Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act Of 2007

Floor Speech

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Let me say from the outset: I am strongly opposed to violent crimes committed against an individual, regardless of the motivation of the person committing it. That is why I support strong state and local prosecution measures to curb violent crime and increase safety in our communities. In fact, I am a principal supporter in Congress for increasing Federal funding for state and local law enforcement officers to curb gang and drug crimes, which often leads to violent crimes.

I have also spent considerable time in my district meeting with groups who have experienced discrimination or have been targets of violent behavior simply due to their race, religion or sexual orientation. The concerns they have raised with me have weighed heavily on my mind, and have caused me to reconsider my views on our Constitution's Tenth Amendment.

In the past, I have not supported Federal hate crimes legislation since it has traditionally been the responsibility of state and local prosecutors rather than the Federal Government. States have the right to apprehend and prosecute criminals under their own criminal codes, which must be respected. They also have the right to enhance penalties as they see fit, and many states have taken that step. My own state of Nebraska enacted comprehensive hate crimes legislation in 1997.

The Nebraska legislation authorizes judges to impose harsher penalties in criminal cases when a determination is made that the crime was committed due to the victim's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability or because of his or her association with persons who fit the specified classifications. The enhanced penalties for hate crimes provided for in the statute would be the next highest penalty classification above the one statutorily imposed for the crime, with the death penalty as the only exception. A broad variety of criminal charges could be enhanced, including manslaughter, assault, terroristic threats, stalking, kidnapping, false imprisonment, sexual assault of an adult or child, arson, criminal mischief, and criminal trespass. Our state statutes also provide victims with the authority to bring civil actions against attackers.

The actions taken by Nebraska and so many other states are appropriate because the states have the ability to expand their criminal codes as each sees fit. At the same time, there is no Federal nexus and thus no need for duplicative Federal legislation.

The Tenth Amendment is clear: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' At some point, we have to stop federalizing every problem in the country, no matter how large or small. When the states are addressing a problem effectively, there is no need for the Federal Government to add an extra layer of bureaucracy. Crime and punishment, with few exceptions, are in the purview of state legislative authority. I am unwilling to interfere with that constitutional balance, no matter how worthy the underlying subject matter might be. For these reasons, I must oppose H.R. 1592.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source