79–006 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 111–86 

LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HATE CRIMES PREVENTION 

ACT OF 2009 

APRIL 27, 2009.—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. 1913] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 1913) 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 ............................................................................................ 4 

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 5 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 17 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 18 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 18 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 31 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 31 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 32 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 34 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 34 

Advisory on Earmarks ............................................................................................. 34 

Section-by-Section Analysis .................................................................................... 34 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 35 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 38 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
2 

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 2009’’. 

SEC. 2. 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. 3. 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 a 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 violence recovery service 

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. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
3 

(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, 2011, 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 appro- priated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 and 

2011. 

SEC. 4. 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. 5. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. 

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Justice, including 

the Community Relations Service, for fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012, 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. 6. 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: 

‘‘§ 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 ORI- GIN, 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— 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
4 

‘‘(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.— ‘‘(1) In this section— 

‘‘(A) the term ‘explosive or incendiary device’ has the meaning given 

such term in section 232 of this title; and 

‘‘(B) the term ‘firearm’ has the meaning given such term in section 

921(a) of this title. 

‘‘(2) For the purposes of this chapter, the term ‘gender identity’ 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. 7. 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. 8. 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 Constitution. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 1913 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 

certain assaults against persons of defined groups a crime. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
5 

1See U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigations, 2007 Hate Crimes Statistics, available at www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/incidents.htm. 2 42 U.S.C. § 3631 also punishes violent intimidation with housing activities when the victims 

are selected based on sex, handicap, and familial status. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

OVERVIEW

Bias crimes are disturbingly prevalent and pose a significant 

threat to the full participation of all Americans in our democratic 

society. Hate crimes involve the purposeful selection of victims for 

violence and intimidation based on their perceived attributes; they 

are a violent and dangerous manifestation of prejudice against 

identifiable groups. 

As with most criminal activity, violent hate crimes can properly 

be investigated and prosecuted at both the Federal and State/local 

level, depending on the facts of the case and the needs of the investigation. The FBI has the most complete data, through voluntary 

reporting from law enforcement agencies around the country. But 

it is believed that violent hate crimes are significantly under-reported. 

Since 1991, the FBI has identified over 118,000 reported violent 

hate crimes. For the year 2007, the most current data available, 

the FBI documented 7,624 hate crimes.1 Racially-motivated bias 

accounted for approximately half (50.8%) of all incidents, religious 

bias accounted for 1,400 incidents (18.4%), sexual orientation bias 

for 1,265 incidents (16.6%), and ethnicity/national origin bias for 

1,007 incidents (13.2%). 

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act is intended to address two serious limitations in the reach of the current Federal hate crimes statutes—principally, 18 U.S.C. § 245 (Interference with Federally Protected Activities) and 42 U.S.C. § 3631 

(Interference with Housing). Enacted in 1968, these statutes prohibit violent hate crimes in a limited set of contexts, based on animus against the victim’s race, color, religion, or national origin.2

There are two deficiencies in these statutes: First, the statutes 

are confined to hate-motivated violence in connection with the victim’s participation in one of six narrowly defined ‘‘federally protected activities’’ (under 18 U.S.C. § 245) or in connection with 

housing (under 42 U.S.C. § 3631). Second, they provide little or no 

coverage whatsoever for violent hate crimes committed because of 

the victim’s perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, 

or disability. These deficiencies limit the Federal Government’s 

ability to prosecute certain hate crimes, and its ability to assist 

State and local law enforcement agencies in the investigation and 

prosecution of many of the most heinous hate crimes. 

The bill amends the Criminal Civil Rights Chapter (Chapter 13) 

of title 18 of the United States Code by creating a new section 249 

to address the limited reach of existing law. 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, the new section 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
6 

3The approach taken in this legislation is similar to that taken in the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996, which also amended Chapter 13 of Title 18. See 18 U.S.C. § 247. 4From 1991–2005, the FBI has received reports of almost 114,000 hate crimes. During that 

period, however, the Department of Justice has brought fewer than 100 Federal cases under 18 

U.S.C. § 245. For more information see http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/index.html 5The 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. § 245(b)(2). 

249(a)(2) prohibits the intentional infliction of bodily injury when 

the incident has a nexus, as defined in the bill, to interstate commerce.3 By expanding the reach of the Federal criminal laws to address both sets of limitations, section 249 provides the Federal Government the tools to effectively pursue the significant Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence—both by assisting 

States and local law enforcement, and by pursuing Federal charges 

where appropriate. 

It is important to emphasize that State and local authorities currently investigate and prosecute the overwhelming majority of hate 

crimes, and are fully expected to continue to do so under this legislation.4 Concurrent Federal jurisdiction enables not only the devotion of Federal resources to assist State and local law enforcement 

in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes, but also, in 

limited circumstances, to bring Federal criminal enforcement resources to bear as a ‘‘backstop’’ to State and local efforts. Such a 

backstop is important, 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. 

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. This section 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’’ with 

the intent to interfere with his or her participation in any of six 

specifically enumerated ‘‘federally protected activities.’’ 5 Thus, 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 

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. 

The 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 bruVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:00 Apr 28, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR086.XXX HR086

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
7 

6See Statement of Eric H. Holder, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 

May 11, 1999, available at www.usdoj.gov/archive/dag/testimony/daghate051199.htm. 

tality 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 § 245(b)—even where the proof of racially motivated violence was not in doubt. Expanding the circumstances under which certain hate crimes can 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 thus (1) permit the Federal Government to provide assistance to State law enforcement in 

a wider range of circumstances, and (2) criminalize instances of vicious bias-motived crimes that presently fall outside the reaches of 

the Federal criminal laws. 

Permitting the Federal Government to Assist State and Local Law 

Enforcement 

Where Federal jurisdiction has existed in the limited circumstances covered by 18 U.S.C. 245(b), the Federal Government’s 

resources, forensic expertise, and experience in the identification 

and proof of bias-motivated violence and criminal networks has 

provided an invaluable investigative complement to local investigators’ familiarity with the local community. Through their cooperation, State and Federal law enforcement officials have brought a 

number of perpetrators of hate crimes 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 selected 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 valuable assistance 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 determination of 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. § 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 18 

U.S.C. § 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: 34% 

of the joint investigations conducted during the 2-year life of the 

Task Force resulted in arrests on State or Federal charges,6 more 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
8 

7 Id. 

8 Hate Crimes Violence, Hearings Before the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 106th Congress 

13, 17–18 (1999) (Testimony of Eric Holder, Deputy Attorney General). 9 Id. 

