House Report 110-113 - LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT OF 2007

[House Report 110-113]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

110th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 110-113

======================================================================

LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT OF 2007

_______

April 30, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______

Mr. Conyers, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following

R E P O R T

together with

DISSENTING VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 1592]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 1592) to provide Federal assistance to States, local
jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and
for other purposes, having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the
bill as amended do pass.

CONTENTS

Page
The Amendment.................................................... 2
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 5
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 6
Hearings......................................................... 17
Committee Consideration.......................................... 17
Committee Votes.................................................. 17
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 31
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 31
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 31
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 33
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 33
Advisory on Earmarks............................................. 34
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 34
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 35
Dissenting Views................................................. 39

The Amendment

The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes
Prevention Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or
perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender,
sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the
victim poses a serious national problem.
(2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of
communities and is deeply divisive.
(3) State and local authorities are now and will continue
to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of
violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes
motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their
responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal
assistance.
(4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this
problem.
(5) A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated
by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and
the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages
the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be
selected.
(6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce
in many ways, including the following:
(A) The movement of members of targeted groups is
impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move
across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of
such violence.
(B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from
purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining
employment, or participating in other commercial
activity.
(C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such
violence.
(D) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of
interstate commerce are used to facilitate the
commission of such violence.
(E) Such violence is committed using articles that
have traveled in interstate commerce.
(7) For generations, the institutions of slavery and
involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and
ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary
servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption
of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States,
through widespread public and private violence directed at
persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived
race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially
motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the
extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery
and involuntary servitude.
(8) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th
amendments to the Constitution of the United States were
adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious
and national origin groups were and are perceived to be
distinct ``races''. Thus, in order to eliminate, to the extent
possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery, it is
necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of real or
perceived religions or national origins, at least to the extent
such religions or national origins were regarded as races at
the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments
to the Constitution of the United States.
(9) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes
motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local authorities
to work together as partners in the investigation and
prosecution of such crimes.
(10) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is
sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as
to warrant Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions,
and Indian tribes.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.

In this Act--
(1) the term ``crime of violence'' has the meaning given
that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;
(2) the term ``hate crime'' has the meaning given such term
in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and
(3) the term ``local'' means a county, city, town,
township, parish, village, or other general purpose political
subdivision of a State.

SEC. 4. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS BY STATE,
LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.

(a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance.--
(1) In general.--At the request of State, local, or Tribal
law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide
technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of
assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any
crime that--
(A) constitutes a crime of violence;
(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or
Tribal laws; and
(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual
or perceived race, color, religion, national origin,
gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or
disability of the victim, or is a violation of the
State, local, or Tribal hate crime laws.
(2) Priority.--In providing assistance under paragraph (1),
the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed by
offenders who have committed crimes in more than one State and
to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the
extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or
prosecution of the crime.
(b) Grants.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General may award grants to
State, local, and Indian law enforcement agencies for
extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and
prosecution of hate crimes.
(2) Office of justice programs.--In implementing the grant
program under this subsection, the Office of Justice Programs
shall work closely with grantees to ensure that the concerns
and needs of all affected parties, including community groups
and schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed through
the local infrastructure developed under the grants.
(3) Application.--
(A) In general.--Each State, local, and Indian law
enforcement agency that desires a grant under this
subsection shall submit an application to the Attorney
General at such time, in such manner, and accompanied
by or containing such information as the Attorney
General shall reasonably require.
(B) Date for submission.--Applications submitted
pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be submitted during
the 60-day period beginning on a date that the Attorney
General shall prescribe.
(C) Requirements.--A State, local, and Indian law
enforcement agency applying for a grant under this
subsection shall--
(i) describe the extraordinary purposes for
which the grant is needed;
(ii) certify that the State, local
government, or Indian tribe lacks the resources
necessary to investigate or prosecute the hate
crime;
(iii) demonstrate that, in developing a
plan to implement the grant, the State, local,
and Indian law enforcement agency has consulted
and coordinated with nonprofit, nongovernmental
victim services programs that have experience
in providing services to victims of hate
crimes; and
(iv) certify that any Federal funds
received under this subsection will be used to
supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds
that would otherwise be available for
activities funded under this subsection.
(4) Deadline.--An application for a grant under this
subsection shall be approved or denied by the Attorney General
not later than 30 business days after the date on which the
Attorney General receives the application.
(5) Grant amount.--A grant under this subsection shall not
exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any 1-year
period.
(6) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2008, the Attorney
General shall submit to Congress a report describing the
applications submitted for grants under this subsection, the
award of such grants, and the purposes for which the grant
amounts were expended.
(7) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

SEC. 5. GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) Authority To Award Grants.--The Office of Justice Programs of
the Department of Justice may award grants, in accordance with such
regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to State, local, or
Tribal programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles,
including programs to train local law enforcement officers in
identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST STATE, LOCAL,
AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of the
Treasury and the Department of Justice, including the Community
Relations Service, for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010 such sums as
are necessary to increase the number of personnel to prevent and
respond to alleged violations of section 249 of title 18, United States
Code, as added by section 7 of this Act.

SEC. 7. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

``(a) In General.--
``(1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color,
religion, or national origin.--Whoever, whether or not acting
under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any
person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive
or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any
person, because of the actual or perceived race, color,
religion, or national origin of any person--
``(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years,
fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
``(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or
for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both,
if--
``(i) death results from the offense; or
``(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an
attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or
an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse,
or an attempt to kill.
``(2) Offenses involving actual or perceived religion,
national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity,
or disability.--
``(A) In general.--Whoever, whether or not acting
under color of law, in any circumstance described in
subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any
person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an
explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause
bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or
perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual
orientation, gender identity or disability of any
person--
``(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10
years, fined in accordance with this title, or
both; and
``(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of
years or for life, fined in accordance with
this title, or both, if--
``(I) death results from the
offense; or
``(II) the offense includes
kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap,
aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt
to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or
an attempt to kill.
``(B) Circumstances described.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this
subparagraph are that--
``(i) the conduct described in subparagraph
(A) occurs during the course of, or as the
result of, the travel of the defendant or the
victim--
``(I) across a State line or
national border; or
``(II) using a channel, facility,
or instrumentality of interstate or
foreign commerce;
``(ii) the defendant uses a channel,
facility, or instrumentality of interstate or
foreign commerce in connection with the conduct
described in subparagraph (A);
``(iii) in connection with the conduct
described in subparagraph (A), the defendant
employs a firearm, explosive or incendiary
device, or other weapon that has traveled in
interstate or foreign commerce; or
``(iv) the conduct described in
subparagraph (A)--
``(I) interferes with commercial or
other economic activity in which the
victim is engaged at the time of the
conduct; or
``(II) otherwise affects interstate
or foreign commerce.
``(b) Certification Requirement.--No prosecution of any offense
described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States,
except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the
Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any
Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General
that--
``(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to
believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion,
national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity,
or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying
the alleged conduct of the defendant; and
``(2) such certifying individual has consulted with State
or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution
and determined that--
``(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does
not intend to exercise jurisdiction;
``(B) the State has requested that the Federal
Government assume jurisdiction;
``(C) the State does not object to the Federal
Government assuming jurisdiction; or
``(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to
State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the
Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated
violence.
``(c) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `explosive or incendiary device' has the
meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;
``(2) the term `firearm' has the meaning given such term in
section 921(a) of this title; and
``(3) the term `gender identity' for the purposes of this
chapter means actual or perceived gender-related
characteristics.
``(d) Rule of Evidence.--In a prosecution for an offense under this
section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may
not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence
specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section
affects the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections at
the beginning of chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new item:

``249. Hate crime acts.''.

SEC. 8. DUTIES OF FEDERAL SENTENCING COMMISSION.

The United States Sentencing Commission shall study the issue of
adult recruitment of juveniles to commit hate crimes and shall report
the Commission's findings back to the Congress not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 9. STATISTICS.

(a) In General.--Subsection (b)(1) of the first section of the Hate
Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting
``gender and gender identity,'' after ``race,''.
(b) Data.--Subsection (b)(5) of the first section of the Hate Crime
Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting ``,
including data about crimes committed by, and crimes directed against,
juveniles'' after ``data acquired under this section''.

SEC. 10. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the
application of such provision or amendment to any person or
circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act,
the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions
of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

SEC. 11. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be
construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal
prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free
exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Purpose and Summary

H.R. 1592 would provide assistance to state and local law
enforcement in the investigation and prosecution of hate
crimes, and would amend chapter 13 of title 18, United States
Code, to make violent crimes against a person motivated by bias
against characteristics for which there is a history of such
bias-motivated violence a felony. It would also amend the Hate
Crime Statistics Act to require the collection of data on
violent crimes motivated by bias against the victim's perceived
gender or gender identity, as well as data on crimes committed
by and directed against juveniles.

Background and Need for the Legislation

OVERVIEW

Hate crimes involve the purposeful selection of victims for
violence and intimidation based on bias against their perceived
attributes. These crimes are distinguished from, and go far
beyond, mere expression of belief, which would be protected
under the first amendment. They materially and unacceptably
interfere with the full participation of all Americans in the
fundamental liberties enjoyed in our democratic society.
As with most criminal activity, bias crimes are
investigated and prosecuted at both the Federal and State/local
levels, depending on the facts of the case and the needs of the
investigation. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has
the best national data on reported hate crimes, though the
reporting program is voluntary.\1\ Since 1991, the FBI has
received reports of more than 113,000 hate crimes. For the year
2005 (for which the most current data are available), the FBI
received reports from law enforcement agencies identifying
7,163 bias-motivated criminal incidents. Law enforcement
agencies identified 8,795 victims arising from 8,373 separate
criminal offenses. For the year 2005, the most current data
available, the FBI compiled reports from law enforcement
agencies identifying 7,163 bias-motivated criminal incidents.
Law enforcement agencies identified 8,795 victims arising from
8,373 separate criminal offenses. As in the past, racially-
motivated bias accounted for more than half (54.7%) of all
incidents. Religious bias accounted for 1,227 incidents
(17.1%), sexual orientation bias accounted for 1,017 incidents
(14.2%), followed by ethnicity/national origin bias with 944
incidents (13.7%). While these numbers are disturbing enough,
indications are that hate crimes are significantly under-
reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Approximately 4,000 police agencies across the nation--
including two of the top ten largest cities in America, New York City
and Phoenix--did not participate in this Hate Crimes Statistics Act
data collection effort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1592, the ``Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes
Prevention Act,'' is intended to address deficiencies in the
principal current Federal hate crime statutes: 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 245 (Interference with Federally Protected Activities) and
42 U.S.C. Sec. 3631 (Interference with Housing). Enacted in
1968, these statutes prohibit a limited set of hate crimes
committed on the basis of race, color, religion, or national
origin.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3631 also punishes violent intimidation with
housing activities when the victims are selected based on sex,
handicap, and familial status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are two deficiencies with current law that have
limited the Federal Government's ability to work with State and
local law enforcement agencies in the investigation and
prosecution of hate crimes, and led to acquittals in several of
the cases in which the Department of Justice has determined a
need to assert Federal jurisdiction to ``backstop'' local
efforts. First, it provides no coverage for violent hate crimes
committed because of the victim's perceived sexual orientation,
gender, gender identity, or disability. Second, it requires
proof that the crime was committed with the intent to interfere
with the victim's participation in one of six specifically
defined federally protected activities.
To address the jurisdictional limitations under existing
law, H.R. 1592 creates a new section 249 in the Criminal Civil
Rights Chapter (chapter 13) of title 18 of the United States
Code. New section 249 establishes two criminal prohibitions. In
cases involving violence because of the victim's race, color,
religion or national origin, section 249(a)(1) prohibits the
intentional infliction of bodily injury (or certain attempts)
without regard to the victim's participation in specific
enumerated activities. In cases involving certain violent
crimes motivated by hatred based on the victim's actual or
perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or
disability, section 249(a)(2) prohibits the intentional
infliction of bodily injury if the incident has a nexus, as
defined in the bill, to interstate commerce.\3\ Section 249
expands the reach of the Federal criminal laws to address both
sets of limitations. It provides the Federal Government the
tools to effectively pursue the significant Federal interest in
eradicating bias-motivated violence by assisting States and
local law enforcement and by pursuing Federal charges where
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The approach taken in this legislation is identical to that
taken in the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996, which also amended
chapter 13 of title 18. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 247.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to emphasize that State and local
authorities currently investigate and prosecute the
overwhelming majority of hate crimes and will continue to do so
under this legislation.\4\ Under current law, concurrent
Federal jurisdiction is necessary in the hate crimes context to
permit the devotion of Federal resources to assist State and
local law enforcement in the investigation and prosecution of
hate crimes. In limited circumstances, however, it is necessary
to use the Federal criminal civil rights statutes to
``backstop'' State and local efforts. Such backstop is
necessary, for example, where the State does not have an
appropriate statute, or otherwise declines to investigate or
prosecute; where the State requests that the Federal Government
assume jurisdiction; or where actions by State and local law
enforcement officials leave demonstratively unvindicated the
Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Since 1991, for example, the FBI has received reports of almost
114,000 hate crimes. During that period, however, the Department of
Justice has brought fewer than 100 cases under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 245. See
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CURRENT LAW AND THE NEED FOR EXPANDED JURISDICTION TO FULFILL FEDERAL
RESPONSIBILITIES OF SUPPORT, COOPERATION, AND BACKSTOPPING

