Hate Crime Statistics Improvement Act of 2009

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

Mr. Speaker, every year thousands of violent crimes are committed out of hate, but just as many violent crimes, if not more, are motivated by something other than hate--greed, jealousy, desperation or revenge, just to name a few. An individual's motivation for committing a violent crime is usually complex and often speculative.

Every violent crime is deplorable, regardless of its motivation. Every violent crime can be devastating, not only to the victim and their family, but also to the larger community whose sense of safety has been violated. That's why all violent crimes should be vigorously prosecuted.

Unfortunately, this bill undermines one of the most basic principles of our criminal justice system--equal justice for all. Under this bill, justice will no longer be equal. Justice will now depend on the race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status of the victim. It will allow different penalties to be imposed for the same crime. This is the real injustice.

One of the most troublesome aspects of this bill is that it divides America. It divides America by race, again, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or other status. We should focus on the opposite, uniting America, not dividing our country.

The bill also could have a chilling effect on the words of religious leaders or members of religious groups. For example, religious individuals who feel strongly about some values may hesitate to discuss their personal beliefs about homosexuality or gay marriage for fear of criminal investigation.

Some of my colleagues on the other side claim that the bill protects religious speech. But religious leaders could still be subjected to criminal investigations and be reluctant to preach the teachings of their faith as a result of this bill.

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

In 2000, the Supreme Court in United States v. Morrison struck down a prohibition on gender-motivated violence. In that case the court specifically warned Congress that the commerce clause does not extend to ``noneconomic, violent criminal conduct'' that does not cross State lines.

Nor is the proposed legislation authorized under the 14th and 15th Amendments. Those amendments extend only to State action and do not cover the actions of private persons who commit violent crimes.

While the 13th Amendment reaches private action such as individual criminal conduct, it is difficult to argue that one's religion or national origin constitutes a ``badge'' or ``incident'' of slavery, the subject of the 13th Amendment.

Also this bill purports to federalize crimes that are being successfully prosecuted by our States and local governments. Furthermore, FBI statistics show that the incidence of so-called hate crimes has actually declined and substantially declined over the last 10 years. In 2007, for example, of the approximately 17,000 homicides that occurred in the U.S., only nine of the 17,000 murders were determined to be motivated by bias.

This legislation blurs the lines between violent belief, which is constitutionally protected, and violent action, which is not. If we go down this road, where does it end? With speech monitors and thought police?

I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee and now the ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who is the vice ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), a member of the Judiciary Committee and a former ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), a former judge and now the deputy ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and the deputy ranking member of the Court Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), former judge, and now the ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and who is also deputy ranking member of the Administrative Law Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), who is also the chairman of the Values Action Team.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, under this legislation, criminals who kill certain people will be punished more harshly than people who kill a police officer, a member of the military, a child, or a senior citizen.

Is a murder motivated by hatred for something other than the victim's membership in a particular group any less devastating or tragic? All crime victims should have equal worth in the eyes of the law. Ordinarily, criminal law does not concern itself with motive, why a person acted, but rather with intent, whether the perpetrator intended or knew that they would cause harm. If someone intends to harm a person, no motive makes them more or less culpable for their conduct.

This legislation will force law enforcement officials and prosecutors to gather evidence about the offender's thoughts and words regardless of the criminality of their actions.

When the government starts to punish thoughts, this is a dangerous road to travel. And where does it end? With thought police?

Mr. Speaker, we cannot legislate away hate, nor should we criminalize a person's thoughts, no matter how much we might disagree with them. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), who is also chairman of the Republican Conference.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following letter from four members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights who are opposed to H.R. 1913:

United States Commission

on Civil Rights,

Washington, DC, April 29, 2009.