10 Id. 

than double the 16% national arrest rate in arson cases generally 

(most of which are investigated without Federal assistance). More 

than 80% of the suspects arrested in joint investigations during the 

life of the Task Force were prosecuted in State courts under State 

laws.7

By expanding the reach of Federal criminal law, this bill will 

similarly expand the ability of the FBI and other Federal law enforcement entities to provide assistance to 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 resources increased the number of arrests and prosecutions in the church arson context. And as with church arson, it 

is expected that a large majority of hate crimes prosecutions will 

continue to be brought in State court, under State law.8

Ensuring that Important Federal Civil Rights Interests are Vindicated 

H.R. 1913 will enable the Federal Government to prosecute hate 

crimes where there is a significant Federal interest that is not otherwise being addressed. Where State and local prosecutors fail to 

bring appropriate State charges, or where State laws or State prosecutions are inadequate to vindicate the Federal interest, it is imperative that the Federal Government be able to step in and bring 

effective Federal prosecutions to ‘‘backstop’’ State and local law enforcement. 

Juror accounts in several Federal hate crimes prosecutions resulting in acquittal suggest that the double intent requirement in 

section 245(b)(2), particularly the ‘‘intent to interfere with the specified federally protected activity,’’ has frustrated the aims of justice. 

In testimony before this Committee, former 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.9 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.’’ 

Another section 245(b)(2) case that ended in acquittal 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.’’ 10


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
9 

11Quoting 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries. 12The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103–322, 

§ 280003a, provides: 

DIRECTION TO UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION REGARDING SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS FOR HATE CRIMES. 

(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. ***. 

In each of these examples, one or more persons committed a 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. Yet in each case, the double 

intent requirement prevented the Department of Justice from vindicating the Federal interest in the punishment and deterrence of 

hate-based violence. 

The current Federal hate crimes statute turns on such arbitrary 

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 where such an assault 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 unnecessary, anachronistic distinctions. And with the addition 

of section 249(a)(1) by this legislation this will no longer be the 

case. 

HATE CRIMES BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER, 

GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY

Law enforcement authorities and civic leaders have learned that 

a failure to address the problem of hate crimes can cause a seemingly isolated incident to fester into wide-spread tension that can 

damage the social fabric of the community at large. The Supreme 

Court recognized this important factual distinction in Wisconsin v. 

Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 487 (1993) as meriting the designation of 

a hate crime as a specific offense: ‘‘it is but reasonable that among 

crimes of different natures those should be most severely punished, 

which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness.’’ 11

The existing Federal hate crimes laws do not cover hate crimes 

committed because of bias based on the victim’s actual or perceived 

sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. There is 

an emerging consensus, however, that hate crimes motivated by 

such biases are equally 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.12 Further, since 1994, gender identity has been added to numerous State 

and local hate crimes statutes based on the same understanding of 

the corrosive effects of bias-motivated violence, and in recognition 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
10 

13See, Hate Crime Laws, Transgender Law & Policy Institute, www.transgenderlaw.org/ 

hatecrimelaws/index.htm (State survey of legal policy). 14Federal Bureau of Investigations, 2007 Hate Crimes Statistics. 15Dallas Morning News, Nov. 8, 1999 (‘‘Hate-crimes experts say statistics don’t tell story: 

Many cases unreported; special law rarely used’’). 16 Excerpts of press statement by Commander David O’Malley, September 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.’’ 

of the the fact that this particular bias has been behind particularly violent assaults.13

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 2007 FBI statistics, hate crimes 

based on the victim’s sexual orientation—gay, lesbian, or bisexual—constituted the third highest category reported—1,265 incidents, or one-sixth of all reported hate crimes.14 From 1991 

through 2005, there were over 17,000 reported hate crimes based 

on sexual orientation. And as noted previously, this figure is likely 

to significantly understate the true number of these crimes. 

Many victims of anti-lesbian and anti-gay violence 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 

underreporting, the trend in State statistics shows that gays and 

lesbians are increasingly the targets of crime.’’ 15

Despite the prevalence of violent acts committed against persons 

because of their sexual orientation, such crimes are not covered by 

18 U.S.C. § 245 unless there happens to be some recognized basis 

for Federal jurisdiction, such as bias against a gay victim’s race. 

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 a 

stark example of the limitations of Federal law. Despite the clear 

evidence that the murder of Mr. Shepard was motivated by animus 

based on his sexual orientation, the Federal Government lacked jurisdiction under existing hate crimes law either to investigate this 

horrifying crime in partnership with State and local officials or, if 

necessary, to bring Federal hate crimes 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.16

The situation confronting the Albany County Sheriff’s office in 

the Shepard case stands in marked contrast to what occurred in 

the above discussed Jasper, Texas case. Because the murder of 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
11 

17Sen. Rep. No. 103–138 (1993) (testimony of Prof. Burt Neuborne). 18See Anti-Defamation League, State Hate Crime Statutory Provisions, www.adl.org/ 

99hatecrime/statelhatelcrimellaws.pdf (State survey of hate crime laws). 19 According to an estimate by the Human Rights Campaign, transgender Americans face a 

one-in-twelve chance of being murdered. Statistics from the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) show that in schools 14.2% of transgender students report being physically assaulted as a result of their gender expression, while 30.4% experienced physical harassment. Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, www.glaad.org/publications. 

James Byrd, Jr. was covered under the existing 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.17

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 28, plus the District of Columbia, have hate crimes 

statutes that include gender among the categories of prohibited 

bias motives.18 The bill will harmonize Federal hate crimes law 

with the premise of VAWA, enabling Federal officials to work with 

State and local law enforcement officials in the investigation and 

prosecution of violent gender-based hate crimes. 

It is important to emphasize in this regard that the bill will not 

result in the federalization of all rapes, other sexual assaults, or 

acts of domestic violence. Rather, as discussed below in greater detail, 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 

Hate crimes against transgender people tend to be particularly 

violent, the product of extreme bias against gender nonconformity. 

While there are no federally compiled statistics, advocacy groups 

have reported that over 400 people have been murdered due to 

anti-transgender bias since 1999.19 In 2008 alone, there were 21 

murders of transgender and gender non-conforming people. 

Compounding the other challenges with effectively prosecuting 

and deterring these crimes, transgender people frequently distrust 

local law enforcement authorities, and the police often lack training 

and familiarity with transgender people. This lack of understanding highlights 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. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
12 

20Omaha World-Herald, April 21, 2001; Assoc. Press, Oct. 5, 2001; N.Y. Times, April 21, 2001; 

Chi. Trib., April 21, 2001. 21See Hate Crime Laws, Transgender Law & Policy Institute. For the purposes of this legislation, Gender Identity is defined as ‘‘actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.’’ See H.R. 

1913 Section 6(c). While some States have prosecuted Gender Identity hate crimes under their 

gender or sexual orientation jurisdiction, those definitions provide a somewhat inexact fit for 

the underlying bias reflected against transgender persons and necessitate a separate Federal 

classification. 22See Hate Crime Laws, Transgender Law & Policy Institute. 23This list includes 53 of the Fortune 500 including AT&T, IBM and Toys ’R’ Us. 24See, www.genderadvocates.org/News/HRC%20Poll.html. 25See Anti-Defamation League, State hate Crime Statutory Provisions. 26See 28 U.S.C. § 534 note. 