Section 245(b) of title 18 has been the principal Federal
hate crimes statute since its enactment in 1968. It prohibits
the use of force, or threat of force, to injure, intimidate, or
interfere with (or to attempt to injure, intimidate, or
interfere with) ``any person because of his race, color,
religion or national origin'' in his or her participation in
any of six ``federally protected activities'' specifically
enumerated in the statute.\5\ To prove a violation of section
245(b), the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt two
intents on the part of the accused: first, that the crime of
violence was motivated by racial, ethnic, or religious hatred;
and second, that it was committed with the intent to interfere
with the victim's participation in one or more of the specified
federally protected activities. Even in the most blatant cases
of racial, ethnic, or religious violence, an accused has
committed no Federal crime in violation of section 245(b)
unless he is proved to have possessed both these intents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The six enumerated ``federally protected activities'' are:
``(A) enrolling in or attending any public school or public college;
(B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege,
program, facility or activity provided or administered by any State or
subdivision thereof; (C) applying for or enjoying employment, . . . ;
(D) serving . . . as grand or petit juror; E) traveling in or using any
facility of interstate commerce, . . . ; (F) enjoying the goods [or]
services [of certain places of public accommodation].'' 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 245(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This limited reach of section 245(b), cabined in particular
by the ``federally protected activity'' requirement, has
limited the ability of Federal law enforcement officials to
work with State and local officials in the investigation and
prosecution of many incidents of brutality and violence
motivated by prejudice. Moreover, this intent requirement has
led to acquittals in several of the cases in which the
Department of Justice has assumed Federal jurisdiction and
brought prosecutions under section 245(b), even where the proof
of racially motivated violence was not in doubt. Expanding the
circumstances under which certain hate crimes may be prosecuted
by removing the ``federally protected activity'' requirement,
and permitting prosecution for bias-motivated crimes of
violence that cause bodily injury (or a class of specified
attempts) based on the victim's race, color, religion or
national origin, will permit the Federal Government to provide
assistance to State law enforcement in a wider range of
circumstances, and criminalize instances of vicious bias-
motived crimes that presently fall outside the reaches of the
Federal criminal laws.
Permitting the Federal Government to Assist States and
Local Law Enforcement. As to the first of these reasons, when
Federal jurisdiction has existed in the limited circumstances
covered by section 245(b), the Federal Government's resources,
forensic expertise, and experience in the identification and
proof of bias-motivated violence and criminal networks have
often provided an invaluable investigative complement to the
familiarity of local investigators with the local community and
its people and customs. Through this cooperation, State and
Federal law enforcement officials have been able to bring the
perpetrators of hate crimes swiftly to justice.
The investigation conducted into the death of James Byrd in
Jasper County, Texas, is an excellent example of the benefits
of an effective Federal/State investigative partnership in a
high-profile hate crime case. Mr. Byrd was targeted to be
tortured and killed solely because of his race. From the time
of the first reports of Mr. Byrd's death, the FBI collaborated
with local officials in an investigation that led to the prompt
arrest and indictment of three men on State capital murder
charges. The resources, forensic expertise, and civil rights
experience of the FBI and the Department of Justice provided
assistance of great value to local law enforcement officials.
The fact that the crime at issue appeared to violate
established Federal criminal civil rights law was critical in
the FBI's decision as to its legal authority to lend assistance
to the State prosecution.
It is also useful to consider the work in the mid-1990's of
the National Church Arson Task Force, which investigated and
prosecuted violations of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 247. Section 247, which
was enacted in 1988 and amended in the mid-1990's, does not
have limitations analogous to the ``federally protected
activity'' requirement of section 245(b)(2). Created to address
a rash of church fires across the country, the Task Force's
Federal prosecutors and investigators from the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the FBI collaborated with
State and local officials in the investigation of every church
arson that had occurred since January 1, 1995. The results of
these State/Federal partnerships were extraordinary. Thirty-
four percent of the joint State/Federal church arson
investigations conducted during the 2-year life of the task
force resulted in arrests of one or more suspects on State or
Federal charges, an arrest rate that was more than double the
normal 16% rate of arrest in all arson cases nationwide (most
of which are investigated by local officials without Federal
assistance). More than 80% of the suspects arrested in joint
State/Federal church arson investigations during the life of
the Task Force were prosecuted in State courts under State
laws.
This bill will similarly enhance the ability of the FBI and
other Federal law enforcement entities to provide assistance to
and work in partnership with State law enforcement authorities.
It is expected that this cooperation will result in an increase
in the number of hate crimes solved by arrests and successful
prosecutions, in the same way that the devotion of Federal law
enforcement efforts increased the number of arrests and
prosecutions in the church arson context. And, as noted, it is
also believed that a large majority of hate crimes prosecutions
will continue to be brought in State court under State law.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Hate Crimes Violence: Hearings Before the House Comm. on the
Judiciary, 106th Cong. 13, 17-18 (1999) (testimony of Eric Holder,
Deputy Attorney General).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishing Appropriate Federal Jurisdiction. In some
circumstances, the Federal Government needs to be able to go
beyond being simply an investigative partner of State and local
law enforcement, and to bring Federal criminal charges. Where
State and local prosecutors fail to bring appropriate State
charges, or where State laws or the results of State
prosecutions are inadequate to vindicate the Federal interest
in prosecuting hate crimes, it is imperative that the Federal
Government be able to step in and bring effective Federal
prosecutions to ``backstop'' local law enforcement.
Unfortunately, the ``double-intent'' requirement of 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 245(b)(2)--particularly the ``intent to interfere with a
federally protected activity'' requirement--has precluded the
Department of Justice from performing an effective backstop
role with regard to a number of heinous hate crimes.
In testimony before this Committee, then Deputy Attorney
General Eric Holder discussed a case in Texas in which the jury
acquitted three white supremacists of Federal criminal civil
rights charges arising from unprovoked assaults upon African-
Americans, including one incident in which the defendants
knocked a man unconscious as he stood near a bus stop. Some of
the jurors revealed after the trial that although the assaults
were clearly motivated by racial animus, there was no apparent
intent to deprive the victims of the right to participate in
any ``federally protected activity.'' The government's proof
that the defendants went out looking for African-Americans to
attack was insufficient in the jurors' minds to satisfy the
requirements of section 245(b)(2).
Another section 245(b)(2) case in which the jurors
explained their verdict involved the prosecution of a notorious
serial murderer and white supremacist for shooting then-Urban
League President Vernon Jordan as he walked from a car toward
his motel room (a place of ``public accommodation'') in Fort
Wayne, Indiana. Following an acquittal, several jurors advised
the press that although they were persuaded that the defendant
committed the shooting because of Mr. Jordan's race, they did
not believe that the shooting was intended to interfere with
Mr. Jordan's use of the hotel facilities. The shooter later
admitted that he targeted Mr. Jordan as part of a crusade to
eradicate Blacks, Jews, and ``race-mixers.''
In each of these examples, one or more persons committed an
heinous act of violence clearly motivated by the race, color,
religion, or national origin of the victim. In each instance,
local prosecutors failed to bring State criminal charges, and
the extra intent requirement of section 245(b)(2)--that the
hate crime be additionally linked to the victim's participation
in one of the enumerated federally protected activities--
prevented the Department of Justice from acting effectively.
Currently, Federal authority can turn on such artificial
distinctions as whether a racially motivated assault occurs on
a public sidewalk as opposed to a private parking lot across
the street, or whether a convenience store at which a racially
motivated attack occurs has a video game inside that might
qualify the store as a ``place of entertainment.'' The Federal
Government's authority to participate in State-Federal
investigative partnerships, or to step in and play a backstop
role when necessary, should not hinge upon such arbitrary
distinctions.
Thus, in connection with prosecutions of hate crimes based
on the victim's race, color, national origin, new section
249(a)(1) appropriately reaches those crimes of violence that
cause bodily injury, or certain attempts. By so doing, the Act
strengthens the Federal Government's ability to assist State
and local law enforcement authorities, and strengthens the
Federal Government's ability to prosecute such crimes when it
must do so.

HATE CRIMES BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER,
GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY

Behind each hate crime statistic is an individual or
community targeted for violence for no other reason than race,
religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, gender
identity, or disability. As law enforcement authorities and
civic leaders have learned, a failure to address the problem of
violent bias crime can lead to widespread tension that damages
the social fabric of the community at large. The Supreme Court
recognized this wider harm in Wisconsin v. Mitchell as meriting
the designation of a hate crime as a specific offense.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 508 U.S. 47 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The existing general Federal hate crimes laws, however, do
not prohibit hate crimes committed because of bias based on the
victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender
identity, or disability. There is increasing consensus among
law enforcement officials and policymakers that hate crimes
motivated by such biases are deserving of prosecution. Notably,
in 1994, Congress passed legislation directing the United
States Sentencing Commission to promulgate a sentencing
enhancement for crimes committed on account of the victim's
actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, or
disability.\8\ Since 1994, gender identity has been added to a
plethora of State and local hate crimes statutes that are based
on the same analytical understanding of violent prejudice, in
recognition that criminals target such persons for particularly
violent assault.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub.
L. No. 103-322 (1994). Section 280003a of this Act provides:

(a) DEFINITION.--In this section, ``hate crime'' means a
crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a
victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property
that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or
perceived race, color, religion, national origin,
ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
person.

