Providing for consideration of 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 thank my colleague from the Rules Committee for yielding time to us to be able to discuss this bill, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The discussion surrounding this bill today will no doubt center on the idea of crimes committed out of hate. There will be talk about the scourge of violent hate crime, which begs the question: Is there such a thing as nonhateful violent crime?

But in all the debate over criminal acts, a larger and forgotten debate is often left unspoken, and that is the debate over the role of free expression in our society. If this bill becomes law, it will have a chilling effect on many law-abiding Americans' freedom of expression.

The robust and healthy exchange of ideas is an American distinction. Because we are a land where free expression is one of our cherished foundational ideals, we have a long tradition of protecting the speech of everyone, from those with the most mainstream ideas to those on the fringe. Why do we do this? Because we know that in the end, in a healthy marketplace of ideas where the public square allows for an airing of all ideas, the best ideas and principles come out on top. In a strong marketplace of ideas, an American marketplace, bankrupt ideas are destined to fail. We should not live and legislate in fear of bankrupt ideas.

Marginal concepts, bad ideas, and flawed philosophies will always be buried beneath the tide of free and democratic expression, where free speech protects the individual's right to hold and express an opinion, even if such an opinion may be wrong. Holding this ideal is one reason why we on the minority side are so distressed that this

is a closed rule and we are not going to be allowed to offer amendments today because we know yesterday from the Rules Committee that some of our amendments would garner majority support, and we are very distressed about that.

Ultimately, a healthy public square always has a chilling effect on the forces of hatred. But today we are considering a bill that will start us down the road towards a public square that is less robust, more restrictive, and that will squelch our cherished constitutional right to free speech. It will establish a new category of criminal activity, which is thought crimes. Today it is the politically correct thought crimes, those directed toward certain protected groups, but when we open the door creating this new criminal category of thought crimes, it is but a small step to add new types of thought crimes to the list, and suddenly we find ourselves back on the Orwellian threshold of Nineteen Eighty-Four and staring down the specter of the thought police.

In George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions but also the thoughts of its subjects, labeling disapproved thoughts with the term ``thought crime.'' The Thought Police use psychology and omnipresent surveillance to find and eliminate members of society who are capable of the mere thought of challenging ruling authority.

The way this bill is written, law enforcement will be called upon to unearth a criminal's motivation for committing a crime. The questions must then be asked: What thoughts caused the perpetrator to commit the so-called hate crime? And what caused this person to have these thoughts? Could it have been, for example, the sermon of a local religious leader, perhaps a respected local rabbi, who preached a message out of a religious conviction and belief in a sacred book? Under this law that rabbi may be guilty of inducing an act of violence simply because of his religious convictions. And it wouldn't take many arrests to put a choke hold on the free speech of religious leaders across our Nation.

In closing, I would like to quote liberal commentator Glenn Greenwald, certainly no apologist for conservatives like myself. But he has some strong words for hate crime laws such as those which already exist in Europe and in our neighbor to the north, Canada. Writing on salon.com last year, he called hate crimes laws ``oppressive'' and ``pernicious.'' Allow me to quote him at length because he summarizes the consequences of this type of legislation very well:

``Empowering the State to proscribe and punish speech is not only the most dangerous step a society can take, though it is that, it's also the most senseless. It never achieves its intended effect of suppressing or eliminating a particular view. If anything, it has the opposite effect, by driving it underground, thus preventing debate and exposure.''

As I said earlier, the best antidote to hate, perceived or real, is the bright light of public debate and scrutiny, not the outright censorship contained in this so-called hate crimes legislation.

My friends, this legislation starts us down a slippery slope. No longer are all Americans subject to equal justice under the law. No. A murderer of a police officer can be treated more leniently under this law than someone who is convicted of a so-called hate-motivated murder of a protected class of citizens. This is not equal justice. This is the codifying of a thought crimes law that weakens our first amendment and that dilutes our long tradition of equal justice under the law.

I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) a member of the Judiciary Committee, who offered several excellent amendments that were rejected by the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for us to respond to some of the comments that have been made here this afternoon by our friends on the other side, and I appreciate the gentlewoman from Texas bringing up an issue that I think needs to be responded to.

As she pointed out, these crimes are being taken care of in the States. Forty-five States already have hate crime laws. What we are doing with this bill, as one of my colleagues has said earlier, is going in and preempting what the States are doing. This is abrogating the 10th Amendment again. The Constitution has clearly left to the States and localities and the people things that are not spelled out in the Constitution.

As soon as I am finished, I will do that.

However, nobody has said that the States aren't doing an adequate job of administering the laws that they have already. We don't need the Federal Government going in and working with them.

The issue of giving them assistance is another issue. If nothing else, that is a good reason to vote against this bill, because the bill states ``such sums as are needed.'' We are creating another entitlement program. Now, the grants say $100,000, but we are going to have people going after this money, putting ourselves more in debt, not included in the budget, not included in the appropriations but outside the budget. If you didn't vote against this bill and against this rule for any other reason, you could vote against it because we are spending additional money.