The murder of Brandon Teena, dramatized in the movie ‘‘Boys 

Don’t Cry,’’ is illustrative of the plight of this community. Even in 

cases where the crime is reported, police response is often inadequate. Teena was raped, and later killed, after the discovery of his 

biological gender by two acquaintances. He had 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, 

Teena was stabbed and beaten to death by the same perpetrators. 

In the civil suit brought by Teena’s family, the court found that the 

county was partially responsible for Teena’s death, and characterized the sheriff’s behavior as ‘‘extreme and outrageous.’’ 20

Currently, 13 States include protections for transgender individuals in their hate crime laws.21 Additionally, 13 States and 93 local 

jurisdictions do so in their anti-discrimination laws.22 There has 

also been explicit coverage of gender identity in the policies of leading corporations, where they have concluded that certain human 

resources cases are not purely based on gender or sexual orientation.23 These policies have helped shape public discourse on addressing the rights of transgender people, along with the rights of 

lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. According to a poll commissioned by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation in 2002, 68% 

of Americans believe that the Federal Government needs laws to 

protect against anti-transgender hate crimes.24

Disability 

Congress has shown a consistent and durable commitment, over 

more than two decades, to the protection of persons with disabilities from discrimination based on their disabilities. Beginning with 

the 1988 amendments to the Fair Housing Act, and continuing 

with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Congress has extended civil rights protections to persons with disabilities in many 

traditional civil rights contexts. Currently, 24 States plus the District of Columbia have hate crime statutes that reach crimes of violence motivated by animus based on the victim’s disability.25 Concerned about the problem of disability-based hate crimes, Congress 

also amended the Hate Crimes Statistics Act in 1994 to require the 

FBI to collect information about such hate-based incidents from 

State and local law enforcement agencies.26

H.R. 1913 would take the important step of making Federal hate 

crimes law consistent in this area with the Federal position taken 

in other areas of civil rights law, and harmonizing it with the hate 

crimes laws of most States. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
13 

27See, e.g., R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992); Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 

47 (1993). 28The measure was devised by psychologist Gordon Allport and has been 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). 

Allport’s Scale of Prejudice ranges from 1–5. 

Scale 1, Antilocution—Antilocution means a majority group freely make jokes about a 

minority group. Speech is in terms of negative stereotypes and negative images. This 

is also called hate speech. It is commonly seen as harmless by the majority. 

Antilocution itself may not be harmful, but it sets the stage for more severe outlets for 

prejudice. 

Scale 2, Avoidance—People in a minority group are actively avoided by members of the 

majority group. No direct harm may be intended, but harm is done through isolation. 

Scale 3, Discrimination—Minority group is discriminated against by denying them opportunities and services and so putting prejudice into action. Behaviours have the specific goal of harming the minority group by preventing them from achieving goals, getting education or jobs, etc. The majority group is actively trying to harm the minority 

(e.g. Jim Crow laws). 

Scale 4, Physical Attack—The majority group vandalize minority group things, they 

burn property and carry out violent attacks on individuals or groups. Physical harm is 

done to members of the minority group. Examples are lynchings of blacks, pogroms 

against Jews in Europe, tarring and feathering Mormons in 1800’s and British Loyalists 

in the 1700’s. 

Scale 5, Extermination—The majority group seeks extermination of the minority group. 

They attempt to eliminate the entire group of people (e.g., Indian Wars to remove Native Americans, Final Solution of ‘‘Jewish Problem’’ in Germany, and Ethnic cleansing 

in Armenia.). 

Gordon Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (Addison-Wesley 1954). 

The Propriety of the Particular Group Designations 

Throughout the course of debate on this legislation, opponents 

have suggested that the classifications of sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability do not merit specific protection 

under Federal law, or do not share commonality with other protected classifications. Such suggestions, however, are inconsistent 

with the overwhelming preponderance of historical facts. As noted 

above, these classifications are linked by jurisprudence,27 and by 

their inclusion together in numerous State and Federal criminal 

and anti-discrimination law statutes. 

Opponents offered a series of amendments during markup of the 

bill that would have added coverage for a disparate collection of 

groups, ranging from seniors to veterans to U.S. citizens to everyone who had any characteristic whatsoever. No evidence was offered, however, to show any record of group-based violence against 

these classifications, or even a widely held societal prejudice. Contrary to suggestions, it is not difficult to determine whether a particular group faces substantial societal prejudice that makes it appropriate to protect against the kinds of hate-based violent crimes 

covered by this bill. 

One test for manifestation of prejudice is captured by the widely 

recognized Allport Scale.28 As the logic of the test demonstrates, 

the classifications of sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, 

and disability share a common history of being targeted for hatebased violence, along with the classifications found in 18 U.S.C. 

245. Indeed, the classifications offered by amendments are ones 

held in wide esteem; many already have privileged legal status, 

special protection under separate criminal statutes, or special ecoVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:00 Apr 28, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 5602 E:\HR\OC\HR086.XXX HR086

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
14 

nomic recognition. These kinds of classifications clearly fall outside 

the scope of legislation that is focused on crimes of violence motivated by societal hate and prejudice. 

LEGAL ANALYSIS

Federalism Concerns as to Section 249(a)(2) 

The bill was carefully drafted to ensure that the Federal Government will continue to limit its prosecutions of hate crimes—particularly those motivated by actual or perceived animus based on gender—to the small set of 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 Section 7(b) sets forth several significant 

limiting principles. First, the bill requires proof that the violence 

be motivated by animus based on actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. This statutory animus requirement, which the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, will limit the pool of potential Federal cases to those 

in which the evidence of bias motivation is sufficient to distinguish 

them from ordinary crimes of violence left to State prosecution. 

Second, the bill requires a nexus to interstate commerce for all 

Federal hate crimes based on sexual orientation, gender, gender 

identity, or disability. This interstate commerce requirement, which 

the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, will limit 

Federal jurisdiction in these new categories to cases that implicate 

Federal interests. 

Third, the bill limits Federal hate crimes based on sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability to those involving 

bodily injury or death (and a limited set of attempts to cause bodily 

injury or death). These limitations will confine Federal cases to 

truly serious offenses. All violations of Section 249 are felonies; 

there are no misdemeanor provisions that could potentially permit 

Federal involvement in prosecuting minor offenses. 

Finally, the bill requires certification, by the Attorney General or 

other specified high-ranking, Department of Justice official, that: 

‘‘(1) he or she has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or 

perceived race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, 

gender, gender identity or disability of any person was a substantial motivating factor underlying the defendant’s conduct; and (2) 

that he or his designee, or she or her designee, has consulted with 

State or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution 

and determined that: (a) the State does not have jurisdiction or refuses to assume jurisdiction; or (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) actions 

by State and local law enforcement officials have left demonstrably 

unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.’’ This certification requirement is intended to ensure that the 

Federal Government will assert its new hate crimes jurisdiction 

only in a principled and properly limited fashion, and is in keeping 

with procedures under the current Federal hate crimes statute. 