(b) SENTENCING ENHANCEMENT.--Pursuant to section 994 of
title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing
Commission shall promulgate guidelines or amend existing
guidelines to provide sentencing enhancements of not less
than 3 offense levels for offenses that the finder of fact
at trial determines beyond a reasonable doubt are hate
crimes. . . .
The following facts support an extension of Federal
jurisdiction to cover bias crimes committed on the basis of
these prejudices.
Sexual Orientation. Statistics gathered by the Federal
Government and private organizations indicate that a
significant number of hate crimes based on the sexual
orientation of the victim are committed every year in the
United States. According to 2005 FBI statistics, hate crimes
based on sexual orientation constituted the third highest
category reported (1,017 incidents) and made up 14.2% of all
reported hate crimes. From 1991 through 2005--the last year for
which data exists--there have been more than 15,000 reported
hate crimes based on sexual orientation. In 1991, the FBI
reported 425 hate crimes based on sexual orientation. In 2000,
that number had grown to 1,299, an increase of more than 200%.
And even these statistics may significantly understate the
number of hate crimes based on sexual orientation that actually
are committed in this country.
Many victims of anti-lesbian, anti-gay, and anti-
transgender incidents do not report the crimes to local law
enforcement officials. In fact, according to Austin, Texas
Police Commander Gary Olfers, hate crimes are the ``number 1
under-reported crime in the state.'' And ``[d]espite under-
reporting, the trend in State statistics shows that gays and
lesbians are increasingly the targets of crime.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Hate-crimes experts say statistics don't tell story: Many cases
unreported; special law rarely used, Dallas Morning News, Nov. 8, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the prevalence of violent acts committed against
persons because of their sexual orientation, such crimes are
not covered by section 245 unless there is also another basis
for Federal jurisdiction, such as race-based bias. Accordingly,
the Federal Government has been without authority to work in
partnership with local law enforcement officials, or to bring
Federal prosecutions, when gay men or lesbians are the victims
of murders or other violent assaults because of bias based on
their sexual orientation.
The murder of Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyoming is an
instructive example of the limitations in current law. Despite
the clear evidence that the murder of Mr. Shepard was motivated
by animus based on Mr. Shepard's sexual orientation, the
Federal Government lacked jurisdiction to act as a full partner
with State and local officials in the investigation of this
horrifying crime, or to bring Federal hate crime charges. As a
result, according to Commander David O'Malley, the chief
investigator in the Shepard murder case, ``the Albany County
Sheriff's office had to furlough five investigators because of
soaring costs'' associated with handling the case without any
financial or investigatory support from the Federal
Government.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Excerpts of press statement by Commander David O'Malley, Sept.
12, 2000. In a November 11, 1999, letter to Speaker Dennis Hastert,
Sheriff James Pond and detective Sergeant Robert DeBree of the Albany
County Sheriff's Department wrote: ``We believe justice was served in
this case [Shepard], but not without cost. We have been devastated
financially, due to expenses incurred in bringing Matthew's killers to
justice. For example, we had to lay off five law enforcement staff.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The situation confronting the Albany County Sheriff's
office in the Shepard case stands in stark contrast to what
occurred in the Jasper, Texas, case mentioned above. Because
the murder of James Byrd, Jr. was covered under the Federal
hate crimes statutes, the local law enforcement agency in
Jasper received forensic assistance and nearly $300,000 from
the Federal Government to help cover the costs associated with
successfully prosecuting Mr. Byrd's killers.
Gender. Although acts of violence committed against women
traditionally have been viewed as ``personal attacks'' rather
than as hate crimes, a significant number of women are exposed
to terror, brutality, serious injury, and even death because of
their gender. Indeed, Congress, through the enactment and
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)
recognized that some violent assaults committed against women
are bias crimes rather than mere ``random'' attacks.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Sen. Rep. No. 103-138 (1993) (testimony of Prof. Burt
Neuborne).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The majority of States do not have statutes that
specifically prohibit gender-based hate crimes. Although all 50
States have statutes prohibiting rape and other crimes
typically committed against women, only 24 States and the
District of Columbia have hate crimes statutes that include
gender among the categories of prohibited bias motives. H.R.
1592's amendment to title 18 would make Federal hate crimes
laws more consistent with the Federal position taken in VAWA,
allowing Federal officials to work together with State and
local law enforcement officials in the investigation and
prosecution of violent gender-based hate crimes.
H.R. 1592 will not result in the Federalization of all
rapes, other sexual assaults, or acts of domestic violence.
Rather, the legislation has been drafted to ensure that the
Federal Government's investigations and prosecutions of gender-
based hate crimes will be strictly limited to those crimes that
are motivated by gender-based animus and, thus, implicate the
greatest Federal interest.
Gender Identity. Transgender people are often targeted for
hate violence based on their non-conformity with gender norms,
their perceived sexual orientation, or both. Hate crimes
against transgender people tend to be particularly violent.
Compounding the challenges with prosecuting these crimes,
transgender people are frequently mistrustful of local law
enforcement authorities because police often lack training and
understanding of transgender people. This lack of understanding
illustrates the need for a Federal backstop for State and local
authorities, particularly in cases where the local law
enforcement authorities exhibit intolerance, or fail to
investigate or prosecute cases of transgender hate crimes.
The murder of Brandon Teena, dramatized in the movie ``Boys
Don't Cry,'' is illustrative of the plight of this community.
Mr. Teena was raped and later killed after the discovery of his
biological gender by two acquaintances. Prior to his murder, he
reported his rape and beating, but the Richardson County
Nebraska, Sheriff (who referred to Teena as ``it'') would not
allow an arrest. Five days later he was stabbed and beaten to
death by the same perpetrators. In the civil suit brought by
his mother, the court found that the county was partially
responsible for Teena's death, and characterized the Sheriff's
behavior as ``extreme and outrageous.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Omaha World-Herald, Apr. 21, 2001; Assoc. Press, Oct. 5, 2001;
N.Y. Times, April 21, 2001; Chi. Trib., Apr. 21, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, ten States include protections for transgender
individuals in their hate crime laws. Additionally, six States
and 71 local jurisdictions do so in their anti-discrimination
laws. There has also been explicit coverage of gender identity
in the anti-discrimination policies of leading
corporations.\13\ According to a poll commissioned by the Human
Rights Campaign Foundation in 2002, sixty-eight percent of
Americans believe that the Federal Government needs laws to
protect against anti-transgender hate crimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ This list includes 53 of the Fortune 500 companies, including
AT&T, IBM and Toys ``R'' Us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disability. Congress has shown an enduring commitment over
the past decade to protecting persons with disabilities from
discrimination. In the 1988 amendments to the Fair Housing Act,
as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
Congress extended civil rights protections to persons with
disabilities in many traditional civil rights contexts.
Congress amended the Hate Crimes Statistics Act in 1994 to
require the FBI to collect information about incidents crimes
of violence based on bias against the disabled from State and
local law enforcement agencies. Currently, 24 States and the
District of Columbia have specific criminal statutes directed
at disability-based hate crimes of violence.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

