Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to take just a few minutes to express my extreme pleasure with the agreement reached by the Chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, and the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, restoring funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program. I am delighted that an agreement has been reached by the two chairmen on restoring funding--not only for the CHIP program--but also for the Social Services Block Grant program. These two important programs affect the lives of millions of Americans daily and are critically important in my home state of Utah. As the original sponsor of the child health program, I was particularly concerned about the committee provision and--not only its potential impact on children already enrolled in CHIP--but especially on those children who are eligible but not yet enrolled. This is why I wanted to come to the floor and personally thank the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Committee for agreeing to restore the $1.9 billion in federal spending for CHIP as well as the $1.1 billion reduction in the Social Services Block Grant. Moreover, I understand that the Chairman has also agreed to restore $240 million in funding for the Temporary Aid for Needy Families program. This is also an important improvement to the committee bill. I want to commend Senator Stevens for working with us on the Finance Committee in resolving this very difficult funding issue. Moreover, I want to commend our chairman, Senator Roth, for his steadfast leadership in leading the charge at preserving the underlying funding for these critically important programs. I can appreciate the difficult work that the Chairman and all the Members on the Appropriations Committee have faced in crafting a bill that addresses the needs of the American people while complying with the fiscal constraints necessary to balance the federal budget. It is not an easy task recognizing the numerous demands placed on the committee by many worthy programs and causes. As one of the original sponsors of the CHIP legislation, I am particularly concerned about any mid-course changes to this important program that could undermine our ability to enroll eligible children. In my state of Utah, nearly 18,000 kids have benefitted from CHIP. Had the committee provision been enacted, the Utah CHIP program would have seen a $1.7 million reduction in its fiscal year 1998 allocation. And, as we now know, one of the critical problems facing the program has been the outreach effort to enroll eligible children. Clearly, we do not want to undermine the success we have had to date in which there are now more than two million children enrolled nationwide. As with any new initiative, it takes time to get these programs up and running. This is especially true in view of the fact that CHIP is administered at the state level and, therefore, it takes more time to get these programs fully operational. I have heard from many constituents who are concerned about these proposed funding cuts. They point out to me that there is a substantial lead time required to establish the outreach necessary to sign up new enrollees. That work is underway. I am very proud of the job Utah is doing under the leadership of our Governor Mike Leavitt and with the help of many, many community organizations doing such excellent work in the field--but we are not there yet. That is why the proposed cuts could have been so harmful. Mr. President, the CHIP program has been a resounding success across the country with all fifty states providing some form of CHIP services to eligible children. It has truly been remarkable the level of support we have seen from many groups across the country opposed to the proposed CHIP funding reductions. Not only has there been strong, bipartisan support in the Senate against the reductions, but we also have heard from the National Governors Association and scores of other advocacy organizations including the American Hospital Association, the Children's Defense Fund, and the Girl Scouts of the USA expressing strong opposition to any reductions in CHIP funding. Once again, I thank Senator Stevens and Senator Roth for this agreement as it sends a clear signal that CHIP is, indeed, fulfilling its mission to America's youth. Thank you Mr. President and I yield the floor. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, to increase funds for the Impact Aid program. I have been a long time supporter of this vital program. The Impact Aid program helps compensate states, like Utah, which are adversely affected by a federal presence. This program allocates funds to school districts where there are substantial concentrations of children whose parents both live and work on federally connected property and kids who parents either live or work on federally connected property. This is an extremely important program in Utah, especially in the southern part of my state. Some may ask why this program is needed. The answer is simple. When the federal government owns or controls property, that property is lost to the tax base of state and local governments. The Impact Aid program was established for the purpose of compensating school districts for the tax revenue they lose given a federal presence. I note with dismay and frustration that the Clinton Administration routinely eliminates portions of the Impact Aid program in its annual budget recommendations. Fortunately, however, this important program has been maintained and consistently funded. For that, I want to recognize the assistance of Senator Specter, Senator Stevens, and the other members of the Appropriations Committee. Congress has kept this program viable. Impact Aid is a vital program for Utah for many reasons. Utah needs every dollar it can get for our schools. Utah is a ``worst case scenario'' when it comes to the issue of school finance. We have the largest percentage of school age