Re: H.R. 1913

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Steny H. Hoyer,

Majority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. James E. Clyburn,

Majority Whip, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Eric Cantor,

Minority Whip, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Madam Speaker and Messrs. Boehner, Cantor, Clyburn and

Hoyer: We write today to urge you to vote against the

proposed Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act

(H.R. 1913) (``LLEHCPA''). Although time does not permit this

issue to be presented for formal Commission action, we

believe it is important for us to write as individual members

to communicate our serious concerns with this legislation.

We believe that LLEHCPA will do little good and a great

deal of harm. Its most important effect will be to allow

federal authorities to re-prosecute a broad category of

defendants who have already been acquitted by state juries--

as in the Rodney King and Crown Heights cases more than a

decade ago. Due to the exception for prosecutions by ``dual

sovereigns,'' such double prosecutions are technically not

violations of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S.

Constitution. But they are very much a violation of the

spirit that drove the framers of the Bill of Rights, who

never dreamed that federal criminal jurisdiction would be

expanded to the point where an astonishing proportion of

crimes are now both state and federal offenses. We regard

the broad federalization of crime as a menace to civil

liberties. There is no better place to draw the line on

that process than with a bill that purports to protect

civil rights.

While the title of LLEHCPA suggests that it will apply only

to ``hate crimes,'' the actual criminal prohibitions

contained in it do not require that the defendant be inspired

by hatred or ill will in order to convict. It is sufficient

if he acts ``because of someone's actual or perceived race,

color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation,

gender identity or disability. Consider:

Rapists are seldom indifferent to the gender of their

victims. They are virtually always chosen ``because of their

gender.

A robber might well steal only from women or the disabled

because, in general, they are less able to defend themselves.

Literally, they are chosen ``because of their gender or

disability.

While Senator Edward Kennedy has written that it was not

his intention to cover all rape with LLEHCPA, some DOJ

officials have declined to disclaim such coverage. Moreover,

both the objective meaning of the language and considerable

legal scholarship would certainly include such coverage. If

all rape and many other crimes that do not rise to the level

of a ``hate crime'' in the minds of ordinary Americans are

covered by LLEHCPA, then prosecutors will have ``two bites at

the apple'' for a very large number of crimes.

DOJ officials have argued that LLEHCPA is needed because

state procedures sometimes make it difficult to obtain

convictions. They have cited a Texas case from over a decade

ago involving an attack on a black man by three white

hoodlums. Texas law required the three defendants to be tried

separately. By prosecuting them under federal law, however,

they could have been tried together. As a result, admissions

made by one could be introduced into evidence at the trial of

all three without falling foul of the hearsay rule.

Such an argument should send up red flags. It is just an

end-run around state procedures designed to ensure a fair

trial. The citizens of Texas evidently thought that separate

trials were necessary to ensure that innocent men and women

are not punished. No one was claiming that Texas applies this

rule only when the victim is black or female or gay. And

surely no one is arguing that Texans are soft on crime. Why

interfere with their judgment?

We are unimpressed with the arguments in favor of LLEHCPA

and would be happy to discuss the matter further with you if

you so desire. Please do not hesitate to contact any of us

with your questions or comments. The Chairman's Counsel and

Special Assistant, Dominique Ludvigson, is also available to

further direct your inquiries at dludvigson@usccr.gov or at

(202) 376-7626.

Sincerely,

Gerald A. Reynolds,

Chairman.

Gail L. Heriot,

Commissioner.

Todd Gaziano,

Commissioner.

Peter N. Kirsanow,

Commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the bill (H.R. 1913) to provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield control of 10 minutes of the debate to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Mark Kirk.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Members of the House, the measure before us enables the Department of Justice to come to the aid of State and local law enforcement agencies in investigating and prosecuting bias-based brutality and helping defer the costs when they overwhelm State and local resources. And when necessary--and if approved by the highest, Senate-confirmed Department officials--it authorizes the Department to step in and prosecute at the Federal level.