Federalism
The bill is carefully drafted to ensure that the Federal
prosecution of hate crimes motivated by animus directed at the
newly added characteristics are limited to cases that implicate
the greatest Federal interest and present the greatest need for
Federal intervention. This bill is not intended to federalize,
for example, all rapes, sexual assaults, acts of domestic
violence, or other gender-based crimes.
The express language of new section 249(b) limits Federal
involvement is several important ways. First, the bill requires
proof that offenses in the four new categories be motivated by
animus based prejudice against a person's actual or perceived
sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.
Second, the bill requires a nexus to interstate commerce for
these hate crimes. Third, the bill limits the prohibitions to
acts of violence involving bodily injury or death, and a
limited set of attempts to cause bodily injury or death, there
are no misdemeanor provisions which would permit Federal
involvement in prosecuting minor offenses with no bodily
injury.
Finally, the bill requires certification, by the Attorney
General or other specified high-ranking Department of Justice
official, before any prosecution of an offense described in
section 7 of the Act may be undertaken. The certifying
individual must have ``reasonable cause to believe that the
actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin,
gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of
any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged
conduct of the defendant.'' The certifying individual must also
have consulted with State or local law enforcement officials
regarding the prosecution and determined that: (1) the State
does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise
jurisdiction; (2) the State has requested the Federal
Government to assume jurisdiction; (3) the State does not
object to the Federal Government assuming jurisdiction; or (4)
the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left
demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in
eradicating bias-motivated violence.
This heightened certification requirement is intended to
ensure that the Federal Government will assert the new hate
crimes jurisdiction in a principled and properly limited
fashion, consistent with procedures under the current Federal
hate crimes statute. Additionally, based upon the testimony of
Department of Justice officials, the Committee anticipates that
general Department-wide prosecutorial policies will have the
effect of further limiting the cases prosecuted by the Federal
Government.
Constitutionality
The bill is consistent with a long history of Federal
involvement in combating crimes of violence based on prejudice.
As the Department of Justice articulated in a 2000 Statement of
Administration Position,\14\ the 13th amendment broadly
authorizes Congress to regulate acts of violence committed on
the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin,
providing ample constitutional basis for section 7(a) of the
bill, which addresses bias crimes in those categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Statement of Administration Position, June 13, 2000 (Assistant
Attorney General Robert Raben).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to section 7(b) of the bill, the Commerce
Clause provides Congress the authority to prosecute acts of
violence motivated by animus based on actual or perceived
sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability,
where the crime has the requisite connection to interstate
commerce. To avoid possible constitutional concerns arising
from the decision in United States v. Lopez,\15\ the bill
requires that the government prove beyond a reasonable doubt,
as an element of the offense, a nexus to interstate commerce in
every prosecution brought under one of the newly created
categories of offenses in new section 249(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This interstate commerce element was drafted with customary
breadth so as to reach all cases within the scope of Congress's
powers under the Commerce Clause. Pursuant to section
249(a)(2), the Government must prove, in hate crimes
prosecutions involving conduct motivated by animus based on
actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender
identity, or disability, that in connection with the offense,
the defendant ``[traveled] across a State line of national
border;'' ``use[d] a channel, facility or instrumentality of
interstate or foreign commerce;'' ``employ[ed] a firearm,
explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has
traveled in interstate or foreign commerce;'' ``interfere[d]
with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim
[was] engaged at the time of the conduct;'' or ``otherwise
affect[ed] interstate or foreign commerce.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ This is notably more restrictive than the interstate commerce
proof required in the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of
2007 (H.R. 137) and the amendment to H.R. 1592 during the Committee's
markup of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The interstate commerce nexus is analogous to that required
in many other Federal criminal statutes. The Church Arson
Prevention Act of 1996,\17\ for example, makes it a crime to
destroy religious property if the offense ``is in or affects
interstate commerce.'' \18\ Section 249 is drafted to comport
with Supreme Court guidance in Lopez \19\ and U.S. v.
Morrison.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 18 U.S.C. Sec. 247.
\18\ 18 U.S.C. Sec. 247(b).
\19\ 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
\20\ 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (setting forth outer reaches of commerce
power in invalidating civil provisions of Violence Against Women Act)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, to the extent that there may be open questions
regarding the precise contours of the range of circumstances
under which the enforcement provision of the 13th amendment
authorizes Congress to criminalize hate crimes committed on the
basis of religion, the legislation has included hate crimes
based on religious beliefs in both section 249(a)(1) and
section 249(a)(2).\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The scope of the 13th amendment, and Congress's power to
regulate thereunder, was considered by the Supreme Court in Saint
Francis College v. Al-Khazraii, 481 U.S. 604, 613 (1987) and Shaare
Tefila Congregation v. Cobb, 481 U.S. 615, 617-18 (1987). In those
cases, the Court held that civil anti-discrimination statutes enacted
under the 13th amendment during Reconstruction apply to religions, at
least to the extent that such religions were seen as ``races'' at the
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis for Addition of New Categories of Bias
The new classifications of sexual orientation, gender,
gender identity, and disability are being added to those
receiving Federal legal protection on the basis of accumulated
evidence, reflected in jurisprudence \22\ and other Federal and
State laws.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See, e.g., R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992);
Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 47 (1993).
\23\ See also the Allport Scale, devised by psychologist Gordon
Allport and cited widely by the Federal judiciary. See, e.g., City of
Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 464 (1985)
(Marshall, J. dissenting) (home for mentally ill); Castaneda v.
Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 503 (1977) (Marshall, J. dissenting) (grand jury
composition); Dukes v. Waitkevich 429 U.S. 932 (1976) (Marshall, J.
dissenting) (effect of rape/miscegenation allegations); Frazier v.
Heebe, 788 F.2d 1049, 1058 (5th Cir. 1986) (residence requirement for
bar admission); Stevens v. Dobs, Inc., 483 F.2d 82 (4th Cir. 1973)
(housing discrimination); U. S. ex rel. Haynes v. McKendrick, 481 F.2d
152, 157 (2d Cir. 1973) (prejudice in jury selection); Miller v. U.S.,
320 F.2d 767, 772 (D.C. Cir. 1963) (inferences of guilt), providing a
``Scale of Prejudice'' based on various indicia of prejudice in
escalating severity of manifestation. Gordon Allport, The Nature of
Prejudice (Addison-Wesley 1954).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Speech
H.R. 1592 is carefully crafted so as to distinguish crimes
of violence based on bias from religious or other expression
protected under the first amendment. The legislation does not
prohibit name-calling, verbal abuse, or other forms of negative
or hateful expression; it prohibits only violent actions that
result in death or bodily injury. An amendment offered by Mr.
Davis, accepted by voice vote, adds a rule of construction that
further clarifies that freedom of religious and other
expression protected under the first amendment is in no way
impaired.
In furtherance of this protection, new section 249(d)
prohibits introducing evidence of association or expression to
prove that a crime has been committed, unless it specifically
relates to the offense. Otherwise, such evidence may be used
only for impeachment purposes. This provision recognizes that
evidence that a person has expressed, for example, religious or
philosophical beliefs that some might characterize as hateful
or intolerant, or that a person belongs to an organization,
including a religious organization, that holds or professes
beliefs consistent with the crime charged, with little or no
other evidence of the person's culpability in the charged
offense, can be unfairly prejudicial. Thus, evidence of an
accused's expressions or group memberships could be admitted at
trial only where they can be shown to be specifically linked to
the person's involvement in the charged offense.
This provision requires the district court to employ a
heightened version of the customary relevance test, taking into
account the policy values associated with protecting the rights
of free religious expression, free speech, and free association
and considering the potential prejudice if the evidence at
issue consists of unpopular speech or association with an
unpopular group.
This provision also recognizes, however, that evidence of
an accused's speech, expression, or association may be properly
relevant and not unfairly prejudicial if such evidence can be
shown to be related to the crime at issue. An isolated racial
slur remote in time to the charged offense, or merely
incidental to the motive of the charged offense (for example, a
racial slur uttered in the conduct of a robbery where robbery
is manifestly the motive), or mere participation in an
organization that holds and professes strong and negative views
toward a given group, would presumably be excluded. In
contrast, an accused's violence-themed set of statements
displaying animus toward the victim's group, or statements
evidencing hatred of a given group, persisting over a lengthy
period, especially if close in time to the alleged offense, may
indicate the motivation for the offense and properly be
admissible as evidence--if there is other independent evidence
of the accused's participation in the crime. This careful
weighing of relevance against prejudice will help ensure an
individual is not prosecuted simply for holding and expressing
views, no matter how abhorrent.
This provision will not provide a license for a witness or
the accused to commit perjury. If a witness, for example, were
to deny knowing the accused, the witness could be impeached by
showing they belonged to the same organization and were in each
other's company. If an accused were to deny having animus
toward the victim's group, he or she could be impeached by
prior statements the accused has made that expressed such
animus--even if they had been excluded in the government's case
in chief because they were remote in time. This comports with
the overarching goals of the Federal Rules of Evidence that
deny a witness safe harbor to commit perjury by unfairly
limiting a party's ability to impeach a witness.
Finally, doubts about the constitutionality of hate crimes
laws were squarely addressed by the Supreme Court in the early
1990's in two cases, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul \24\ and
Wisconsin v. Mitchell.\25\ In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the
Supreme Court made clear that the first amendment does not
prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to establish the
elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent. These cases
clearly demonstrate that a hate crimes statute may consider
bias motivation when that motivation is directly connected to a
defendant's criminal conduct. By requiring this connection to
criminal activity, this legislation does not chill protected
speech and does not violate the first amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 505 U.S. 377 (1992).
\25\ 508 U.S. 47 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hearings

The Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and
Homeland Security held 1 day of hearings on H.R. 1592 on April
17, 2007. Testimony was received from Mark L. Shurtleff,
Attorney General of the State of Utah; Timothy Lynch, Director,
Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute; Frederick M.
Lawrence, Dean, the George Washington University Law School;
David Ritcheson, Harris County, Texas; Brad W. Dacus,
President, Pacific Justice Institute; and, Jack McDevitt,
Associate Dean, Northeastern University.

Committee Consideration

On April 24, 2007, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
and Homeland Security met in open session and ordered the bill
H.R.1592 favorably reported by voice vote, a quorum being
present.
On April 25, 2007, the Committee met in open session and
ordered the bill H.R. 1592 favorably reported with amendments,
by a rollcall vote of 20 to 14, a quorum being present.

Committee Votes

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the
following rollcall votes occurred during the Committee's
consideration of H.R. 1592:
1. A motion by Mr. Nadler to table the appeal of the ruling
of the Chairman that an amendment by Mr. Jordan designating
``unborn child'' status, under certain circumstances, for
coverage under the Act was not germane. Defeated 17 to 17.

ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman...................................... X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Meehan...................................................... X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Mr. Davis.......................................................
Ms. Wasserman Schultz........................................... X
Mr. Ellison..................................................... X
Mr. Smith (Texas)............................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Chabot...................................................... X
Mr. Lungren..................................................... X
Mr. Cannon...................................................... X
Mr. Keller...................................................... X
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Pence....................................................... X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Feeney...................................................... X
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 17 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. A motion by Mr. Sensenbrenner to adjourn. Defeated 20 to
17.

ROLLCALL NO. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman...................................... X
Mr. Berman...................................................... X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Meehan...................................................... X
Mr. Delahunt.................................................... X
Mr. Wexler...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Mr. Davis.......................................................
Ms. Wasserman Schultz........................................... X
Mr. Ellison..................................................... X
Mr. Smith (Texas)............................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Chabot...................................................... X
Mr. Lungren..................................................... X
Mr. Cannon...................................................... X
Mr. Keller...................................................... X
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Pence....................................................... X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Feeney...................................................... X
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 17 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. An appeal by Mr. Chabot of the ruling of the Chairman
that the amendment by Mr. Jordan was not germane. Chairman's
ruling upheld 21 to 17.

ROLLCALL NO. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman...................................... X
Mr. Berman...................................................... X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Meehan...................................................... X
Mr. Delahunt.................................................... X
Mr. Wexler...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Mr. Davis....................................................... X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz........................................... X
Mr. Ellison..................................................... X
Mr. Smith (Texas)............................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Chabot...................................................... X
Mr. Lungren..................................................... X
Mr. Cannon...................................................... X
Mr. Keller...................................................... X
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Pence....................................................... X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Feeney...................................................... X
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 21 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. An amendment by Mr. Gohmert to remove from the bill's
coverage crimes committed based upon animus associated with
sexual orientation or gender identity. Defeated 18 to 13.

ROLLCALL NO. 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman...................................... X
Mr. Berman...................................................... X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt.................................................... X
Mr. Wexler...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Mr. Davis.......................................................
Ms. Wasserman Schultz........................................... X
Mr. Ellison.....................................................
Mr. Smith (Texas)............................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Lungren..................................................... X
Mr. Cannon...................................................... X
Mr. Keller...................................................... X
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence....................................................... X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Feeney...................................................... X
Mr. Franks......................................................
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 13 18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. An amendment by Mr. Forbes to cover crimes based upon
animus associated with the victim's status as a member of the
armed forces. Defeated 16 to 12.

ROLLCALL NO. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman...................................... X
Mr. Berman...................................................... X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Mr. Davis....................................................... X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz........................................... X
Mr. Ellison..................................................... X
Mr. Smith (Texas)............................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Lungren..................................................... X
Mr. Cannon...................................................... X
Mr. Keller......................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence....................................................... X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................
Mr. Feeney...................................................... X
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 12 16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. An amendment by Mr. Feeney to require that the conduct
to be outlawed substantially affect interstate or foreign
commerce. Defeated 19 to 12.

ROLLCALL NO. 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman...................................... X
Mr. Berman...................................................... X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt.................................................... X
Mr. Wexler...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Mr. Davis....................................................... X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz........................................... X
Mr. Ellison..................................................... X
Mr. Smith (Texas)............................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Lungren..................................................... X
Mr. Cannon...................................................... X
Mr. Keller...................................................... X
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence....................................................... X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................
Mr. Feeney...................................................... X
Mr. Franks......................................................
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 12 19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. An amendment by Mr. Pence to provide as a rule of
construction that nothing in the criminal provisions of the Act
limit the religious freedom of any person or group under the
Constitution. Defeated 20 to 15.

ROLLCALL NO. 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman...................................... X
Mr. Berman...................................................... X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt.................................................... X
Mr. Wexler...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez................................................... X
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Mr. Davis....................................................... X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz........................................... X
Mr. Ellison..................................................... X
Mr. Smith (Texas)............................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Lungren..................................................... X
Mr. Cannon...................................................... X
Mr. Keller...................................................... X
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Pence....................................................... X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................
Mr. Feeney...................................................... X
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 15 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. An amendment by Mr. Goodlatte to cover crimes based upon
animus associated with the victim's status as a senior citizen
who has attained the age of 65 years. Defeated 16 to 12.