Additionally, based upon the testimony of Justice Department officials, we expect the efforts of the Department under the new subVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:00 Apr 28, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR086.XXX HR086

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
15 

29See Testimony of Eric Holder, Deputy Attorney General, 106th Congress 13, 17–18 (1999). 30Statement of Administration Position, June 13, 2000 (Assistant Attorney General Robert 

Raben). 

stantive provisions of this legislation to be guided by Departmentwide policies that impose additional limitations on the cases prosecuted by the Federal Government, most notably Section 8-3.000 of 

the United States Attorneys Manual.29 Section 8-3.000 governs the 

interaction of Federal investigative and prosecutive offices in criminal civil rights matters. The notification and approval procedures 

of that Section ensure conformity in application of Federal laws, 

opening investigations, and staffing cases. The review processes set 

forth in the U.S. Attorney’s Manual will provide an important safeguard against overly expansive enforcement or untested theories 

being brought by individual prosecutors or agents. 

Constitutionality (Sections 249(a)(1) and 249(a)(2)) 

The bill is consistent with a long history of Federal involvement 

in combating criminal conduct. As the Department of Justice articulated in a 2000 Statement of Administration Position, the 13th 

amendment broadly authorizes Congress to regulate acts of violence committed on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.30

As to actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability, the Commerce Clause provides Congress ample 

authority to prosecute acts of violence motivated by animus based 

on these characteristics where the act has the requisite connection 

to interstate commerce. To avoid constitutional concerns arising 

from the decision in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), 

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 18 U.S.C. 249(a)(2). 

This interstate commerce element was drafted to invoke the full 

scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause power, and to ensure that 

hate crimes prosecutions brought under the new 18 U.S.C. 

249(a)(2) will not be mired in constitutional litigation. The interstate commerce nexus required by the bill is analogous to that required in other Federal criminal statutes. The Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 247, for example, makes it a crime 

to destroy religious property if the offense ‘‘is in or affects interstate commerce.’’ 18 U.S.C. § 247(b). Section 249 in the bill is 

drawn to comport with Supreme Court guidance in Lopez and U.S. 

v. Morrison, 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 18 U.S.C. 249(a)(1), which is based on Congress’ enforcement 

powers under the 13th amendment and does not require proof of 

a nexus to interstate commerce, and 18 U.S.C. 249(a)(2), which is 

based on Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause and contains an interstate commerce element that must be proved by the 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
16 

31The 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. 

Government beyond a reasonable doubt in each case.31 The inclusion of religion in both subsection (a)(1) and subsection (a)(2) will 

enable prosecutors to determine, based on the facts of each case before them, how best to proceed in light of possible constitutional 

challenges that might be brought. 

Free Speech 

The bill has been crafted in a fashion that fully protects first 

amendment and other constitutional rights. The bill is designed 

only to punish violent acts, not beliefs or thoughts—even violent 

thoughts. The legislation does not punish, nor prohibit in any way, 

name-calling, verbal abuse, or expressions of hatred toward any 

group, even if such statements are hateful. Moreover, nothing in 

this legislation prohibits the lawful expression of one’s deeply held 

religious or personal beliefs. The bill only covers violent actions 

that result in death or bodily injury committed because the victim 

has one of the specified actual or perceived characteristics. 

In addition, 249(d) provides that evidence of association or expression may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial 

(though such evidence may be used as impeachment) unless it specifically relates to the offense. This provision is written to harmonize competing interests—it recognizes the need to protect first 

amendment rights to express unpopular beliefs, but recognizes the 

need to permit the proper use of evidence of an accused’s statements and associations when they specifically relate to the offense. 

This provision ensures that evidence of mere expression or association is not permitted to be introduced at trial—that a person has 

expressed beliefs, for example, including religious beliefs, or belongs to an organization, including a religious organization, that 

holds or professes beliefs, that may be consistent with the crime 

charged. The provision recognizes that the use of an individual’s 

statements or associations may well be unfairly prejudicial if there 

is little other evidence linking the accused to the offense. 

It is not possible to provide a complete set of examples that capture the range of circumstances where such expressions or associations would be admitted or excluded. Nonetheless, this provision requires the district court to employ, in essence, a heightened relevance standard that takes into account the policy values associated with protecting the rights of free religious expression, free 

speech, and free association, and to consider the potential for unfair prejudice if the evidence at issue consists of unpopular speech 

or association with an unpopular group. This provision also recognizes that evidence of speech, conduct or associations of an accused 

is not unfairly prejudicial if it can be shown to be specifically related to the crime at issue. 

An isolated racial slur remote in time to the charged offense, or 

mere membership in an organization that professes strong negative 

views toward a given group would, presumably, be excluded. Even 

an incidental racial slur uttered in the course of the crime might 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
17 

be excluded if it were clear that it was not the motive—uttered in 

the course of an otherwise ordinary robbery, for example. 

In contrast, a 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 or close in time to 

the alleged offense, made in a way that indicates that such hatred 

is the motive for the violence, are more likely to be properly admitted as evidence. In these examples, there would need to be other 

independent evidence of the accused’s participation in the crime, 

and the court would retain the discretion to determine that the 

particular evidence was otherwise unfairly prejudicial. 

Moreover, this provision does not provide a license 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 ensuring that a witness who gives false testimony may be impeached. 

The legislation also includes a ‘‘rule of construction’’ in Section 

8, to lay to rest concerns raised in the 110th Congress mark-up of 

the legislation, and repeated since then, that religious speech or expression by clergy could form the basis of a prosecution. The rule 

of construction affirms that nothing in this legislation ‘‘shall be 

construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal 

prohibition by, or any activities protected by, the Constitution.’’ 

Nothing in this legislation would prohibit the constitutionally protected expression of one’s religious beliefs. 

Finally, any lingering 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, 505 U.S. 377 

(1992) and Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993). In Wisconsin 

v. Mitchell, the Supreme Court clarified 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. 

HEARINGS

In the last Congress, the Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, 

Terrorism, and Homeland Security held 1 day of hearings on substantially identical legislation, 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. That bill 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
18 

was reported by the Judiciary C0ommittee on April 30, 2007, and 

passed the House on May 3, 2007. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On April 22, 2009, the Committee met in open session and ordered the bill H.R. 1913 favorably reported with amendment, by a 

rollcall vote of 25 to 12, 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. 

1913: 

1. An amendment by Mr. Goodlatte to broaden the protected 

classes in the bill to include status as a senior citizen who has attained the age of 65 years. Defeated 15 to 11. 

ROLLCALL NO. 1 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman ...............................................................................

Mr. Berman ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren ....................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler .........................................................................................................

Mr. Cohen .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gutierrez .....................................................................................................

Mr. Sherman ..................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Baldwin ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gonzalez ......................................................................................................

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz ....................................................................................

Mr. Maffei ......................................................................................................... X 

[Vacant] ............................................................................................................