I also would like to point out that there was a bill, the hate crimes bill called the Matthew Shepard Act, named after a very unfortunate incident that happened where a young man was killed. But we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay. The bill was named for him, the hate crimes bill was named for him, but it is really a hoax that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills.

In just a moment.

I also want to point out that one of the concerns that we have and why we believe that free speech is being endangered by this bill is the fact that the word ``perceived'' is used so often in this bill. In fact, I have pulled each one of them out. It says ``is motivated by prejudice based on actual or perceived race.''

Throughout the bill, there are five instances where the word ``perceived'' is used, but the word ``perceived'' is never defined. We believe that that opens up a Pandora's box in terms of how people can use this bill to stifle free speech. Our colleagues on the other side have not been willing to define this word or, again, to take amendments that many of us believe would have made this bill much, much better.

So I say to my colleagues, this is not the kind of legislation we should be passing in this country in this day.

If the gentlewoman wants to ask me a question which I can answer quickly, since I am on my time, I will yield. If it is a matter to speak on, then I would ask her to ask for time on her side.

I have read the bill and read it carefully, and I have great problems with the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to our colleague from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), who also offered several amendments that were not taken.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 90 seconds now to my colleague from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues who have spoken here today have been extremely eloquent, and they've done a very, very good job of saying why this rule is bad and why the underlying bill is bad.

I want to end with a summary and with a quote. I want to quote from a column by William Raspberry from The Washington Post, April 9, 1999. And I'm quoting from the end of that column. The title of it is Thought Crimes. ``What I'm asking is this: Isn't it enough that people be punished for what they do, rather than for the attitudes that drive them to do it? What is the advantage of prosecuting people for what amounts to crimes of wrong thinking? Surely we don't expect expanded legislation to change their thinking, and we've already got laws against the awful behavior their warped thinking may produce. But I can't see that Clinton's proposal can do any good whatever. But as I said, it's likely to do negligible harm, so I'll just shut up.''

Mr. Raspberry is certainly not a conservative speaker or writer. However, he shares the same view that I and my colleagues have shared today.

And let me summarize, again, why we're opposed to this bill. Our criminal justice system has been built on the ideal of equal justice for all. This bill turns that fundamental principle on its head. Justice will no longer be equal but will depend on the race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status of the victim. The bill is unconstitutional, we believe, and will likely be struck down by the courts.

The hate crimes bill will restrict religious freedom and first amendment rights by raising the possibility that religious leaders or members of religious groups could be prosecuted criminally based on their speech or protected activities.

We believe this bill itself will spread fear and intimidation. Religious organizations may be chilled from expressing their ideas regarding homosexuality out of fear from involvement in the criminal process.

The bill also federalizes crimes that are being effectively prosecuted by our States and local governments.

In 2007, of the approximately 17,000 homicides that occurred in the United States, only 9 of the murders were determined to be motivated by bias. Regarding crimes where there are actual victims, there's no evidence that States are not fully prosecuting violent crimes involving ``hate.''

We all agree that every violent crime is deplorable, regardless of its motivation. Every violent crime can be devastating, not only to the victim, but the larger community whose public safety has been violated.

That is why all violent crimes must be vigorously prosecuted. Individuals prosecuted under this legislation, though, are not going to be punished for just their actions, but for their thoughts.

Mr. Speaker, this underlying bill is a bad bill and it is a bad rule, and I urge its defeat.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 372 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman, my friend from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 372 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.

This legislation is a vital step towards bringing the full protection of the law to those targeted for violent, bias-motivated crimes simply because of who they are. This bill expands the Federal hate crimes law to include protections for crimes directed at individuals because of their gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.

These crimes are designed to intimidate entire communities on the basis of personal and immutable characteristics. All of us in this Chamber know

that hate crimes tear the fabric of our society and fragment communities because they target an entire community or group of people, not just the individual victim.

This legislation makes important new changes to Federal civil rights law by providing new Federal authority for investigating and prosecuting criminal civil rights violations. It authorizes the Attorney General to provide assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of violent crimes motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of the victim.

This bill spans interstate lines by establishing uniform Federal protections against hate crimes as a backdrop to existing laws in every State. It directs the Attorney General to give priority for assistance to cases in which offenders have committed crimes in more than one State and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary expenses associated with investigations and prosecutions.

This bill makes it a Federal criminal offense to cause or attempt to cause bodily harm through the use of fire, firearms, or explosive devices against a person due to bias-driven violence.

These provisions enhance our country's 233-year tradition of protecting liberty, freedom, and acceptance by protecting and recognizing the human dignity of every person. No person should live in fear of violence because of who they are.

Some have criticized this legislation by claiming that the hate crimes bill will infringe upon free speech, somehow turning Federal authorities into ``thought police.'' In my view, this is simply not true. The hate crime bill adds no new classes of crime. This legislation is not about thinking or believing, but acting and harming.

This legislation strengthens, not weakens, the First Amendment freedom of speech protections. It prohibits for use as evidence a defendant's speech or association unless specifically related to the crime, and this legislation does not disturb constitutionally protected speech or associations.