population in the country and the lowest percentage of working age adults. Because of this we have the lowest per-pupil expenditure in the country, despite the fact that our state allocates an extraordinary percentage of its tax revenue to education. Moreover, the adverse impact of a low per-pupil expenditure is felt over and over again because per pupil expenditure has become a factor in the funding formulas for a number of federal education programs. To make matters worse, about 70 percent of Utah's land is federally connected. We have military bases, parks, forests, wilderness, BLM land, reservations, and, of course, a relatively new 1.7 million acre national monument. If the Federal Government is going to own or control this much land in Utah, we need a fully funded Impact Aid program to offset the tax revenue losses to our schools. The federal government cannot improve education if they give with one hand and take away with the other. That is what the Clinton administration seems to be doing--advocating education funds only for those initiatives it has proposed, but financially starving federal education programs that send money directly to Utah school districts. I am pleased to join my colleagues in support of the Impact Aid program. I urge senators to support this amendment.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have offered this amendment on behalf of Senator Leahy and myself. I believe this amendment is going to be accepted because it clarifies some matters that are very good. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this Hatch-Leahy amendment which is aimed at limiting the negative impact violence and indecent material on the Internet have on children. This amendment does not regulate content. Instead it encourages the larger Internet service providers to provide, either for free or at a fee not exceeding the cost to the service providers, filtering technologies that would empower parents to limit or block access of minors to unsuitable material on the Internet. We simply can not ignore the fact that the Internet has the ability to expose children to violent, sexually explicit and other inappropriate materials with no limits. A recent Time/CNN poll found that 75 percent of teens aged 13 to 17 believe the Internet is partly responsible for crimes like the Columbine High School shooting. Our amendment respects the First Amendment of the Constitution by not regulating content, but ensures that parents will have the adequate technological tools to control the access of their children to unsuitable material on the Internet. I honestly believe that the Internet service providers who do not already provide filtering software to their subscribers will do so voluntarily. They will know it is in their best interests and that the market will demand it. A recent survey reported in the New York Times yesterday, found that almost a third of online American households with children use blocking software. In a study by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, 60 percent of parents said they disagreed with the statement that the Internet was a safe place for their children. And according to yesterday's New York Times, after the shootings in Colorado, the demand for filtering technologies has dramatically increased. This indicates that parents are taking an active role in safeguarding their children on the Internet. That is what this amendment is about: using technology to empower the parent. I urge my colleagues' approval of the amendment. I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Leahy, who would like to speak on this amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague and friend, Senator Joseph Biden, to introduce one of the most significant pieces of legislation that the Senate will consider this year, the Violence Against Women Act of 2000. This historic bill reauthorizes the Violence Against Women Act programs that would otherwise expire at the end of this fiscal year. This new bill is the result of bipartisan cooperation over the last year and combines the best provisions of S. 245, the Violence Against Women Act of 1999, which I introduced last year, and of S. 51, Senator Biden's Violence Against Women Act II. Six years ago, recognizing the importance and need to protect the women and children in this country from domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault, senators from both parties supported the original Violence Against Women Act in 1994. This legislation has made a critical difference in the lives of countless families in my state of Utah and across the country. The Violence Against Women Act strengthened our laws, empowered law enforcement, facilitated access to protective orders, established and funded both battered women shelters and a national domestic violence hotline, and most importantly led to the overall protection of America's women and children. Well, we must ask ourselves, ``Was it worth it? Did our efforts made a difference?'' I stand here today to answer those questions with a resounding ``yes.'' The most recent Department of Justice statistics show that violence against women by intimate partners is down 21 percent across the board from just before the original bill's enactment. The Department of Justice has prosecuted hundreds of cases involving interstate domestic violence, interstate stalking, and interstate violations of protection orders. Through funding provided by the Act, the Department of Health and Human Services has provided grant funds to shelter more than 300,000 women and their dependents each year, while the National Domestic Violence Hotline has responded to approximately 500,000 calls. In all, the original Violence Against Women Act provided $1.6 billion in grant funds supporting the work of law enforcement officials, prosecutors, the courts, victim advocates, and intervention and prevention programs to address domestic violence at all levels. Although the Violence Against Women