Mr. Smith, Ranking Member .............................................................................

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly .......................................................................................................

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren .......................................................................................................

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe ..............................................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Rooney ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Harper .........................................................................................................

Total ................................................................................................ 11 15 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
19 

2. An amendment by Mr. Franks to bar prosecution where the 

offender was, at the time of the offense, engaged in conduct protected by the first amendment to the Constitution. Defeated 16 to 

11. 

ROLLCALL NO. 2 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman ...............................................................................

Mr. Berman ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gutierrez .....................................................................................................

Mr. Sherman .....................................................................................................

Ms. Baldwin ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gonzalez ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz .................................................................................... X 

Mr. Maffei ......................................................................................................... X 

[Vacant] ............................................................................................................

Mr. Smith, Ranking Member .............................................................................

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly .......................................................................................................

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren .......................................................................................................

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe .............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Chaffetz ......................................................................................................

Mr. Rooney ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Harper .........................................................................................................

Total ................................................................................................ 11 16 

3. An amendment by Mr. Rooney to include in the bill crimes 

where the victim’s status was that of a member of the armed 

forces. Defeated 11 to 9. 

ROLLCALL NO. 3 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
20 

ROLLCALL NO. 3—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gutierrez .....................................................................................................

Mr. Sherman .....................................................................................................

Ms. Baldwin ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gonzalez ......................................................................................................

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

Ms. Wasserman Schultz ....................................................................................

Mr. Maffei .........................................................................................................

[Vacant] ............................................................................................................

Mr. Smith, Ranking Member .............................................................................

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ...........................................................................................................

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren .......................................................................................................

Mr. Issa .............................................................................................................

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks .........................................................................................................

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe ..............................................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Rooney ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Harper .........................................................................................................

Total ................................................................................................ 9 11 

4. An amendment by Mr. Gohmert to add the death penalty to 

the penalty provision of the bill. Defeated 11 to 8. 

ROLLCALL NO. 4 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gutierrez .....................................................................................................

Mr. Sherman .....................................................................................................

Ms. Baldwin ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gonzalez ......................................................................................................

Mr. Weiner .........................................................................................................

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
21 

ROLLCALL NO. 4—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz ....................................................................................

Mr. Maffei .........................................................................................................

[Vacant] ............................................................................................................

Mr. Smith, Ranking Member .............................................................................

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ......................................................................................

Mr. Coble ...........................................................................................................

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren .......................................................................................................

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks .........................................................................................................

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan .........................................................................................................

Mr. Poe ..............................................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Rooney ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Harper .........................................................................................................

Total ................................................................................................ 8 11 

5. An amendment by Mr. Gohmert to the Department of Justice 

Certification Provision to add a requirement that a State has no 

law prohibiting the conduct constituting the defendant’s alleged 

crimes before allowing the assertion of Federal jurisdiction. Defeated 12 to 9. 

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 .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler .........................................................................................................

Mr. Cohen .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gutierrez .....................................................................................................

Mr. Sherman .....................................................................................................

Ms. Baldwin ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gonzalez ......................................................................................................

Mr. Weiner .........................................................................................................

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

Ms. Wasserman Schultz .................................................................................... X 

Mr. Maffei ......................................................................................................... X 

[Vacant] ............................................................................................................

Mr. Smith, Ranking Member .............................................................................

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ...........................................................................................................

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren .......................................................................................................

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
22 

ROLLCALL NO. 5—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks .........................................................................................................

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan .........................................................................................................

Mr. Poe ..............................................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Rooney ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Harper .........................................................................................................

Total ................................................................................................ 9 12 

6. An amendment by Mr. Gohmert to add a Rule of Construction 

that no prosecution may be based in whole or in part on religious 

beliefs quoted from the Bible, the Tanakh, or the Koran. Defeated 

11 to 8. 

ROLLCALL NO. 6 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler .........................................................................................................

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gutierrez .....................................................................................................

Mr. Sherman .....................................................................................................

Ms. Baldwin ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gonzalez ......................................................................................................

Mr. Weiner .........................................................................................................

Mr. Schiff ..........................................................................................................

Ms. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

Ms. Wasserman Schultz ....................................................................................

Mr. Maffei ......................................................................................................... X 

[Vacant] ............................................................................................................

Mr. Smith, Ranking Member .............................................................................

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ......................................................................................

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren .......................................................................................................

Mr. Issa .............................................................................................................

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks .........................................................................................................

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan .........................................................................................................

Mr. Poe ..............................................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Rooney ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Harper .........................................................................................................

Total ................................................................................................ 8 11 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
23 

7. An amendment by Mr. King to rename the bill ‘‘Local Law 

Enforcement Thought Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.’’ Defeated 15 

to 10. 

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 .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gutierrez .....................................................................................................

Mr. Sherman ..................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Baldwin ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gonzalez ......................................................................................................

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff ..........................................................................................................

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz ....................................................................................

Mr. Maffei ......................................................................................................... X 

[Vacant] ............................................................................................................

Mr. Smith, Ranking Member .............................................................................

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly .......................................................................................................

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren .......................................................................................................

Mr. Issa .............................................................................................................

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks .........................................................................................................

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe ..............................................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Rooney ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Harper ......................................................................................................... X 

Total ................................................................................................ 10 15 

8. Motion to table an appeal of the Chair’s ruling that the Jordan amendment to broaden the protected classes in the bill to include an unborn child was non-germane. Agreed to 14 to 10. 

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 .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
24 

ROLLCALL NO. 8—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler .........................................................................................................

Mr. Cohen .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gutierrez .....................................................................................................

Mr. Sherman ..................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Baldwin ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gonzalez ......................................................................................................

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff ..........................................................................................................

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz ....................................................................................

Mr. Maffei ......................................................................................................... X 

[Vacant] ............................................................................................................

Mr. Smith, Ranking Member .............................................................................

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly .......................................................................................................

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren .......................................................................................................

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks .........................................................................................................

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe ..............................................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Rooney ........................................................................................................

Mr. Harper ......................................................................................................... X 

Total ................................................................................................ 14 10 

9. An amendment by Mr. Goodlatte to broaden protected classes 

in the bill to cover crimes where the victim’s status was that of a 

pregnant woman. Defeated 13 to 9. 

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 ................................................................................................

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler .........................................................................................................

Mr. Cohen .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gutierrez .....................................................................................................

Mr. Sherman ..................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Baldwin ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gonzalez ......................................................................................................

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff ..........................................................................................................

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
25 

ROLLCALL NO. 9—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz ....................................................................................

Mr. Maffei .........................................................................................................

[Vacant] ............................................................................................................

Mr. Smith, Ranking Member .............................................................................

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ...........................................................................................................

Mr. Gallegly .......................................................................................................

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren .......................................................................................................

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks .........................................................................................................

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe ..............................................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Rooney ........................................................................................................