ROLLCALL NO. 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman...................................... X
Mr. Berman...................................................... X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Mr. Davis....................................................... X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Ellison.....................................................
Mr. Smith (Texas)............................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Chabot...................................................... X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Cannon...................................................... X
Mr. Keller...................................................... X
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Feeney......................................................
Mr. Franks......................................................
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 12 16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. An amendment by Mr. Goodlatte to cover crimes based upon
animus associated with the victim's status as a pregnant woman.
Defeated 16 to 15.

ROLLCALL NO. 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman...................................... X
Mr. Berman...................................................... X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Mr. Davis....................................................... X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz........................................... X
Mr. Ellison.....................................................
Mr. Smith (Texas)............................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Chabot...................................................... X
Mr. Lungren..................................................... X
Mr. Cannon...................................................... X
Mr. Keller...................................................... X
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Feeney......................................................
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 15 16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. An amendment by Mr. Chabot to cover crimes based upon
animus associated with the victim's status as a witness in a
judicial proceeding. Defeated 20 to 15.

ROLLCALL NO. 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman...................................... X
Mr. Berman...................................................... X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt.................................................... X
Mr. Wexler...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez................................................... X
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Mr. Davis....................................................... X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz........................................... X
Mr. Ellison.....................................................
Mr. Smith (Texas)............................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Chabot...................................................... X
Mr. Lungren..................................................... X
Mr. Cannon...................................................... X
Mr. Keller...................................................... X
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Feeney......................................................
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 15 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. An amendment by Mr. Chabot to cover crimes based upon
animus associated with the victim's status as a victim of a
prior crime. Defeated 20 to 15.

ROLLCALL NO. 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman...................................... X
Mr. Berman...................................................... X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt.................................................... X
Mr. Wexler...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez................................................... X
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Mr. Davis....................................................... X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz........................................... X
Mr. Ellison.....................................................
Mr. Smith (Texas)............................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Chabot...................................................... X
Mr. Lungren..................................................... X
Mr. Cannon...................................................... X
Mr. Keller...................................................... X
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Feeney......................................................
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 15 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12. An amendment by Mr. Issa to amend the bill to state
that the terms ``person,'' ``persons,'' ``victim,'' or
``victims'' as used in the bill shall not include unborn
children at any stage of development. Defeated 33 to 0.

ROLLCALL NO. 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman...................................... X
Mr. Berman...................................................... X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... Pass
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt.................................................... Pass
Mr. Wexler...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez................................................... X
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff......................................................
Mr. Davis....................................................... X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz........................................... X
Mr. Ellison.....................................................
Mr. Smith (Texas)............................................... Pass
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Chabot...................................................... X
Mr. Lungren..................................................... X
Mr. Cannon...................................................... X
Mr. Keller...................................................... X
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Pence....................................................... X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Feeney...................................................... X
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 0 33 3 (Pass)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13. An amendment by Mr. Gohmert to prohibit evidence of
religious expression or association as substantive evidence at
trial. Defeated 20 to 16.

ROLLCALL NO. 13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman...................................... X
Mr. Berman...................................................... X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt.................................................... X
Mr. Wexler...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez................................................... X
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Mr. Davis....................................................... X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz........................................... X
Mr. Ellison.....................................................
Mr. Smith (Texas)............................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Chabot...................................................... X
Mr. Lungren..................................................... X
Mr. Cannon...................................................... X
Mr. Keller...................................................... X
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Pence....................................................... X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Feeney...................................................... X
Mr. Franks......................................................
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 16 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14. An amendment by Mr. Forbes to cover crimes based upon
animus associated with the victim's status as a child who has
not attained the age of 18 years. Defeated 21 to 16.

ROLLCALL NO. 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman...................................... X
Mr. Berman...................................................... X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt.................................................... X
Mr. Wexler...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez................................................... X
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Mr. Davis....................................................... X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz........................................... X
Mr. Ellison..................................................... X
Mr. Smith (Texas)............................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Chabot...................................................... X
Mr. Lungren..................................................... X
Mr. Cannon...................................................... X
Mr. Keller...................................................... X
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Pence....................................................... X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Feeney...................................................... X
Mr. Franks......................................................
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 16 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15. An amendment by Mr. King to replace ``gender'' with
``sex'' in several places in the bill, strike the definition of
``gender identity,'' and strike the provision of the bill
requiring the keeping of statistics of hate crimes based on
gender and gender identity. Defeated 20 to 15.

ROLLCALL NO. 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman...................................... X
Mr. Berman...................................................... X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt.................................................... X
Mr. Wexler...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez................................................... X
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Mr. Davis....................................................... X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz........................................... X
Mr. Ellison..................................................... X
Mr. Smith (Texas)............................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble.......................................................
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Chabot...................................................... X
Mr. Lungren..................................................... X
Mr. Cannon...................................................... X
Mr. Keller...................................................... X
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Pence....................................................... X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Feeney......................................................
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 15 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16. An amendment by Mr. King to change the name of the Act
to the ``Local Law Enforcement Thought Crimes Prevention Act of
2007.'' Defeated 21 to 13.

ROLLCALL NO. 16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman...................................... X
Mr. Berman...................................................... X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt.................................................... X
Mr. Wexler...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez................................................... X
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Mr. Davis....................................................... X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz........................................... X
Mr. Ellison..................................................... X
Mr. Smith (Texas)............................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble.......................................................
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Chabot...................................................... X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Cannon...................................................... X
Mr. Keller...................................................... X
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence....................................................... X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Feeney......................................................
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 13 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17. H.R. 1592 was ordered favorably reported by a vote of
20 to 14.

ROLLCALL NO. 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman...................................... X
Mr. Berman...................................................... X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt.................................................... X
Mr. Wexler...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez................................................... X
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Mr. Davis....................................................... X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Ellison..................................................... X
Mr. Smith (Texas)............................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble.......................................................
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Chabot...................................................... X
Mr. Lungren..................................................... X
Mr. Cannon...................................................... X
Mr. Keller...................................................... X
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence....................................................... X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Feeney......................................................
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 20 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Oversight Findings

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

Pursuant to section 4(b)(7) of the Act, there is authorized
to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and
2009.

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with
respect to the bill, H.R. 1592, the following estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974:

U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, April 27, 2007.
Hon. John Conyers, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1592, the Local
Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Mark
Grabowicz (for Federal costs), who can be reached at 226-2860,
and Melissa Merrell (for the State and local impact), who can
be reached at 225-3220.
Sincerely,
Peter R. Orszag,
Director.

Enclosure

cc:
Honorable Lamar S. Smith.
Ranking Member
H.R. 1592--Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.

SUMMARY

H.R. 1592 would establish certain hate crimes as new
federal offenses and would direct the Department of Justice
(DOJ) to expand its data collection efforts relating to hate
crimes. The bill also would authorize the appropriation of:

L$5 million for each of fiscal years 2008 and
2009 for DOJ to make grants to State, local, and tribal
governments to investigate and prosecute hate crimes;

LSuch sums as may be necessary for DOJ to make
grants to State, local, and tribal governments to
combat juvenile hate crimes; and

LSuch sums as may be necessary for fiscal
years 2008 through 2010 for additional personnel in DOJ
and the Department of the Treasury to prevent,
investigate, and prosecute hate crimes.

Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO
estimates that implementing H.R. 1592 would cost $20 million
over the 2008-2012 period. This legislation could affect direct
spending and receipts, but CBO estimates that any such effects
would not be significant in any year.
H.R. 1592 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal
governments.

ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1592 is shown in the
following table. The costs of this legislation fall within
budget function 750 (administration of justice).

By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Estimated Authorization Level 10 10 * * *
Estimated Outlays 2 6 5 4 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: * = less than $500,000.

BASIS OF ESTIMATE

Based on spending for similar activities in recent years,
CBO estimates that the bill's authorization for grants to
combat juvenile hate crimes would cost an additional $5 million
for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009--the same amount that
the bill would specifically authorize for grants to State and
local governments to combat hate crimes. We assume that the
necessary amounts (a total of $10 million a year for 2008 and
2009) will be appropriated by the start of each fiscal year and
that outlays will follow the historical rates for similar grant
programs.
Based on trends in federal investigations and prosecutions
in recent years, CBO expects that the new federal hate crimes
established by the bill would apply to a small number of cases
each year. Thus, any increase in costs to DOJ, the Department
of the Treasury, and the federal judiciary for law enforcement,
court proceedings, or prison operations would be less than
$500,000 annually for 2008 through 2010, subject to the
availability of appropriated funds.
DOJ currently compiles and summarizes data on hate crimes
committed in the United States each year. H.R. 1592 would
require this annual report to include crimes committed on the
basis of gender or gender identity and hate crimes affecting
juveniles. CBO estimates that it would cost DOJ less than
$500,000 each year from appropriated funds to carry out this
provision.
Because those prosecuted and convicted under H.R. 1592
could be subject to criminal fines, the federal government
might collect additional fines if the legislation is enacted.
Collections of such fines are recorded in the budget as
revenues, which are deposited in the Crime Victims Fund and
later spent. CBO expects that any additional revenues and
direct spending would be negligible because of the small number
of cases involved.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE-SECTOR MANDATES

H.R. 1592 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on State,
local, or tribal governments. Assuming the appropriation of
authorized and estimated amounts, those governments would
receive $20 million to combat, investigate, and prosecute hate
crimes. The bill also would authorize the Attorney General to
provide technical, forensic, and prosecutorial assistance to
those governments. Any costs would be incurred voluntarily as a
condition of receiving federal assistance.

ESTIMATE PREPARED BY:

Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell
Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach

ESTIMATE APPROVED BY:

Peter H. Fontaine
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis

Performance Goals and Objectives

The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R.
1592 is provided to assist State and local law enforcement in
the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes and to permit
Federal prosecution of certain hate crimes.

Constitutional Authority Statement

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for
this legislation in article 1, section 8, clause 3 of the
Constitution, and in the 13th and 14th amendments to the
Constitution.

Advisory on Earmarks

In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, H.R. 1592 does not contain any
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.

