes against persons based on race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. The motion to recommit makes sure that seniors and our military personnel are added to the list of protected groups.

We all care greatly about the safety and security of our senior citizens. We all understand that they are particularly vulnerable to crime. Criminals who prey on our senior citizens because they are senior citizens should be vigorously prosecuted and punished.

The statistics paint a disturbing picture of violence against senior citizens in our country. A recent Justice Department study found that each year over the last 10 years, for every 1,000 persons over 65, four are violently assaulted. This includes rape, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assaults. Approximately 65 percent of these crimes against senior citizens are committed by strangers or casual acquaintances. In my hometown, the San Antonio police report rising crime against the elderly, with over 6,200 crimes just this last year.

We were all horrified by the recent videotaped robbery in New York City committed against 101-year-old Rose Morat. Rose was leaving her building to go to church when a robber, who pretended to help her through the vestibule, turned and delivered three hard punches to her face and grabbed her purse. He pushed her and her walker to the ground. Rose suffered a broken cheekbone and was hospitalized. The robber got away with $33 and her house keys. Police believe the same man robbed an 85-year-old woman shortly after beating Rose.

These are horrible crimes that strike fear into the hearts of America's senior citizens and make them wonder whether they will be victimized next.

This motion to recommit also adds the category of current or former members of the Armed Forces to the list of groups in this bill. We honor our men and women of the military because of their patriotism, their commitment to protecting our freedom and their service to our country. In times of controversy surrounding the use of our military, we have seen unfortunate acts by those who use their hostility towards the military to further their political agenda.

With the rising debate over the Iraq war, we are seeing increasing threats to Iraqi war veterans. Recently, a Syracuse woman pleaded guilty to spitting in the face of a Fort Drum soldier at an airport.

Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to make it clear to everyone that we honor our veterans and current members of our Armed Forces. Congress can make the message clear that hate of our Armed Forces will be punished at a heightened level, just like the other groups under this act.

If Congress rejects this motion to recommit, who will explain to the thousands of victims who are senior citizens or military victims that their injuries are less important than those of others protected under the hate crimes law? Are we really prepared to tell seniors and our men and women in uniform across our country that crimes committed against victims because of race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability are, as a rule, more worthy of punishment than those committed against seniors and military personnel?

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully object.

Mr. Speaker, I also object to that request.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on

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

Mr. Speaker, the hate crimes bill, H.R. 1592, will provide assistance to State and local enforcement agencies and amend Federal law to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of violent, bias-motivated crimes.

Last Congress, this legislation passed with a bipartisan vote, and it also passed in the 108th Congress and the 106th Congress. So we have the same bill before us that we had in the 109th Congress.

This legislation has attracted the support of over 211 civil rights organizations, educational institutions, religious organizations, civic groups; and importantly, virtually every major law enforcement organization in the country has endorsed the bill, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the Police Executive Research Forum and 26 State attorneys general.

Hate crimes are disturbingly prevalent and pose a significant threat to the full participation of all Americans in our democratic society. It just so happens that we documented 113,000 hate crimes by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and in the year 2005, the most current data available, the FBI compiled reports on law enforcement agencies across the country, identifying 7,163 bias-motivated criminal incidents.

The fact of the matter that is known to law enforcement is that hate crime incidents are notoriously underreported; and so we come here today to take the civil rights laws that we have passed across the years to the last, final extent, to crimes of violence based on the hate of the individual, intended to intimidate the class or group that that individual comes from.

We have a strong bill. We have more supporters than ever in the Congress and in the national community, and we know that the current law limits Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin, but only when the victim is targeted because he or she is engaged in a Federal protected activity, such as voting.

Further, the existing statutes do not permit Federal involvement in a range of cases where the crimes are motivated by bias against the victims' actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability.

This legislation, identical to the version approved in the 109th Congress, will strengthen existing Federal law in the same way that the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 helped Federal prosecutors combat church arson, by addressing the rigid jurisdictional requirements under Federal law and expand the jurisdiction to crimes motivated by bias against the victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability.

This bill only applies to bias-motivated crimes of violence. It does not impinge on public speech or writing in any way. In fact, the measure improves two explicit first amendment free speech protections for the accused, and we want you to know that there are no first amendment disabilities about this measure in any way. As a personal advocate of the first amendment, I can assure you that that would be the last thing that would be allowed to be in this bill.

What we are saying now is that a vote for this bill is not a vote in favor of any particular sexual belief or characteristic. It is a vote, rather, to provide basic rights for and protection for individuals so that they are protected from assaults based on their sexual orientation.

But the majority of incidents reported on racially motivated crimes, 54 percent, are based on racially motivated crimes, 17 percent on religious bias, and 14 percent on sexual orientation bias.

The time has come for the Congress to finally deal with this whole subject

of hate crimes. It is a blot on our constitutional understanding of what democracy is all about, and it is so important that today we debate and pass finally the hate crimes law that has been here and approved in three different Congresses.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the committee, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.

First of all, I want to assure my friend Mr. Lungren, the former attorney general of California, that we have no opposition about dealing with the definition of which he complained.

I also take this opportunity to remind him that 26 State attorney generals, just like you were, approved this bill.

Now I turn to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Bobby Scott, and I yield him 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

(Mr. SHAYS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Jerry Nadler, for 2 minutes.

I yield 1 minute now to a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Ellison of Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield to a distinguished Member on the Judiciary Committee, Steve Cohen of Tennessee, for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased now to recognize the gentleman from Alabama, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, Artur Davis for 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased now to recognize the most distinguished civil rights leader that we have serving in the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. John Lewis. And I yield to him 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased now to yield to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) for 1 minute.

(Mr. CLYBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds to respond to my dear friend from California (Mr. Lungren).

The purpose of this hate crime bill is to supplement State and local actions. It is not to take over.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hank Johnson, member of the Judiciary Committee, 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the chairman of our caucus, Mr. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary from Houston, Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to Jan Schakowsky of Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my colleagues. We have twice as many requests for time than we have the time.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 30 seconds to the brilliant gentlelady from Oakland, California, Barbara Lee.

(Ms. LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor now to recognize the Speaker of the House, Ms. Nancy Pelosi, for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield now for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Ohio.

(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 30 seconds to my dear friend from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize our brother from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver), himself a minister, for 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I now recognize the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) for 30 seconds.

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

I am now pleased to recognize Lynn Woolsey of California for 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to conclude our debate by yielding our remaining time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, would he yield for a unanimous consent request that the bill be amended as follows: Page 12, line 5 after ``orientation'' insert ``status as a senior citizen who has attained the age of 65 years; status as a current or former member of the armed services.''

Would the gentleman yield for a unanimous consent request on that?

Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, the proponent of the motion to recommit, yield for a unanimous consent request that the motion be amended by striking the word ``promptly'' and inserting the word ``forthwith?''

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I notice that the motion being offered by the gentleman provides the bill be reported back to the House ``promptly'' rather than reported back ``forthwith.''

Is it true, as I believe to be the case, that the effect of the word ``promptly'' is that the House is not being asked to amend this bill, but to send it off the Floor and back to the Judiciary Committee?

Mr. Speaker, I do.

Mr. Speaker, I am not inclined to at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the motion to recommit, which would not operate as a simple amendment, but, listen to me, would instead send the bill back to the Committee on the Judiciary, in essence killing the bill for the remainder of the Congress.

The categories of individuals included in the amendment, seniors and members of the armed services, are entitled to protection under the law, and in point of fact they have protection under the law at both Federal and State levels. I note that it is already a Federal crime to kill or attempt to kill any member of the armed services under 18