Mr. Harper ......................................................................................................... X 

Total ................................................................................................ 9 13 

10. An amendment by Mr. King to replace the term ‘‘gender’’ 

with the term ‘‘sex’’ throughout the bill and strike the term ‘‘gender 

identity.’’ Defeated 16 to 10. 

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 ................................................................................................

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gutierrez .....................................................................................................

Mr. Sherman ..................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Baldwin ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gonzalez ......................................................................................................

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff ..........................................................................................................

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz ....................................................................................

Mr. Maffei ......................................................................................................... X 

[Vacant] ............................................................................................................

Mr. Smith, Ranking Member .............................................................................

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ...........................................................................................................

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren .......................................................................................................

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks .........................................................................................................


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
26 

ROLLCALL NO. 10—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe ..............................................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Rooney ........................................................................................................

Mr. Harper ......................................................................................................... X 

Total ................................................................................................ 10 16 

11. An amendment by Mr. King to broaden the protected classes 

in the bill to include anyone possessing any immutable characteristic. Defeated 10 to 9. 

ROLLCALL NO. 11 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Johnson .......................................................................................................

Mr. Pierluisi ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gutierrez .....................................................................................................

Mr. Sherman .....................................................................................................

Ms. Baldwin ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gonzalez ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff ..........................................................................................................

Ms. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

Ms. Wasserman Schultz .................................................................................... X 

Mr. Maffei ......................................................................................................... X 

[Vacant] ............................................................................................................

Mr. Smith, Ranking Member .............................................................................

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly .......................................................................................................

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren .......................................................................................................

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Forbes .........................................................................................................

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ......................................................................................................

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe ..............................................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Rooney ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Harper .........................................................................................................

Total ................................................................................................ 9 10 

12. An amendment by Mr. King to create a new category of 

criminal offense for crimes committed by illegal immigrants against 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
27 

nationals of the United States because of the U.S. national’s status 

as a U.S. national or U.S. citizen. Defeated 14 to 11. 

ROLLCALL NO. 12 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Delahunt ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson .......................................................................................................

Mr. Pierluisi ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gutierrez .....................................................................................................

Mr. Sherman .....................................................................................................

Ms. Baldwin ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gonzalez ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff ..........................................................................................................

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz .................................................................................... X 

Mr. Maffei ......................................................................................................... X 

[Vacant] ............................................................................................................

Mr. Smith, Ranking Member .............................................................................

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly .......................................................................................................

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren .......................................................................................................

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan .........................................................................................................

Mr. Poe .............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Chaffetz ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Rooney ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Harper .........................................................................................................

Total ................................................................................................ 11 14 

13. An amendment by Mr. King to replace the term ‘‘gender’’ 

with the term ‘‘sex’’ throughout the bill. Defeated 16 to 11. 

ROLLCALL NO. 13 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................

Ms. Lofgren ....................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................

Mr. Delahunt ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
28 

ROLLCALL NO. 13—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Cohen .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson .......................................................................................................

Mr. Pierluisi ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gutierrez ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Sherman .....................................................................................................

Ms. Baldwin ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gonzalez ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff ..........................................................................................................

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz .................................................................................... X 

Mr. Maffei ......................................................................................................... X 

[Vacant] ............................................................................................................

Mr. Smith, Ranking Member .............................................................................

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly .......................................................................................................

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren .......................................................................................................

Mr. Issa .............................................................................................................

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan .........................................................................................................

Mr. Poe .............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Chaffetz ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Rooney ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Harper ......................................................................................................... X 

Total ................................................................................................ 11 16 

14. An amendment by Mr. King to add an additional element of 

proof to the substantive offense, requiring proof of intent to intimidate or terrorize the class of persons to which the victim belongs. 

Defeated 10 to 8. 

ROLLCALL NO. 14 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler .........................................................................................................

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................

Ms. Lofgren ....................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Johnson .......................................................................................................

Mr. Pierluisi ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gutierrez ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Sherman ..................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Baldwin ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gonzalez ......................................................................................................

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff ..........................................................................................................

Ms. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

Ms. Wasserman Schultz ....................................................................................

Mr. Maffei ......................................................................................................... X 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
29 

ROLLCALL NO. 14—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

[Vacant] ............................................................................................................

Mr. Smith, Ranking Member .............................................................................

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly .......................................................................................................

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren .......................................................................................................

Mr. Issa .............................................................................................................

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks .........................................................................................................

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe .............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Chaffetz ......................................................................................................

Mr. Rooney ........................................................................................................

Mr. Harper .........................................................................................................

Total ................................................................................................ 8 10 

15. An amendment by Mr. King to define the term ‘‘sexual orientation’’ as used in the bill to explicitly exclude pedophilia. Defeated 13 to 10. 

ROLLCALL NO. 15 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler .........................................................................................................

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................

Ms. Lofgren ....................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gutierrez ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Sherman ..................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Baldwin ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gonzalez ......................................................................................................

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff ..........................................................................................................

Ms. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

Ms. Wasserman Schultz ....................................................................................

Mr. Maffei ......................................................................................................... X 

[Vacant] ............................................................................................................

Mr. Smith, Ranking Member .............................................................................

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren .......................................................................................................

Mr. Issa .............................................................................................................

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
30 

ROLLCALL NO. 15—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Poe .............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Chaffetz ......................................................................................................

Mr. Rooney ........................................................................................................

Mr. Harper .........................................................................................................

Total ................................................................................................ 10 13 

16. An amendment by Mr. Goodlatte to strike the text setting 

forth the basis of bias against the protected classes as an element 

of the offense, thereby broadening the scope of the bill to include 

all violent crimes against persons. Defeated 14 to 11. 

ROLLCALL NO. 16 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler .........................................................................................................

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................

Ms. Lofgren ....................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gutierrez ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Sherman ..................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Baldwin ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gonzalez ......................................................................................................

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff ..........................................................................................................

Ms. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

Ms. Wasserman Schultz ....................................................................................

Mr. Maffei ......................................................................................................... X 

[Vacant] ............................................................................................................

Mr. Smith, Ranking Member .............................................................................

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren .......................................................................................................

Mr. Issa .............................................................................................................

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe .............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Chaffetz ......................................................................................................

Mr. Rooney ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Harper .........................................................................................................

Total ................................................................................................ 11 14 

17. Motion to report H.R. 1913 favorably, as amended. Passed 15 

to 12. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
31 

ROLLCALL NO. 17 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler .........................................................................................................

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................

Ms. Lofgren ....................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gutierrez ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Sherman ..................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Baldwin ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gonzalez ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff ..........................................................................................................

Ms. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

Ms. Wasserman Schultz ....................................................................................

Mr. Maffei ......................................................................................................... X 

[Vacant] ............................................................................................................

Mr. Smith, Ranking Member .............................................................................

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren .......................................................................................................

Mr. Issa .............................................................................................................

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe .............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Chaffetz ......................................................................................................