Section-by-Section Analysis

Sec. 1. Short Title. This section sets forth the short
title of the bill as the ``Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes
Prevention Act of 2007.''
Sec. 2. Findings. This section includes findings relating
to the problem of violent bias crime and aspects of Federal
jurisdiction over such incidents.
Sec. 3. Definition of a Hate Crime. This section defines a
``hate crime'' as a violent act causing death or bodily injury
``because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion,
national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or
disability'' of the victim.
Sec. 4. Support for Criminal Investigations and
Prosecutions by State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement
Officials. This subsection (a) allows the Department of Justice
to render technical, forensic, or any other form of assistance
to State and law enforcement agencies to aid in the
investigation of and prosecution of crimes motivated by
prejudice based upon the actual or perceived race, color,
religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender
identity or disability of the victim or is a violation of State
or local hate crime law. Priority is given to crimes by
offenders who acted in more than one State and to rural
jurisdiction facing extraordinary expenses.
Subsection (b) creates a grant program under the authority
of the Department of Justice to assist State and local law
enforcement agencies in funding the extraordinary expenses
associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate
crimes. A grant under this provision shall not exceed $100,000
for any single jurisdiction in any 1-year period.
Appropriations are authorized at a level of $5,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
Sec. 5. Grant Program. This section creates a grant program
under the authority of the Department of Justice to combat hate
crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to train law
enforcement in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and
preventing bias crimes.
Sec. 6. Authorization for Additional Personnel to Assist
State, Local and Tribal Law Enforcement. This section
authorizes appropriations of sums necessary, if any, to support
the investigation and prosecution of alleged violations of the
bill's prohibitions.
Sec. 7. Prohibition of Certain Hate Crime Acts. This
section adds a new section 249 to title 18 of the United States
Code. New section 249(a)(1) prohibits the intentional
infliction of bodily injury on the basis of race, color,
religion, or national origin. Unlike current law, codified at
18 U.S.C. Sec. 245(b)(2), this new provision does not require a
showing that the defendant committed the offense to interfere
with the victim's participation in a federally protected
activity. An offense under new section 249(a)(1) will be
prosecuted as a felony. It requires a showing either of bodily
injury or death, or of an attempt to cause bodily injury or
death through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive
device.
New section 249(a)(2) prohibits the intentional infliction
of bodily injury or death (or an attempt to inflict bodily
injury or death through the use of fire, a firearm, or an
explosive device) on the basis of religion, gender, sexual
orientation, gender identity, or disability. There is no
``federally protected activity'' requirement as in 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 245, but there is required proof of a commerce clause
nexus as an element of the offense.
New section 249(b) requires a detailed, written
certification from the Attorney General before a prosecution
may be brought under section 249(a)(1) or (a)(2).
New section 249(d) establishes that an expression or
association of the defendant may not be introduced as
substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically
relates to that offense. This subsection is not intended to
amend the Federal rules of evidence, but is intended to ensure
that the expressions of, for example, religious beliefs or
unpopular beliefs, or associations with those that express such
beliefs, in the absence of other evidence of culpability in the
charged offense, do not form the basis of a prosecution or
unfairly prejudice an accused at trial, and that such
expressions or associations may only be admitted at trial where
they can be shown, either by the content of the statements, the
nature of the association, or by other independent evidence, to
specifically relate to the charged offense. Such evidence may
also be introduced for impeachment or rebuttal.
Sec. 8. Duties of Federal Sentencing Commission. This
section requires the United States Sentencing Commission to
issue a study on the recruitment of juveniles by adults to
commit hate crimes within 180 days of enactment of this
legislation.
Sec. 9. Statistics. This section amends the Hate Crimes
Statistics Act to require data collection on crimes motivated
by the victim's perceived gender and gender identity. The
provision also requires data collection on crimes committed by
and directed against juveniles.
Sec. 10. Severability. This section provides that a court
holding that any provision of the bill is unconstitutional
shall not affect other provisions of the bill.
Sec. 11. Rule of Construction. This section provides that
nothing in the Act shall be construed to prohibit expressive
conduct or activities protected by the first amendment to the
Constitution.

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is
printed in italics and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE

* * * * * * *
PART I--CRIMES

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 13--CIVIL RIGHTS

Sec.
241. Conspiracy against rights.
* * * * * * *
249. Hate crime acts.

* * * * * * *

Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

(a) In General.--
(1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race,
color, religion, or national origin.--Whoever, whether
or not acting under color of law, willfully causes
bodily injury to any person or, through the use of
fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device,
attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because
of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or
national origin of any person--
(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10
years, fined in accordance with this title, or
both; and
(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of
years or for life, fined in accordance with
this title, or both, if--
(i) death results from the offense;
or
(ii) the offense includes kidnaping
or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated
sexual abuse or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt
to kill.
(2) Offenses involving actual or perceived
religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation,
gender identity, or disability.--
(A) In general.--Whoever, whether or not
acting under color of law, in any circumstance
described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes
bodily injury to any person or, through the use
of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or
incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily
injury to any person, because of the actual or
perceived religion, national origin, gender,
sexual orientation, gender identity or
disability of any person--
(i) shall be imprisoned not more
than 10 years, fined in accordance with
this title, or both; and
(ii) shall be imprisoned for any
term of years or for life, fined in
accordance with this title, or both,
if--
(I) death results from the
offense; or
(II) the offense includes
kidnaping or an attempt to
kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse
or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an
attempt to kill.
(B) Circumstances described.--For purposes
of subparagraph (A), the circumstances
described in this subparagraph are that--
(i) the conduct described in
subparagraph (A) occurs during the
course of, or as the result of, the
travel of the defendant or the victim--
(I) across a State line or
national border; or
(II) using a channel,
facility, or instrumentality of
interstate or foreign commerce;
(ii) the defendant uses a channel,
facility, or instrumentality of
interstate or foreign commerce in
connection with the conduct described
in subparagraph (A);
(iii) in connection with the
conduct described in subparagraph (A),
the defendant employs a firearm,
explosive or incendiary device, or
other weapon that has traveled in
interstate or foreign commerce; or
(iv) the conduct described in
subparagraph (A)--
(I) interferes with
commercial or other economic
activity in which the victim is
engaged at the time of the
conduct; or
(II) otherwise affects
interstate or foreign commerce.
(b) Certification Requirement.--No prosecution of any
offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the
United States, except under the certification in writing of the
Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate
Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially
designated by the Attorney General that--
(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause
to believe that the actual or perceived race, color,
religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation,
gender identity, or disability of any person was a
motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the
defendant; and
(2) such certifying individual has consulted with
State or local law enforcement officials regarding the
prosecution and determined that--
(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or
does not intend to exercise jurisdiction;
(B) the State has requested that the
Federal Government assume jurisdiction;
(C) the State does not object to the
Federal Government assuming jurisdiction; or
(D) the verdict or sentence obtained
pursuant to State charges left demonstratively
unvindicated the Federal interest in
eradicating bias-motivated violence.
(c) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``explosive or incendiary device'' has
the meaning given such term in section 232 of this
title;
(2) the term ``firearm'' has the meaning given such
term in section 921(a) of this title; and
(3) the term ``gender identity'' for the purposes
of this chapter means actual or perceived gender-
related characteristics.
(d) Rule of Evidence.--In a prosecution for an offense
under this section, evidence of expression or associations of
the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at
trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that
offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of
evidence governing impeachment of a witness.

* * * * * * *

----------

HATE CRIME STATISTICS ACT

AN ACT To provide for the acquisition and publication of data about
crimes that manifest prejudice based on certain group characteristics.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a)
this Act may be cited as the ``Hate Crime Statistics Act''.
(b)(1) Under the authority of section 534 of title 28,
United States Code, the Attorney General shall acquire data,
for each calendar year, about crimes that manifest evidence of
prejudice based on race, gender and gender identity, religion,
disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where
appropriate the crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter;
forcible rape; aggravated assault, simple assault,
intimidation; arson; and destruction, damage or vandalism of
property.

* * * * * * *

(5) The Attorney General shall publish an annual summary of
the data acquired under this section, including data about
crimes committed by, and crimes directed against, juveniles.

* * * * * * *

Dissenting Views

We oppose H.R. 1592 as an unconstitutional threat to
religious freedom, freedom of speech, equal justice under law
and basic federalism principles.
Justice should be blind to the personal traits of victims.
Under the Democrats' hate crime bill, H.R. 1592, criminals who
kill a homosexual, transvestite or transsexual will be punished
more harshly than criminals who kill a police officer, a member
of the military, a child, a senior citizen, or any other
person. Hate crimes legislation hands out punishment according
to the victim's race, sex, sexual orientation, disability or
other protected status. The only trait that should matter is
the victim's humanity.
We all deplore bias-related violent crimes. Every violent
crime is a tragedy and we must do everything we can to ensure
public safety in our communities. Violent crimes committed in
the name of hatred of a group can be devastating to a victim
and a community. These crimes must be vigorously prosecuted at
the State and local level.
Our criminal justice system has been built on the ideal of
``equal justice for all.'' If enacted this bill will turn that
fundamental principle on its head--justice will depend on
whether or not the victim is a member of a protected category:
a vicious assault of a homosexual victim will be punished more
than the vicious assault of a heterosexual victim. A senseless
act of violence, committed with brutal hatred, will be treated
as less important than one where a criminal is motivated by
hatred of specific categories of people. Justice will no longer
be equal but now will turn on the race, sex, sexual
orientation, disability or other protected status of the
victim. All victims should have equal worth in the eyes of the
law, regardless of race or status.
By opening the door to criminal investigations of an
offender's thoughts and beliefs about his or her victims, this
bill will raise more controversy surrounding a crime. Groups
now will seek heightened protections for members of their
respective groups, and require even more law enforcement
resources to investigate a suspect's mindset.
Even more dangerous, and perhaps unintended, the bill
raises the possibility that religious leaders or members of
religious groups could be prosecuted criminally based on their
speech or protected activities under conspiracy law or section
2 of title 18, which makes criminally liable any person who
aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures the
commission of the crime, or one who ``willfully causes an act
to be done'' by another. It is easy to imagine a situation in
which a prosecutor may seek to link ``hateful'' speech to
causing hateful violent acts. A chilling effect on religious
leaders and others who express their beliefs will unfortunately
result.
The bill itself is unconstitutional and will be struck down
by the courts. No matter how vehemently proponents of the bill
try to defend a Federal nexus--there is simply no impact of
such crimes on interstate or foreign commerce. The record
evidence in support of such a claim is transparent and will be
quickly brushed aside by any reviewing court.
The Supreme Court, in United States v. Morrison,\1\ struck
down a prohibition on gender-motivated violence, and
specifically warned Congress that the Commerce Clause does not
extend to ``non-economic, violent criminal conduct'' that does
not cross state lines. Nor is the proposed legislation
authorized under the 13th, 14th or 15th amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 529 U.S. 598 (2000)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aside from the constitutional infirmities that riddle this
bill, the sponsors are seeking to address a problem that is not
overwhelming our state or local governments. FBI statistics
show that the incidence of hate crimes has actually declined
over the last ten years. Of the reported hate crimes in 2005, 6
were murders and 3 were rapes. Only 6 of approximately 15,000
homicides in the nation involved so called ``hate crimes''. A
majority of the crimes reported by the FBI involved
``intimidation'' with no bodily injury--words or verbal threats
against a person. There is zero evidence that States are not
fully prosecuting violent crimes involving ``hate.'' Violent
crimes are vigorously prosecuted by the States. In fact, 45
States and the District of Columbia already have specific laws
punishing hate crimes, and Federal law already punishes
violence motivated by race or religion in many contexts.
At the markup, we sought to address these problems with the
bill--to restore equal justice under law, to protect the
freedom of expression and religious freedom that is so
important to our nation, and to ensure that the enumerated
powers of the Federal Gvernment are not inappropriately
expanded. The majority defeated our attempts to address these
problems.