What we are doing here today is expanding existing Federal hate crimes law beyond the confines of protecting access to a limited set of specified protected activities. What we do is add to the current list of group characteristics deservedly recognized for protection, the reason being due to their being well-known targets for bias-based violence. So we add new ones that also clearly belong on the list, and this is after careful scrutiny and hearings on this issue--they are sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability.

These crimes of violence are directed not just at those who are directly attacked; they are targeting the entire group with the threat of violence. So the groups in the bill differ from other groups that some have been trying to add on--and I understand some of their reasons for that--but which do not share the same kind of history of being targeted over a period of time for hate-based violence.

Our approach is consistent with the judgment made by the States that have hate crimes laws--45 of them. They have made the same judgment as we have made for Federal law, that these many other groups should be protected elsewhere in the law, not in hate crimes law.

I close by reminding Members that under Lyndon Johnson in 1968 we first started the hate crimes bill under the church arson bill. The President called us into the White House with the governors of southern States to advise them that the burning of churches, the arson, the cross burnings were so out of control in many States that there was no other remedy except by Federal statute. The Federal Government would have to be authorized to intercede where they invited them to do so. From that has grown this bill, based on law that has been tested in the Supreme Court and many other lower courts.

And so we come before you with a bill that does not encroach upon the First Amendment, or the Fourth Amendment, or the part of the Constitution that leaves all other powers to the States. I urge your continued careful consideration of it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, himself a longtime member of the bar and a supporter of civil rights, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Constitution Committee on the Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler of New York.

I am pleased now to recognize a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, the gentlelady from Texas, Sheila Jackson- Lee, for 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like now to yield 2 minutes to a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, who is also a chairperson of another subcommittee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to Steve Cohen, a State legislator and lawyer for more than 24 years.

I am pleased to yield now 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize for 1 minute the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who has been the cochair of the Progressive Caucus for many years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to give 2 minutes to the Crime Subcommittee chairman for many years, Bobby Scott of Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York, Eliot Engel.

Mr. Speaker, would you advise us with regard to how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chaka Fattah.

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

Mr. Speaker, I now recognize the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green) for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the distinguished gentlelady from Maryland, an attorney herself, Donna Edwards, for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to control the remainder of the time that I previously yielded to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Wisconsin who has served ably on the Committee on the Judiciary for a number of years, Tammy Baldwin, for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, who is Chair of the Finance Committee but previously has served his entire career on the House Judiciary Committee, and his name is Barney Frank.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you.

I would like to congratulate the Members of the House for the debate that's occurred on the hate crimes legislation because of the very effective way that they have communicated their reservations about the way we approached the subject.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that there would be agreement to dispense with that portion of the motion dealing with the armed services.

No, sir, I do not.

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

I thank you.

I suppose this is the parliamentary part of the legislative process that a motion to recommit has to be entertained, but before I begin my discussion about the regrets of it, I still insist on complimenting the Members of the House of Representatives who have understood that there are particular acts of violence against the law that are intolerable and should be dealt with as effectively as possible.

The question is what is the most effective way.

Now, what we have been proposing, since 1968, during the civil rights era, where there was an inability to seek prosecution of violators of civil rights laws at the State level, a southern President, Lyndon Johnson, began realizing that there had to be a Federal method of dealing with certain crimes that were not only violent to the victims but served to send a message of intimidation to others in that same class or group. Those groups, we have listed.

These groups are being denied the most fundamental protection of liberty. They are targeted for the most extreme violence by extremists who have decided, in their own warped view of how we should exist among each other in our society, as people who don't deserve to have life.

The groups that are on this protected list and are identified as where hate crime laws kick in are being protected in the same way that has been going on all the way back these many years, since 1968.

The targets are not only the particular individuals who are attacked, but an extension of everyone in the group. The unmistakable intended threat to all is that not only are you not welcome, but you are despised, and you are not safe, and we are coming after you.

But this motion seeks simply to ignore these essential facts.