Mr. Rooney ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Harper ......................................................................................................... X 

Total ................................................................................................ 15 12 

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 Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee advises that there is authorized 

to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 and 

2011. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
32 

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. 1913, 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, 2009. 

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. 1913, the ‘‘Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.’’ 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Grabowicz, who 

can be reached at 226–2860. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, 

DIRECTOR. 

Enclosure 

cc: Honorable Lamar S. Smith. 

Ranking Member 

H.R. 1913—the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act 

of 2009. 

SUMMARY

H.R. 1913 would establish certain hate crimes as new federal offenses and would authorize the appropriation of: 

• $5 million for each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010 for DOJ to 

make grants to state, local, and tribal governments to investigate and prosecute hate crimes; 

• Such sums as may be necessary for DOJ to make grants to 

state, local, and tribal governments to address hate crimes 

committed by juveniles; and 

• Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2009 through 

2011 for DOJ and the Department of the Treasury to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. 

Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1913 would cost about $10 million 

over the 2010–2014 period. The legislation could affect direct 

spending and revenues, but CBO estimates that any such effects 

would not be significant in any year. 

H.R. 1913 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. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
33 

ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1913 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 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010– 

2014 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated Authorization Level 10 * 0 0 0 10 

Estimated Outlays 2 3 2 2 1 10 

Note: * = less than $500,000. 

CBO assumes that the bill will be enacted near the start of fiscal 

year 2010. Based on spending for similar activities in recent years, 

CBO estimates that the bill’s authorization for grants to address 

hate crimes committed by juveniles would cost an additional $5 

million in fiscal year 2010—the same amount that the bill would 

specifically authorize for grants to state and local governments to 

combat hate crimes in general. We assume that the necessary 

amounts (a total of $10 million for 2010) will be appropriated by 

the start of that fiscal year and that spending 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 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 2010 

through 2011, subject to the availability of appropriated funds. 

Because those prosecuted and convicted under H.R. 1913 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 IMPACT

H.R. 1913 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 $10 

million to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. The bill also 

would authorized the Attorney General to provide technical, forensic, and prosecutorial assistance to those governments. Any costs to 

nonfederal entities 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 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
34 

ESTIMATE APPROVED BY: 

Theresa Gullo 

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. 1913 will assist 

State and local law enforcement in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes and will permit Federal prosecution of hate 

crimes in appropriate instances. 

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 Thirteenth and Fourteenth 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. 1913 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 names the short title of the bill 

as the ‘‘Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 

2009.’’ 

Sec. 2. 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. 3. 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 local law. Priority is 

given to crimes by offenders who acted in more than one State and 

rural jurisdiction with extraordinary expenses. 

Subsection (b) creates a grant program under the authority of the 

Department of Justice that is design 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 2010 and 2011. 

Sec. 4. Grant Program. This section creates a grant program 

under the authority of the Department of Justice that is design to 

combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to 

train law enforcement in identifying, investigating, prosecuting and 

preventing bias crimes. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
35 

Sec. 5. Authorization for Additional Personnel to Assist State, 

Local and Tribal Law Enforcement. This section authorizes appropriations of sums necessary, if any, to support the response, investigation and prosecution of alleged violations of provisions created 

pursuant to this legislation. 

Sec. 6. Prohibition of Certain Hate Crime Acts. This section adds 

a new provision to title 18 of the U.S. Code to be codified at 18 

U.S.C. 249—entitled ‘‘Hate crime acts.’’ In particular, 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. 245(b)(2), this new provision does not require 

a showing that the defendant committed the offense because of the 

victim’s participation in a federally protected activity. An offense 

under the new 18 U.S.C. 249(a)(1) will be prosecuted as a felony 

only, and 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 is required. Other misdemeanor attempts will not constitute offenses under this section. 

The new section 18 U.S.C. 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. This provision omits the ‘‘federally protected 

activity’’ requirement of 18 U.S.C. 245, but instead requires proof 

of a commerce clause nexus as an element of the offense. 

Subsection(b) of this provision requires a written certification 

from the Attorney General before prosecutions can be brought 

under sections 249 (a)(1) and (a)(2). 

Subsection(d) of this provision 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 offence. 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 be introduced as 

impeachment or rebuttal. 

Sec. 7. Severability. This section shields underlying hate crime 

statutes and amendments from any finding of unconstitutionality 

directed against a specific section or amendment of hate crimes 

law. 

Sec. 8. Rule of Construction. This section provides that nothing 

in the bill shall be construed to prohibit expressive conduct or activities protected by 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 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
36 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

CHAPTER 13 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE 

CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS 

Sec. 

241. Conspiracy against rights. 

* * * * * * * 

249. Hate crime acts. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 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— 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
37 

(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.— 

(1) In this section— 

(A) the term ‘‘explosive or incendiary device’’ has the 

meaning given such term in section 232 of this title; and 

(B) the term ‘‘firearm’’ has the meaning given such 

term in section 921(a) of this title. 

(2) For the purposes of this chapter, the term ‘‘gender identity’’ 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 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
38 

section affects the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness. 

DISSENTING VIEWS

We oppose H.R. 1913 as an unconstitutional threat to religious 

freedom, freedom of speech, equal justice under the law and basic 

federalism principles. 

Justice should be blind to the personal traits of victims. Under 

the Majority’s hate crime bill, H.R. 1913, 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, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status. 

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 and viciousness, 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, gender, 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, although 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. 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, 529 U.S. 598 

(2000), 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. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
39 

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 2007, 9 were murders and 2 

were rapes. Only 9 of approximately 17,000 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 infirmities 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 Government are not inappropriately expanded. We offered 18 amendments to this legislation but the Majority defeated each and every 

one of our attempts to address these problems. 

H.R. 1913 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; however, hate crimes statutes that criminalize bias 

motivated violence may survive a first amendment challenge. Cf. 

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 a state hate 

crime penalty enhancement for a violent crime and 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 amendments rights by injecting criminal investigations and prosecutions into areas traditionally reserved for protected activity. The line between bias-motivated speech and biasmotivated 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 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
40 

chilled from expressing their ideas out of fear from involvement in 

the criminal process. 

Moreover, under existing criminal law principles, the bill raises 

the possibility that religious leaders or members of religious groups 

could be prosecuted criminally based on their speech or protected 

activities. Using conspiracy law or section 2 of title 18 which allows 

for the prosecution of anyone who aids, abets, counsels, commands, 

induces or procures the commission of a crime, or anyone 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 

by one person to causing hateful violent acts by another. 

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 4300 hate crimes against persons reported by the FBI in 2007, over 2,000 incidents involved ‘‘intimidation,’’ usually defined as threatening words. 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. 1913 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. 

All violent crimes can be ‘‘hate’’ crimes, and there is little justification for singling out specific groups of victims for Federal protection. A Federal law criminalizing violent actions based upon a 

victim’s real or perceived 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 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
41 

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 FederalState 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.’’ 

United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 561 n. 3 (1995) (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 in scope. 