H.R. 1592 RAISES FIRST AMENDMENT CONCERNS AND OPENS THE DOOR TO THE
PROSECUTION AND INVESTIGATION OF SPEECH AND RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES AND
GROUPS

The first amendment to the Constitution provides that
``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' America
was founded upon the notion that the government should not
interfere with the religious practices of its citizens.
Constitutional protection for the free exercise of religion is
at the core of the American experiment in democracy.
Hate crimes legislation that selectively criminalizes bias-
motivated speech or symbolic speech is not likely to survive
constitutional review; hate crimes statutes that criminalize
bias motivated violence are likely to survive a first amendment
challenge.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) (striking
down ordinance that selectively prohibited types of hateful speech);
and Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993)(upholding hate crime
enhancement for a violent crime finding that restriction on speech was
justified when linked to violent act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, hate crimes legislation can have a chilling effect
on speech and first amendment rights by injecting criminal
investigations and prosecutions into areas traditionally
reserved for protected activity. The line between bias-
motivated speech and bias-motivated violence is not so easy to
draw.
For example, in prosecuting an individual for a hate crime,
it may be necessary to seek testimony relating to the
offender's thought process to establish his motivation to
attack a person out of hatred of a particular group. Members of
an organization or a religious group may be called as witnesses
to provide testimony as to ideas that may have influenced the
defendant's thoughts or motivation for his crimes, thereby
expanding the focus of an investigation to include ideas that
may have influenced a person to commit an act of violence. Such
groups or religious organizations may be chilled from
expressing their ideas out of fear of involvement in the
criminal process.
Ultimately, a pastor's sermon concerning religious beliefs
and teachings could be considered to cause violence and will be
punished or at least investigated. Once the legal framework is
in place, political pressure will be placed on prosecutors to
investigate pastors or other religious leaders who quote the
Bible or express their long-held beliefs on the morality and
appropriateness of certain behaviors. Religious teachings and
common beliefs will fall under government scrutiny, chilling
every American's right to worship in the manner they choose and
to express their religious beliefs
Hate crimes laws could be used to target social
conservatives and traditional morality. Hate crimes laws have
already been used to suppress speech disfavored by cultural
elites--indeed this may be their principal effect. Of the 9,430
``hate crimes'' recorded by the FBI in 1999, by far the largest
group was labeled ``intimidation.'' The ``intimidation''
category does not even exist for ordinary crimes. This vague
concept is already being abused by some local governments,
which target speech in favor of traditional morality as ``hate
speech.'' In New York, a pastor who had rented billboards and
posted biblical quotations on sexual morality had them taken
down by city officials, who cited hate-crimes principles as
justification. In San Francisco, the city council enacted a
resolution urging local broadcast media not to run
advertisements by a pro-family group, and recently passed a
resolution condemning the Catholic Church because of its
``hateful'' views. No viewpoint should be suppressed simply
because someone disagrees with it.

H.R. 1592 IS INCONSISTENT WITH FEDERALISM PRINCIPLES

The bill raises significant federalism concerns and
provides protected status to victims based on religion,
national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or
disability.
A Federal law criminalizing violent actions taken because
of the victim's immutable characteristics would be such an act.
Such a law criminalizes acts that have long been regulated
primarily by the states. Under the Federal system, the Supreme
Court has observed, ``States possess primary authority for
defining and enforcing the criminal law.'' Brecht v.
Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 135 (1993) (quoting Engle v. Isaac,
456 U.S. 107, 128 (1982)). ``Our national government is one of
delegated powers alone. Under our Federal system the
administration of criminal justice rests with the States except
as Congress, acting within the scope of those delegated powers,
has created offenses against the United States.'' Screws v.
United States, 325 U.S. 91, 109 (1945) (plurality opinion).
The Court has viewed the expansion of Federal criminal laws
with great concern due to their alteration of the balance of
Federal-State powers. ``When Congress criminalizes conduct
already denounced as criminal by the States, it effects a
change in the sensitive relation between Federal and State
criminal jurisdiction.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 561 n. 3 (quoting United
States v. Emmons, 410 U.S. 396, 411-12 (1973)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress should not act quickly or without due deliberation
before it chooses to further federalize yet another area that
generally lies within the competence of the States. Given the
principles of federalism that govern the Constitution, Congress
should not use its powers until it is confident that hate
crimes are a problem that is truly national scope.

H.R. 1592 VIOLATES THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND HAS NO SUPPORT
UNDER THE THIRTEENTH, FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH AMENDMENTS

In addition to federalism concerns, the legislation creates
Federal jurisdiction on tenuous constitutional grounds, relying
on the Commerce Clause, as well as the 13th, 14th, and 15th
amendments.
Interstate Commerce Clause
The Supreme Court, in United States v. Morrison, struck
down a prohibition on gender-motivated violence, and
specifically ruled that Congress has no power under the
Commerce Clause or the 14th amendment over ``non-economic,
violent criminal conduct'' that does not cross state lines.\4\
The Court concluded that upholding the Violence Against Women
Act would open the door to a federalization of virtually all
serious crimes as well as family law and other areas of
traditional state regulation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 529 U.S. 598 (2000)
\5\ Id. at 615-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court's Morrison decision followed several
other decisions in which the Court clarified the Constitution's
restrictions on Congress's exercise of its powers under both
the Interstate Commerce Clause and section 5 of the 14th
amendment.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995); see also
Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Board v. College Savings
Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (1999); City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507
(1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal efforts to criminalize hate crimes cannot survive
the federalism standards articulated by the Supreme Court. Not
only does much of the hate crime problem go beyond what
Congress may regulate under the Interstate Commerce Clause, but
Congress has yet to perform the extensive fact-finding required
to demonstrate that hate crimes are a national problem that
requires a Federal solution.
In cases where Congress uses its enforcement powers under
section 5 of the 14th amendment, the Court has said, it must
identify conduct that violates 14th amendment rights, and its
must tailor the legislative scheme to remedying or preventing
such conduct. To meet these requirements, Congress must conduct
fact-finding to demonstrate the concerns that led to the law.
For example, the Court observed in Florida Prepaid, a challenge
to the Voting Rights Act, Congress developed an ``undisputed
record of racial discrimination'' and upheld the statute under
this standard.\7\ In City of Boerne, however, the Court found
that Congress had ``little evidence of infringing conduct on
the part of the States'' in the use of facially-neutral laws to
infringe religious liberties.\8\ Similarly, in Florida Prepaid,
the Court found that Congress had found few instances in which
States had violated Federal patent laws, and so invalidated the
Patent Remedy Act's abrogation of state sovereign immunity.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Florida Prepaid, 527 U.S. at 640.
\8\ City of Boerne, 521 U.S. at 530-32.
\9\ Florida Prepaid, 527 U.S. at 645-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to create a case for the constitutionality of a
law criminalizing hate crimes, Congress must engage in fact-
finding. Unfortunately, in their haste to rush this bill
through the Committee, the majority has not done any fact
finding whatsoever. To meet this standard, the Majority failed
to hold adequate hearings concerning the scope of hate crimes
in this country, their numbers, and their impact on the
economy. Until Congress engages in this sort of legislative
spadework, it will not be able to justify its findings in this
bill and the factual basis for its action.
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments
The 14th and 15th amendments do not provide Congress with
the claimed authority. The 15th amendment forbids the Federal
Government or a state from denying or abridging the right to
vote on the basis of an individual's race, color or previous
condition of servitude. The 14th amendment prohibits the States
from denying equal protection of the law, due process or the
privileges and immunities of U.S. citizenship. Both of these
amendments extend only to state action and do not encompass the
actions of private persons. Hate crimes by private persons are
outside the scope of these amendments.
Thirteenth Amendment
Section 2 of the 13th amendment stands on different
footing. The amendment proscribes slavery and involuntary
servitude without reference to Federal, State or private
action. In order to reach private conduct, i.e. individual
criminal conduct, Congress would have to find that hate crimes
against certain groups constitute a ``badge and incidence'' of
slavery.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 105 (1971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court has addressed Congress's power under section 2 in
only a few cases, the chief of which is Jones v. Alfred H.
Mayer Co.\11\ In that case, the Court upheld 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1982--passed originally as part of the Civil Rights Act of
1866--which was read to bar discrimination against African-
Americans in the sale or rental of property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 392 U.S. 409 (1968).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike the 14th amendment, the Court emphasized, the 13th
amendment allows Congress to enact laws that operate upon the
acts of individuals, regardless of whether they are sanctioned
by state law or not. Section 2 of the amendment ``clothed
Congress with power to pass all laws necessary and proper for
abolishing all badges and incidents of slavery in the United
States.'' \12\ Therefore, the Court observed, ``[s]urely
Congress has the power under the Thirteenth Amendment
rationally to determine what are the badges and the incidents
of slavery, and the authority to translate that determination
into effective legislation.'' \13\ The Court, however, has not
provided much guidance beyond Jones on what constitutes ``the
badges and the incidents of slavery.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Jones, 392 U.S. at 439.
\13\ Id. at 440.
\14\ See, e.g., Carpenters, Local 610 v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825
(1983); Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 (1971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress should tread carefully before it chooses to pass a
hate crimes statute on the basis of section 2 of the 13th
amendment. Such a law would have to be utterly clear that it is
based on the grant of authority to combat slavery. Only vaguely
asserting that some hate crimes might be linked to vestiges,
badges, or incidents of slavery or segregation would not be
enough.
Although there have been few judicial pronouncements on the
scope of the 13th amendment, the Jones case was limited to
discrimination on the basis of race, specifically
discrimination against African-Americans. Efforts to include
within a hate crimes prohibition those crimes motivated by
national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation,
disability and any other factor other than race would amount to
a congressional effort to interpret the 13th amendment beyond
that so far permitted by the Supreme Court. The Court will want
to ensure that, in defining badges and incidents of slavery to
include hate crimes, Congress has enacted remedial and
preventative legislation that seeks to end the true effects of
slavery, rather than attempting to re-define the term
``slavery'' or ``involuntary servitude'' as it has been
interpreted by the Supreme Court.

STATISTICS SHOW THAT HATE CRIMES HAVE DECLINED
OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS

FBI statistics show that the incidence of hate crimes has
declined over the last ten years. In 1995, 7,947 hate crime
incidents were reported. Statistics for the last four years,
2002 through 2005, have shown a decline in the number of hate
crimes reported. In 2005, for example, 7,163 hate crimes were
reported.
Of the reported hate crimes in 2005, 6 were murders, 3 were
rapes, and a majority of the crimes were characterized as
``intimidations'' as opposed to any involving bodily injury. As
an example, for 2005, there were 1,017 violent incidents based
on bias for sexual orientation, or approximately 4 incidents
per million of population. In contrast, the national rate of
violent crime in 2005 was 1.4 million, or 492 incidents per 1
million of population.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The 1990 Hate Crime Statistics Act charged the U.S. Attorney
General to ``acquire data . . . about crimes that manifest evidence of
prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity,
including, where appropriate, the crimes of murder, non-negligent
manslaughter; forcible rape; aggravated assault, simple assault,
intimidation; arson; and destruction, damage or vandalism of
property.'' A 1994 amendment added the disabled to the list of groups
to be tracked. The Attorney General delegated data collection of hate
crimes principally to the FBI. The FBI appended information on bias
motivation to the Uniform Crime Report (UCR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fifty-six percent of the crimes involved racial bias; 11
percent anti-religion bias; 14 percent national origin bias;
and 14 percent sexual orientation bias. Anti-disability and
anti-sexual identity bias was less than 1 percent. The Hate
Crimes Statistics Act does not require collection of hate
crimes statistics for violent crimes alleged to be motivated by
``gender identity.''

STATE PROSECUTIONS ALREADY ADDRESS VIOLENT CRIMES
AND HATE CRIMES

Hate-crimes laws are unnecessary: the underlying offense is
already fully and aggressively prosecuted in almost all States.
There is zero evidence that States are not fully prosecuting
violent crimes involving ``hate.''
Moreover, 45 States and the District of Columbia already
have laws punishing hate crimes, and Federal law already
punishes violence motivated by race or religion in many
contexts. In the absence of data that States are unable to
prosecute or decline to prosecute hate crimes, there is no
reason for the Federal assertion of jurisdiction or the
diversion of Federal resources to such investigations and
prosecutions.
Some of the most notorious hate crimes were prosecuted
under state laws, and there is no evidence that States are
unable or unwilling to prosecute such crimes. Of the 5 states
with no current hate crime legislation (Georgia, Indiana,
Arkansas, South Carolina, and Wyoming), Georgia and Indiana
have both tried to pass legislation pertaining to hate crimes
in the past two years, and in both cases the legislation has
been struck down by the courts.

NEED TO PROTECT MILITARY, CHILDREN, POLICE, ELDERLY,
VICTIMS AND WITNESSES

In protecting a limited categories of groups, such as race,
religion, sexual orientation, gender or gender identity, the
majority rejected our attempts to add other equally meritorious
groups such as members of the Armed Forces, law enforcement
officers, children, senior citizens, witnesses, pregnant women,
and crime victims. We can see no reason to distinguish among
these groups--all of them deserve heightened protection against
hate-motivated crimes. The majority has made its priorities
clear, and has done a disservice to our Armed Forces, police
officers, children, senior citizens, pregnant women, witnesses
and crime victims.
Members of the Armed Forces
We honor our men and women of the military because of their
patriotism and their commitment to protecting our freedom and
serving our country. In times of controversy surrounding the
use of our military, we have seen unfortunate acts by those who
use their hostility towards the military to further their
political agenda.
For example, last year we were faced with the practice of
groups protesting at military funerals of soldiers killed in
Iraq. This sick and despicable behavior intruded on the family
of the lost soldier and the need for privacy and respect.
Congress acted last year in passing legislation to restrict the
right of protesters to interfere with military funerals.
With the rising debate over the Iraqi war, we are seeing
increasing threats to Iraqi war veterans. In 2005, during a
peace rally, a war veteran was spit on by a protester at the
rally. Such incidents were all too commonplace during the
upheaval surrounding the Vietnam War, when hundreds of threats
and spitting incidents occurred against Vietnam War veterans.
We need to make it clear to everyone that we honor members
of our Armed Forces. Any act of violence against a member of
the Armed Forces must be met with swift and sure punishment.
Hate crimes against our Armed Forces must be punished at a
heightened level just like the other groups that are given
protection under this Act.
Law Enforcement Officers
Hate crimes against police officers--because they are
police officers--occur in far larger numbers than any of the
hate crimes reported by the FBI. According to the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, 55 law enforcement officers were
feloniously killed in the United States in 2005. The previous
year, 57 officers were killed in the United States. In the ten-
year period from 1996 through 2005, a total of 575 law
enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of
duty in the United States, 102 of whom were killed in ambush
situations--in entrapment or premeditated situations. If not
for the advent of bulletproof vests, an additional 400 officers
would have been killed over the last decade.
More than 57,000 law enforcement officers were assaulted in
2005, or one in every 10 officers serving in the United States.
And the numbers have been increasing since 1999, even as other
crime has decreased or held steady. As the executive director
of the Fraternal Order of Police noted, ``there's less respect
for authority in general and police officers specifically. The
predisposition of criminals to use firearms is probably at the
highest point in our history.''
If we are going to provide heightened protection for
certain groups, we should surely include police officers who
are attacked, assaulted and killed because of the uniform that
they wear, the job that they do, and their status as a police
officers.
Unborn Children
Partial birth abortion is a barbaric procedure that cannot
be tolerated in a civilized society. During this procedure, a
partially-born, living infant is literally ripped from his
mother's womb and stabbed in the back of the head. As Senator
Moynihan stated so poignantly, ``this is just too close to
infanticide. A child has been born and it has exited the uterus
and, what on Earth is this procedure?''
On April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court, in Gonzales v.
Carhart,\16\ ruled constitutional the Federal law banning
partial birth abortions, finding that the ban on partial birth
abortions does not place an undue burden on a woman's right to
an abortion because there are alternative conventional abortion
procedures that can be used if necessary.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 127 S.Ct. 1610 (2007).
\17\ Id. at 1632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During consideration of H.R. 1592, Mr. Jordan of Ohio
offered an amendment to include unborn children killed by a
partial birth abortion as a class of protected persons under
the hate crimes statute. Unfortunately, the chair ruled the
amendment non-germane based on the erroneous rationalization
that unborn children are not ``persons'' for the purposes of
the hate crimes law.
In response to the chair's ruling, Mr. Issa of California
offered an amendment to amend the definition of ``person''
within the statute to expressly exclude unborn children. Given
the opportunity to clear up the ambiguity as to whether unborn
children are persons under the act, the Committee unanimously
voted not to exclude the unborn from the definition of person,
essentially turning the chair's earlier ruling on Mr. Jordan's
amendment on its head. Unfortunately, the ambiguity Mr. Issa's
amendment attempted to correct persists.
Children
Hate crimes against children, that is, acts of violence
perpetrated against them because of their status as children,
occur in far larger numbers than any of the hate crimes
reported by the FBI. Our country has been shocked by a series
of brutal attacks against children. In 2005, our Nation was
horrified by the kidnapping and murders of the members of the
Groene family by a convicted sex offender.
Two well-publicized tragedies that same year in Florida, in
which 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford and 13-year-old Sarah Lunde
were murdered by convicted sex offenders, further underscore
the need for quick congressional action to address the danger
posed by individuals who prey on children.
In addition to the widely-reported tragedies that have
rightly brought this issue to the forefront, the statistics
regarding the frequency of such heinous crimes are staggering.
One in 5 girls and 1 in 10 boys are sexually exploited before
they reach adulthood, yet less than 35 percent of the incidents
are reported to authorities.
According to the Department of Justice, 1 in 5 children
(ages 10 to 17 years old) receive unwanted sexual solicitations
online. Additionally, 67 percent of the all victims of sexual
assault are juveniles (under the age of 18), and 34 percent are
under the age of 12.
Department of Justice statistics underscore the staggering
toll that violence takes on our youth. In 2005, over 1550
children under the age of 18 were murdered, up from the 2003
figure of 1528. The National Crime Victimization Survey for
2005 estimates that over 1.5 million violent crimes were
committed against children between the ages of 12 and 19. The
national crime survey does not account for victims under the
age of 12.
National Incident Based Reports from twelve States during
the period of 1991 to 1996 show that 34 percent of victims were
under age 12. One out of every seven victims of sexual assault
was under the age of 6.
If we are going to provide heightened protection for
categories of groups, we should surely include our nation's
children who are attacked, assaulted and killed because of one
thing--their innocence as children.
Pregnant Women
Acts of violence against women are abhorrent, but they are
especially disturbing when committed against pregnant women.
When a violent crime causes injury to a pregnant woman that
results in a miscarriage or other damage to the fetus, we all
share the desire to ensure that our criminal justice system
responds decisively and firmly to exact appropriate
punishment.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Two years ago, Congress passed the Unborn Victims of Violence
Act, 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1841, and created a separate criminal offense for
the killing of an unborn child during the commission of a violent crime
against a pregnant woman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 16, 2004, Bobbi Jo Stinnett, in Skidmore,
Missouri, was 23 years old when she was strangled to death and
had her unborn child cut from her womb. The killer, Lisa
Montgomery, who was 36 years old, had met Stinnett in an online
chat room and met with her at her home under the pretext of
buying a dog. Montgomery specifically targeted Stinnett because
she was pregnant. Montgomery had lost a child she was carrying
prior to murdering Stinnett.
Just last year, on September 22, 2006, 23-year-old Jimella
Tuntsall was murdered in East St. Louis her unborn child cut
from her womb by Tiffany Hall, a woman who frequently babysat
her 3 other children.
Autopsy results showed that Tuntsall bled to death after
having her abdomen cut open by scissors. Tuntsall's three other
children, ages 7, 3, and 2 were found dead and stuffed into a
dryer shortly after.
On September 12, 1996, at Wright-Patterson AFB, Airman
Gregory Robbins assaulted his wife, Karlene who was eight
months pregnant with their daughter, Jasmine. He covered his
fist with a T-shirt and repeatedly struck her in the face and
abdomen. Due to the assault, Karlene's uterus ruptured and
expelled Jasmine into the abdominal cavity, killing Jasmine.
A 2002 GAO report cited estimates from 15 States that
between 2.2 percent to 6.4 percent of pregnant women had been
violently attacked. This is intolerable and we should do more
to protect pregnant women from attack.
Senior Citizens
Our senior citizens are vulnerable, like our children, to
violent abuse. Recent events have underscored the harm to our
senior citizens from violent crime, and the need to make sure
that hate crimes against our senior citizens do not occur.
On March 4, 2007, a New York City man was videotaped by a
surveillance camera mugging a 101 year old woman in the lobby
of her apartment building. The heartlessness and hatred of this
attack is clearly conveyed on the videotape when Rose Morat was
trying to leave her building to go to church. The robber acted
like he was going to help her through the vestibule and then
turned and delivered three hard punches to her face and grabbed
her purse. He pushed her and her walker to the ground. Rose
Morat suffered a broken cheekbone and was hospitalized. Police
believe the same suspect robbed an 85 year old woman shortly
after fleeing from Rose Morat's apartment house. Unfortunately,
the criminal has not been apprehended.
Crime Victims
Crime victims who are attacked because they were a victim
of a prior crime deserve special protection as well. The
Judiciary Committee considered this bill during the 2007
National Crime Victims' Rights Week. In honor of every victim,
we should renew our commitment to protecting crime victims from
violent acts whether carried out to intimidate or silence them
as a witness, or for any other motivation because of their
status as a victim.
Witness Protection
Witnesses in the judicial system, who are targeted because
they are a witness, deserve special protection under the hate
crimes bill. Recently, the Crime Subcommittee held a hearing to
examine the problem of victim and witness intimidation and the
need for witness protection services at the state and local
level. Witness protection services are very expensive. One easy
way to reduce that cost is to deter the crime--make it a hate
crime when a criminal attacks someone because of his or her
status as a witness in a judicial proceeding.
A Justice Department study in the 1990s concluded that
``witness intimidation is a pervasive and insidious problem. No
part of the country is spared and no witness can feel entirely
free or safe.'' Prosecutors interviewed in this study estimated
that witness intimidation occurs in 75 percent to 100 percent
of the violent crimes committed in some gang-dominated
neighborhoods.
Prosecutors in Baltimore estimate that 35 percent to 50
percent of non-fatal shooting cases in the city cannot proceed
because of reluctant witnesses, and about 90 percent of all
homicide cases involve some manner of witness intimidation.

CONCLUSION

As outlined above, H.R. 1592 suffers from numerous
problems. The majority's rush to judgment ensures that, even if
enacted, the hate crimes statute will be overturned by the
courts. That will undermine its stated goal of assisting state
and local law enforcement to reduce bias-motivated violence.

Lamar Smith.
Steve Chabot.
Chris Cannon.
Ric Keller.
Mike Pence.
Tom Feeney.
Trent Franks.
Jim Jordan.