Let me talk about the three areas mentioned. The armed services, for example. While people who are disturbed at governmental policies and may direct anger at the military, members of the armed services are not victims of bias-based prejudice or hatred. To the contrary, they are honored for their service to our Nation, with national holidays in their honor, memorials, and other economic benefits, all of which are deserved. But they are not in the same situation as the groups we are seeking to protect in this bill. Besides, specific protections for members of the armed services already exist in the Federal law----it makes killing someone in the military a capital crime.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want a clarification, Mr. Speaker, for a point of order.

The gentleman said that there was a commandment against bearing false witness, as if that is what one does when they say someone can be prosecuted, and I would ask for a ruling from the Chair on whether that violates the rule of this body.

Well, unlike my friend from Tennessee, I am not going to allege that anyone on the other side of this issue is trying to bear false witness.

I believe the motivation is good, but we even heard the majority leader say this bill stands for equality under the law. I don't believe he meant to misstate the truth, but the truth is this bill sets out different classifications that are more special than others. Someone suggested that perhaps people would be happy if we just said, I'll tell you what. If you assault a white male, then you just get half the sentence of assaulting someone else.

We want equal justice under the law; that's what we are supposed to have. I have a letter here from the National Black Church Initiative that was sent to Senator Leahy 2 years ago. It is signed by one, two, three, four, five, six, seven--well, I can't count them all. There are four pages of names. But the first is Anthony Evans, President of the D.C. Black Church Initiative. But it says things including, ``The National Black Church Initiative is a coalition of 16,000 churches.'' ``We have 18,000 sister churches.'' They are located in virtually every congressional district in America. ``If the U.S. Senate passes this bill and thus codifies sexual orientation as a protected legal class, it will open up a constitutional war between the church and the radical gay community. We know the gay community plans to use this piece of legislation to try to legally force the church to recognize their abominable lifestyle''--some very strong statements there.

I have just received a letter dated April 29 from the United States Commission on Civil Rights. ``We write today to urge you to vote against the proposed Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.'' They said, ``We believe the bill will do little good and a great deal of harm.'' They say some suggest it will only apply to hate crimes. But they point out, It is sufficient if he acts because of someone's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. Consider, rapists seldom are indifferent to the gender of their victims. They are virtually always chosen because of their gender. A robber might well steal from women or the disabled. Why? Because they perceive them to be weaker and more vulnerable.

Moreover, they say, The objective meaning of the language and considerable legal scholarship would certainly include these being covered. So all of these things would now become Federal crimes.

There is no epidemic. There are fewer numbers now than 10 years ago. There is no nexus. Ryan Skipper and Matthew Shepard's cases keep being brought up. For the defendants in those cases, I would have been happy to have signed an order for death. They got life. It would not affect them.

This law would not affect the Matthew Shepard case. It would not affect the Ryan Skipper case.

My friend from Florida brought up the Ryan Skipper case in Florida when I was talking in Judiciary and was asking: Is there a case you can give me where this would make a difference? That case was brought up. We did the research after the hearing. Well, guess what? Two defendants. One has already got life plus extra years on top of life. The other is about to go to trial. They didn't need a hate crimes law, a Federal hate crimes law.

This divides America. We don't need to divide America. Everybody deserves equal justice. The gangs who pick their victims based on violence against random targets get acquitted under this bill. They get acquitted for acting randomly.

We've got to vote ``no'' on this.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes.

I would object.

Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit is simple and straightforward. It adds three categories to the list of groups in this bill and provides the death penalty for certain hate crime offenses.

I would like to address what our friend from Massachusetts has indicated when he talked about the people who were arrested for their Christian position, nonviolent, and he kept indicating the charges were dismissed.

But as my friend from Massachusetts would surely know, when you can arrest people, even if you don't pursue charges, it has a chilling effect. Over and over it has a chilling effect.