H.R. 1913 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, and the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. 

Interstate Commerce Clause 

The Supreme Court, in United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 

(2000), 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. The Court concluded that upholding the criminal provision of 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. 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 five of the 14th amendment. 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 in which Congress uses its enforcement powers under 

section five 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. 

In City of Boerne v. Flores, the Court found that Congress had 

‘‘little evidence of infringing conduct on the part of the States’’ in 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
42 

the use of facially-neutral laws to infringe religious liberties. City 

of Boerne, 521 U.S. at 530–32. In Florida Prepaid, the Court noted 

that ‘‘[i]n enacting the Patent Remedy Act. . . . Congress identified no pattern of patent infringement by the States, let alone a 

pattern of constitutional violations.’’ The Court held 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. 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. 

The only iota of fact-finding to be found in relation to H.R. 1913 

is section two of the bill, which lays out various ‘‘findings’’ regarding so-called hate crimes. Ironically, and inexplicably, the Majority 

chose to remove this section from the bill through adoption of a 

manager’s amendment offered by Mr. Scott. 

Until Congress engages in this sort of legislative spadework, it 

will not be able to justify any 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 two 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 incident’’ of slavery. See Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 

U.S. 88, 105 (1971). 

The Court has addressed Congress’s power under section two in 

only a few cases, the chief of which is Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 

392 U.S. 409 (1968). In that case, the Court upheld 42 U.S.C. 

§ 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. 

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. Section two 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.’’ Jones, 392 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
43 

1The 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.’’ The Hate Crimes Statistics Act does not require collection of hate crimes 

statistics for violent crimes alleged to be motivated by ‘‘gender identity.’’ A 1994 amendment 

Continued 

U.S. at 439. Therefore, the Court observed, ‘‘[s]urely Congress has 

the power under the 13th amendment rationally to determine what 

are the badges and the incidents of slavery, and the authority to 

translate that determination into effective legislation.’’ Id. at 440. 

The Court, however, has not provided much guidance beyond Jones 

on what constitutes ‘‘the badges and the incidents of slavery.’’ 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 two 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 1997, a total of 8,049 bias-motivated 

criminal incidents were reported by the FBI. Statistics for four of 

those years, 2002 through 2005, demonstrated a steep decline in 

the number of hate crimes reported. In 2005, for example, 7,163 

hate crimes were reported. In the last two years for which data is 

available, there has been a slight uptick in the number of hate 

crimes—7,722 incidents in 2006 and 7,624 in 2007—but fewer hate 

crimes are committed today than ten years ago. 

In 2007, 51 percent of the crimes involved racial bias; 18 percent 

involved anti-religion bias; 17 percent involved sexual orientation 

bias; and 13 percent involved national origin bias. Anti-disability 

bias was about 1 percent. Further, in 2007, there were 1,083 violent crimes against persons—rape, murder, assault, intimidation, 

and robbery—that were based on bias against sexual orientation, 

or approximately 3.6 incidents per 100,000 inhabitants. In contrast, 

there were a total of 1,408,337 violent crimes committed in 2007, 

or about 466.9 violent crimes incidents per 100,000 inhabitants.1


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
44 

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). 

According to FBI data, there were 16,929 murders in the U.S. in 

2007. Of that number, nine murders were classified as ‘‘hate 

crimes’’. By doing the math, we learn that ‘‘hate-crimes’’ murders 

make up less than one-tenth of 1% of the murders committed in 

the U.S. in 2007. This begs the question of why the House would 

pass legislation that ignores 99.9% of the murders in this country. 

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 passed legislation pertaining to hate crimes in recent years, and in both states the legislation has been struck down by the courts. 

NEED TO PROTECT MILITARY, UNBORN CHILDREN, THE ELDERLY, 

AND MOTHERS

In protecting 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 current and former members of the Armed Forces, senior citizens, and 

pregnant women. We can see no reason to distinguish among these 

groups—all of them deserve heightened protection against hate-motivated crimes. Despite the evidence of crimes targeting these members of these groups, the Majority has made its priorities clear, and 

has done a disservice to our Armed Forces, senior citizens, and 

pregnant women. 

Members of the Armed Forces 

We honor our men and women of the military because of their 

patriotism, their commitment to protecting our freedom and to 

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, recently 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 in 2006 in 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
45 

passing legislation to restrict the right of protesters to interfere 

with military funerals. 

With the rising debate over the Iraq War, we are seeing increased threats to Iraq War veterans. In 2004, Private First Class 

Foster Barton, of Grove City, Ohio, was brutally beaten in the 

parking lot of a music venue in Columbus as he was leaving a concert. According to the Columbus police, six witnesses who didn’t 

know Barton said the person who beat him up was screaming profanities and making crude remarks about U.S. soldiers. Barton had 

been on a 2-week leave from service in Iraq when the incident happened. A year later, during a peace rally, a war veteran was spit 

on by a protester at the rally. Such incidents were all too common 

place 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. 

Crimes against our Armed Forces must be punished at a heightened level just like the other groups that are given protection 

under this Act. 

During consideration of H.R. 1913, Mr. Rooney offered an amendment to add current and former members of the Armed Services to 

the list of classes protected under this legislation. The Majority rejected this amendment and defeated it in a party-line vote. 

Unborn Children 

Partial birth abortion is a barbaric procedure that cannot be tolerated in a civilized society. During this procedure, a partiallyborn, 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, 

127 S.Ct. 1610 (2007), 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. Id. at 1632. 

During consideration of H.R. 1913, 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. 

Pregnant Women 

All 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 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
46 

2 In 2004, Congress passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 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. 

the desire to ensure that our criminal justice system responds decisively and firmly to exact appropriate punishment.2

On December 16, 2004, Bobbi Jo Stinnett, in Skidmore, Missouri, 

was 23 years old when she was strangled to death and her unborn 

child was killed. 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. 

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. 

During consideration of H.R. 1913, Mr. Goodlatte offered an 

amendment to add pregnant women to the list of classes protected 

by this legislation. The Majority rejected this amendment and defeated it in a party-line vote. 

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. 

During consideration of H.R. 1913, Mr. Goodlatte offered an 

amendment to add senior citizens to the list of classes protected by 

this legislation. The Majority rejected this amendment and defeated it in a party-line vote. 

CONCLUSION

As outlined above, H.R. 1913 suffers from numerous problems. 

The Majority’s rush to judgment ensures that, even if enacted, the 

hate crimes statute will most likely be overturned by the courts, 

and therefore, will be counter-productive to its stated goal of assisting state and local law enforcement to reduce bias-motivated violence. 

LAMAR SMITH. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. 

HOWARD COBLE. ELTON GALLEGLY. BOB GOODLATTE. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
47 

DARRELL E. ISSA. STEVE KING. TRENT FRANKS. LOUIE GOHMERT. JIM JORDAN. TED POE. JASON CHAFFETZ. TOM ROONEY. GREGG HARPER. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS