Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act Of 2007

Floor Speech

LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - May 03, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

There was no objection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Let me also say, Mr. Speaker, that I stand by this rule. We are talking about life and death issues here. We are talking about people's civil rights. And, unfortunately, I think it is clear that there are some on the other side of the aisle who oppose the expansion of civil rights protections for threatened groups living in the United States, and I believe they are flat wrong. But this gives the Members, every Member of the House, the opportunity to vote up or down on whether or not they believe that we should expand protections. I think this is an appropriate rule, and I strongly support the underlying bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Local Law Enforcement Hate Crime Prevention Act of 2007

LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT FOR THIS LEGISLATION

This legislation has received bipartisan majority support in Congress. In the last session of Congress, on September 14, 2005, the House of Representatives approved the measure as an amendment to the Children's Safety Act by a vote of 233-199. The Senate has approved the bill on two occasions since 2000, most recently in June, 2004 by a vote of 65-33. Unfortunately, in the past, the House leadership has acted to block approval of this legislation.

The measure also enjoys the support of over 210 civil rights, professional, civic, and religious groups, 31 state Attorneys General, former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, and a number of the most important national law enforcement organizations, including:

Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, Hispanic National Law Enforcement Association, International Association of Chiefs of Police, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Major Cities Chiefs Association, National Asian Peace Officers Association, National Black Police Association, National Center for Women & Policing, National Coalition of Public Safety Officers, National District Attorneys Association, National Latino Police Officers Association, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, National Sheriffs' Association, Police Executive Research Forum, Police Foundation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source