And, also, there was some inference in his comments that we may believe that transgender individuals who were not worthy of being defended under the law or were not victims, I wasn't sure, but the truth is every American deserves to be equally protected. That is the law. That's the way it should be. That's the way wherever you go in the country. You don't find cases that are held up as poster cases for hate crimes that justify the hate crimes.

The James Byrd family, bless their hearts, I grieved with them. And based on the evidence that was presented, it was clear that these defendants committed a violent crime for which they should have gotten the death penalty. The two that did got it appropriately. This bill will not affect that case one bit. It will not affect it.

So we have tried to say, look, please don't divide us. Don't keep dividing into different categories and say these deserve more protection than these. Treat us all the same. That has fallen on deaf ears.

Every amendment was voted down in committee that we tried to present to make it more clear and to treat Americans equally. It's clear the majority has the votes to move forward and pass this. So our effort is then to add other worthy classes to this.

For example, in 2004, Private First Class Foster Barton of Grove City, Ohio, was brutally beaten. Six witnesses who didn't know Barton said the person that beat him up was screaming profanities and crude remarks about U.S. soldiers.

In 2007, a Syracuse woman pleaded guilty for spitting in the face of a Fort Drum soldier she didn't know.

These things happen. My friend from Florida in committee had indicated that she was not sure it appeared that the military should be added as a protected class under this bill, that not necessarily were they victims.

But I can tell you personally, having been spat at and on, after Vietnam, when I was at Fort Riley, Kansas, and we were ordered not to wear our uniforms off post in our platoon because of violence that was being done to servicemembers. It still happens. It still happens.

And witness the unseemly events outside some of our military hospitals by those who are so very insensitive. Now even the administration is targeting returning veterans as potential extremists. As the report said, ``Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists.'' Even the administration is trying to target veterans. So we would hope that they were included.

And there is absolutely no question that law enforcement officers are frequently targeted specifically because of who they are and because they are wearing the uniform and attempting to protect all the rest of us. We have so many brave public servants. Even in this building people have given their lives so that others in the building could have theirs. That needs to be honored.

The statistics show that even though the number of hate crimes, or crimes reportedly committed because of bias or prejudice, are lower now than they were 10 years ago. Those crimes have increased against law enforcement.

Age is another class that should be protected. The statistics are clear, and we have seen film evidence of elderly being attacked because they were perceived as elderly and less able to protect themselves. They deserve to be protected. These are classes that should be.

And then we come to another issue, and that is the fact that the hate crimes bill, as proposed, will not affect one of the hate crime bills held up so far as a poster case. We will add the death penalty so it can make a difference in those places where there was a horrible heinous crime. This will make a difference.

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

My thanks to the gentleman from Michigan, who has been such an extraordinary moral force in his leadership in the Judiciary Committee and under whom I was proud to serve.

Let me begin by saying apparently we have in Philadelphia one of the longest pending criminal cases in history because the gentleman from Indiana mentioned that people were arrested and charged in 2004. But he didn't tell us what happened to them. Well, he said it was terrible, they were charged. One would assume that people would be interested in knowing what happened.

I will tell the House what happened. The charges were dismissed. Now, the gentleman from Indiana apparently forgot to say that. Those arrests were false. They should not have taken place. But let me say this: If we were to repeal every criminal statute because some police officer may have made an improper arrest, things would be pretty anarchic.

I also do think if you're going to talk about an incident, certainly would be my practice, and if you talked about criminal charges and they were dismissed that you would say so, that you wouldn't leave people wondering. So I do want people who are worried about the fate of those poor people in Philadelphia who, if you listened to the gentleman from Indiana, these last 5 years have been facing felony charges, please don't worry. Those charges should not have been brought and they were dismissed. Now, you hear about that often because it's apparently the only case we do have. No one has been successfully prosecuted, nor should they be, for this.

Now, I do want to say this: I'm delighted to hear some of the most conservative Members of this House expressing support for free speech in this context. Only in this context. They have not been conspicuous in demanding the right of free speech, but I'll take it when I can get it.

There was a statute proposed here that interfered with the free speech of

a member of the clergy. Now, he is a lunatic member of the clergy named Phelps, and he was going and standing out at cemeteries and denouncing them on his religious grounds. I did not think people should be allowed to disrupt funerals, but I voted against the bill, along with my colleague from Texas (Mr. Paul) and my colleague from Oregon (Mr. Wu), and all the rest of these great defenders of free speech on the other side said he couldn't stand half a mile from the cemetery an hour before with his anti-gay sign. Now, I will confess that when he heard that I had come to his defense, that caused him more aggravation than anything else; so it was for me a twofer. I got to defend free speech and aggravate a lunatic. But I don't remember a lot of free speech defenses then because it wasn't popular.

Now, in addition to free speech, there is one other thing that's very interesting. You would think this is the first time hate crimes ever came up in American history. There are on the books statutes that increase the penalty for crimes depending on the motivation. And people say everybody should be treated equally. By the way, I assume Members know that there was a special statute that makes it particularly egregious in terms of sentencing if you assault a Member of Congress.

I assume nobody knew that on that side because they would have moved to repeal it. They apparently are perfectly comfortable getting a greater degree of Federal protection against crime than the average citizen.

Did they forget to repeal that? Where was that motion? Mr. Chairman, did that come up in the committee? Well, apparently not. But there were other categories, age and race.

Let's be very clear, Mr. Speaker. It is not the concept of hate crime protection that is controversial. We have had it and it has been administered. It is extending it to people like me, to those of us who are gay, to people who are transgender. And the assertion that there is no basis for protecting transgender people against violence, that's Marxist in its oddity.

And I mean by that, of course, Chico Marx, who said at one notable point when Groucho caught him red-handed, ``Who are you going to believe--me or your own eyes?''

The fact is that crimes against people who are transgender have been very serious. I know they are not always prosecuted as well as they should have been. But I do want to stress, the notion of hate crimes, of increasing the penalty because of the motivation for certain characteristics of the victim, has not been controversial on the Republican side. They have made no effort to change it.

If they were really motivated by what they claim to be saying, or what they are saying, then they would be for repealing hate crimes in general. They would be for repealing hate crimes based on race and age and other categories. It's only when it deals with gay people. And because in some people's minds saying that it's wrong to assault someone who is transgender may mean that you have to show some respect for that person.

Well, let me reassure them. I do think that there ought to be hate crimes protection against gay, lesbian and transgender people. By that I mean that if there is a physical crime, actions that are otherwise criminal, the fact that it is based on that prejudice should count.

I thank the chairman.

I want to make it very clear. Yes, I do want there to be protection against violence committed against people like me, but let me reassure those, some on the other side. In asking that transgender people or people like me or people like my colleague from Wisconsin be protected against violence, I am not seeking your approval. Your approval of the way in which I live is not terribly important to me, I would say to them, Mr. Speaker, so I do want to differentiate.

Those of us who think that violence should be prevented are not asking for approval from people with whom we are perfectly prepared not to associate any more than necessary. This is not a request for acceptance. We don't want it. We don't need it from those people. What we are talking about is a protection against violence.

The last point is this. Why a hate crime? Because when someone is assaulted as an individual, that individual is put in fear. But when a group is assaulted because of race or religion or sexual orientation, members who aren't assaulted, if there's a pattern to this, are also put in fear. That's the rationale, and it applies here as well as elsewhere.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I especially thank the ranking member of this committee for his strong and principled and thoughtful opposition to H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Mr. Speaker, those who know me, including my colleagues on this committee and the distinguished chairman of this committee, know that I abhor discrimination. I have associated myself throughout my career in Congress with efforts to advance the interests of minorities, and I will continue to do so. People who know me back home know that I have no tolerance for unkindness or disrespect to any individual for any reason, but most especially any disrespect or discrimination that is based on race, creed, or color is anathema to me. So I don't question the motives of those who would advance this legislation. I think I know the heart of many and understand it.

But I rise in opposition to this legislation for three reasons:

Number one, I believe that we should not treat thought the same way we treat action before the law. Number two, I believe this legislation is unnecessary when a careful examination of State prosecutions and the work that's being done at State levels is examined. And lastly and most ominously, I fear this legislation, intentionally or unintentionally, could have a chilling effect on the religious expression and the religious freedom of millions of Americans. So let me speak to each of those points.

Thomas Jefferson once said, ``Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith and his worship, the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, not opinions.'' Thomas Jefferson again stated the core of my objection to hate crimes legislation as a whole, and that is that violent attacks against people or property are already illegal regardless of the motive behind them. And it seems to me that the wisdom expressed by Thomas Jefferson in that quote is wisdom that ought to discipline this legislative body, that we ought to focus the reach of government on actions only and not opinions. And that remains the core of my objection to hate crimes legislation.

But even to those who believe, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation is appropriate, I must say that it is also important for our colleagues and anyone looking in to understand that this legislation is also unnecessary. The underlying offense in each of these crimes is already fully and aggressively prosecuted in all 50 States.

This bill designates in particular gender identity for federally protected status without, I might add, any evidence of any hate crimes occurring against individuals for gender identity. The hate crimes bill before us today makes a Federal offense out of any violent crime that is alleged to be motivated by gender identity including, for instance, people who describe themselves as transsexuals, even though the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990, as amended in 1994, never collected any data to show that such hate crimes are even occurring. In fact, the truth be told, FBI statistics show that the incidents of what are described as hate crimes has declined over the last 10 years, for which we have data. In 1997 a total of 8,000 what are called ``bias-motived'' criminal incidents were reported to the FBI. The data for 3 of the last 10 years, 2003 through 2005, demonstrated a steady decline in the number of those crimes, and the incidents as the present day approaches decline even further.

And, also, lastly, there is zero evidence that States are not fully prosecuting violent crimes that are motivated by hate or for any other reason. Every State in the Nation prohibits a variety of violent crimes that constitute ``willfully causing bodily injury.'' For whatever the purpose of the will of causing bodily injury, those crimes are prosecuted. And for those who advocate hate crimes legislation, a Federalist note: 45 States and the District of Columbia already have specific laws punishing hate crimes.

Which brings me to my last objection to this Federal legislation, and that is the concern that I have about the threat to religious freedom and religious expression. The gentlewoman who just spoke said, memorably, that this is not a hate speech bill, this is a hate crimes bill. But because those 45 States already have legislation involving hate crimes, we can see how this kind of legislation actually operates in practice.

One case in particular, in 2004 in Philadelphia, 11 individuals were arrested at something called OutFest, which is a gay pride festival. These individuals held signs that displayed segments of the Holy Bible. They were arrested after protesting peacefully. They were charged with three felonies and five misdemeanors. Their felony charges included ``possessions of instruments of crime,'' which apparently was a bullhorn; ethnic intimidation, which was apparently their statement that they believed as Biblical Christians that homosexuality is a sin; and also they were charged with inciting a riot for reading passages from the Bible related to that moral practice. Now, whether or not a riot occurred involving these Christians was debatable, but they faced $90,000 in fines and possible 47-year prison sentences.

In San Francisco a city council enacted a resolution urging local broadcast media not to run advertisements by a pro-family group. In New York a pastor who rented billboards posting Biblical quotations on sexual morality had them taken down by city officials who cited hate crime principles as justification.

We saw a new colleague today take that oath that we all take, and it was a solemn moment, Mr. Speaker. But we swear to support and uphold the Constitution, which reads, I remind my colleagues, ``Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''

We must not pass this hate crimes bill. It is unnecessary and it threatens that constitutional obligation that we have.