It is preposterous to argue that this bill criminalizes thoughts and beliefs. The bill does not criminalize those who hate or disagree with other people or groups of people. It criminalizes acts of violence against people based on the victim's characteristics.

Under current law, the Federal Government's involvement is only authorized in those cases in which the victim was targeted because of race, color, religion, or national origin. The current protection is neither uniform nor comprehensive, and this has important practical and symbolic consequences.

It is vital that the Federal Government send a message to the American people that hate crimes committed because of one's sexual orientation, gender identity, gender, or disability are as intolerable as those motivated by race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion.

Some also argue that we're federalizing crimes already illegal under State laws, providing limited jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute bias-motivated crimes. However, Congress has rejected this argument repeatedly by passing hundreds of bills that give the Federal Government jurisdiction over crimes that States already consider illegal.

From 1995 to 2006, my friends on the other side controlled Congress and enacted nearly 100 public laws imposing new Federal criminal penalties for conduct that was already under State law and creating over 600 new Federal crimes.

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.

It is easy to recognize the difference between the arson of an office building versus the intentional torching of a church or synagogue. The church or synagogue or mosque burning has a profound impact on the congregation, the faith community, the local community, and the Nation. We're all affected by violent acts of hatred, and there is ample evidence that violent, bias-motivated crimes continue to be a widespread and serious problem in our Nation.

In my home State, the most recent Florida Hate Crimes Report published by the Florida Attorney General reported a total of 193 hate crimes, 14.5 percent of which were motivated by sexual orientation. Additionally, poll after poll continues to show that the American public supports hate crimes legislation inclusive of sexual orientation. FBI data show 1,265 hate crime incidents directed at gays and lesbians in the year 2007 alone, the third most frequent victims and over 16 percent of all hate crimes reported that year. And 79 hate crime incidents directed at disabled victims were also reported that year. And, unfortunately, we know it is widely accepted that hate crimes specifically against those with disabilities remain vastly underreported. Mr. Speaker, this is clearly a problem that merits the passage of an expanded hate crimes law.

Furthermore, this legislation is endorsed by over 300 law enforcement, civil rights, civic and religious organizations including the National Sheriffs Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, National District Attorneys Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Human Rights Campaign, the Presbyterian Church, the Episcopal Church, the NAACP, and the National Disability Rights Network.

Mr. Speaker, this measure would give local law enforcement officials important tools to combat violent, bias-motivated crime. Federal support, through training and direct assistance, will help ensure that bias-motivated violence is effectively investigated and prosecuted. The legislation would also facilitate Federal investigations and prosecutions when local authorities are unwilling or unable to achieve a just result.

As we consider H.R. 1913 today, let us remember that this hate crimes bill is also known as the Matthew Shepard Act, in memory of the 21- year-old University of Wyoming student who was brutally tortured and murdered in 1998 just because he was gay. At the time of his murder just a few years ago, no criminal statute existed in Wyoming to charge his killers with a hate crime nor was there Federal financial assistance available to aid the local authorities in Laramie, Wyoming, with investigating and prosecuting his murder.

The fact of the matter is hate crimes happen every day and we should not wait for another Matthew Shepard to ensure justice.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado, my good friend and member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Polis.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend and former member of the Rules Committee, and my fellow Floridian, Ms. Castor.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to my good friend the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the author of this legislation, my good friend, Mr. Conyers.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to my good friend the distinguished Congressional Black Caucus Chair, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of time.

Mr. Speaker, I have been on the Rules Committee a considerable amount of time, both in the minority and in the majority, and I have seen things come to the Rules Committee that I thought were trivializing the process, but yesterday took the cake for me.

We had an amendment offered by one of our colleagues to this particular legislation. I guess it was done in a creative fashion, and certainly the author of it did spend some time looking in the dictionary or creating new terms. And I apologize to our transcriber, but I am going to put in the Record what we have to put up with in the Rules Committee.

``The term sexual orientation,'' this proposed amendment said, ``as used in this act, or any amendments made by this act, does not include apotemnophilia, asphyxophilia, autogynephilia, coprophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, gerontosexuality, incest, kleptophilia, klismaphilia, necrophilia, partialism, pedophilia, sexual masochism, sexual sadism, telephone scatalogia, toucherism, transgenderism, transsexual, transvestite, transvestic fetishism, urophilia, voyeurism, or zoophilia.''

All I can say is the late-night comedians need to come up there with me sometime so that they can get into the spirit of spuriousness that comes there on certain occasions.

This is serious business. Mr. Speaker, we can't legislate love, but we can legislate against hate. This legislation may not rid us of the intolerance and prejudices that continue to taint our society, but it will provide an added deterrent to those for whom these feelings manifest themselves into acts of violence. They will be fully aware that, should they commit a hate crime, there will be no lenience and they will not slip through the cracks of the American legal system.

Further, passage of this Hate Crimes bill will increase public education and awareness and encourage Americans to report hate crimes that all too often are silent.

Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice, and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability--or all of these philias and fetishes and isms that were put forward--need not live in fear because of who they are.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule so that we continue to move this country toward fully achieving its promise of justice and liberty for all Americans.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

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

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.