Act has been widely successful, domestic violence continues to plague our homes, our communities, and our country. The national statistics are sobering: Nearly one-third of women murdered each year are killed by their intimate partners. Violence by intimates accounts for over 20 percent of all violent crime against women. Approximately one million women are stalked each year. Women were raped and sexually assaulted 307,000 times in 1998 alone. Thus, I believe we should ask ourselves today, ``Should we continue and strengthen our efforts to combat violence against women?'' Once again, I stand here today to answer this question with a resounding ``yes.'' We must continue our efforts to protect our women and children from the devastating effects of domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault. The Violence Against Women Act of 2000 will reauthorize through fiscal year 2005 the grant programs that will enable the federal, state, and local governments to persist in their efforts to prosecute offenders and provide vital services to the victims of domestic violence. I would like to point out that the recent Supreme Court case United States v. Morrison, 120 S. Ct. 1740 (2000), simply invalidated the ``civil remedy'' provision, which allowed a victim of gender- motivated violence to sue her attacker in federal court. The case did not affect the ability of Congress to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, nor did the case affect any other aspect of the Act. There are several new, important, and worthwhile programs in this bill. One in particular, the transitional housing program, had its inception in my own state of Utah. Dedicated professionals in my State, working in the field, brought to my attention the fact that shelters often fail to provide adequate help to persons escaping the horror of domestic violence. In states like Utah, the spread-out location and the few number of shelters makes it difficult to serve the entire population in need of refuge from domestic violence. Furthermore, shelters are often inadequate for anything more than a few weeks. The transitional housing program remedies the situation by allowing some supplemental and short term housing for persons escaping domestic violence. It is absolutely imperative that we achieve strong, bipartisan support for this bill. We are approaching the end of our legislative session--we need to take the politics out of the process and reauthorize this Act. Senator Biden and I have worked long and hard on this--we are confident that our bill represents not only the interests of both Republicans and Democrats, but that it truly represents the interests of the American family. I intend to move this bill through the Senate Judiciary Committee promptly and intend to do all I can to ensure it becomes law this year. Finally, I would conclude by expressing my gratitude to Senator Biden for his tireless efforts to get this legislation written and passed. No one in the Senate has a longer and greater history of dedication to combating violence against women. I would also like to express my appreciation to Senator Spencer Abraham from Michigan. He has given much of his time and attention to this bill, particularly on the immigration provisions. I am grateful for his efforts.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague and friend, Senator Joseph Biden, to introduce one of the most significant pieces of legislation that the Senate will consider this year, the Violence Against Women Act of 2000. This historic bill reauthorizes the Violence Against Women Act programs that would otherwise expire at the end of this fiscal year. This new bill is the result of bipartisan cooperation over the last year and combines the best provisions of S. 245, the Violence Against Women Act of 1999, which I introduced last year, and of S. 51, Senator Biden's Violence Against Women Act II. Six years ago, recognizing the importance and need to protect the women and children in this country from domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault, senators from both parties supported the original Violence Against Women Act in 1994. This legislation has made a critical difference in the lives of countless families in my state of Utah and across the country. The Violence Against Women Act strengthened our laws, empowered law enforcement, facilitated access to protective orders, established and funded both battered women shelters and a national domestic violence hotline, and most importantly led to the overall protection of America's women and children. Well, we must ask ourselves, ``Was it worth it? Did our efforts made a difference?'' I stand here today to answer those questions with a resounding ``yes.'' The most recent Department of Justice statistics show that violence against women by intimate partners is down 21 percent across the board from just before the original bill's enactment. The Department of Justice has prosecuted hundreds of cases involving interstate domestic violence, interstate stalking, and interstate violations of protection orders. Through funding provided by the Act, the Department of Health and Human Services has provided grant funds to shelter more than 300,000 women and their dependents each year, while the National Domestic Violence Hotline has responded to approximately 500,000 calls. In all, the original Violence Against Women Act provided $1.6 billion in grant funds supporting the work of law enforcement officials, prosecutors, the courts, victim advocates, and intervention and prevention programs to address domestic violence at all levels. Although the Violence Against Women Act has been widely successful, domestic violence continues to plague our homes, our communities, and our country. The national statistics are sobering: Nearly one-third of women murdered each year are killed by their intimate partners. Violence by intimates accounts for over 20 percent of all violent crime against women. Approximately one million women are stalked each year. Women were raped and sexually assaulted 307,000 times in 1998 alone. Thus, I believe we should ask ourselves today, ``Should we continue and strengthen our efforts to combat violence against women?'' Once again, I stand here today to answer this question with a resounding ``yes.'' We must continue our efforts to protect our women and children from the devastating effects of domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault. The Violence Against Women Act of 2000 will reauthorize through fiscal year 2005 the grant programs that will enable the federal, state, and local governments to persist in their efforts to prosecute offenders and provide vital services to the victims of domestic violence. I would like to point out that the recent Supreme Court case United States v. Morrison, 120 S. Ct. 1740 (2000), simply invalidated the ``civil remedy'' provision, which allowed a victim of gender- motivated violence to sue her attacker in federal court. The case did not affect the ability of Congress to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, nor did the case affect any other aspect of the Act. There are several new, important, and worthwhile programs in this bill. One in particular, the transitional housing program, had its inception in my own state of Utah. Dedicated professionals in my State, working in the field, brought to my attention the fact that shelters often fail to provide adequate help to persons escaping the horror of domestic violence. In states like Utah, the spread-out location and the few number of shelters makes it difficult to serve the entire population in need of refuge from domestic violence. Furthermore, shelters are often inadequate for anything more than a few weeks. The transitional housing program remedies the situation by allowing some supplemental and short term housing for persons escaping domestic violence. It is absolutely imperative that we achieve strong, bipartisan support for this bill. We are approaching the end of our legislative session--we need to take the politics out of the process and reauthorize this Act. Senator Biden and I have worked long and hard on this--we are confident that our bill represents not only the interests of both Republicans and Democrats, but that it truly represents the interests of the American family. I intend to move this bill through the Senate Judiciary Committee promptly and intend to do all I can to ensure it becomes law this year. Finally, I would conclude by expressing my gratitude to Senator Biden for his tireless efforts to get this legislation written and passed. No one in the Senate has a longer and greater history of dedication to combating violence against women. I would also like to express my appreciation to Senator Spencer Abraham from Michigan. He has given much of his time and attention to this bill, particularly on the immigration provisions. I am grateful for his efforts.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I admire my colleagues. I feel very much the same as they do about these heinous crimes, but I have absolute confidence that our State and local governments are taking care of them. The problem with the Kennedy amendment is that it is unconstitutional and it is bad policy. First, the Kennedy amendment is unconstitutional because it seeks to make a Federal crime of purely private conduct committed by an individual against a person because of that person's race, color, religion, national origin, gender, disability, or sexual orientation. This broad federalization of what are now State crimes would be unconstitutional under the commerce clause, the 13th amendment, the 14th amendment, and, possibly, the 1st amendment. This is clear in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision just last month in United States v. Morrison. As Senators, we have a real duty to consider whether the legislation we enact is constitutional, and not just try to get away with all we can and hope the Supreme Court will fix it for us. Secondly, the Kennedy amendment is bad policy. It would make a Federal crime out of every rape and sexual assault--crimes committed because of the victim's gender--and, as such, would seriously burden Federal law enforcement agencies, Federal prosecutors, and Federal courts. In addition, the Kennedy amendment would not permit the death penalty to be imposed, even in cases of the most heinous hate crimes, such as the Byrd case, where State law permits prosecutors to seek the death penalty. Finally, the Kennedy amendment, by broadly federalizing what now are State crimes, would allow the Justice Department to unnecessarily intrude in the work of State and local police and prosecutors without any real justification for doing so right now. That is why we need to do this study while at the same time providing monies to help the State and local prosecutors to do a better job. The Kennedy amendment is unconstitutional, and it is bad policy. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. HATCH. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH. Supporters of the Kennedy amendment want to enact a broad federalization of all hate-motivated crimes because, they argue, some State and local authorities are unable to investigate and prosecute hate crimes because of the lack of resources. My amendment will solve this problem by establishing a grant program to provide financial assistance to State and local jurisdictions for the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. Supporters of the Kennedy amendment also argue that we should make a Federal case out of every hate-motivated crime because some States and locales are unwilling to engage in the fight against hate crimes. There is little or no evidence, however, that shows that States and localities are being derelict in their duties to enforce the law. Supporters of the Kennedy amendment cite the horrible beating death of Matthew Shepard in Laramie, WY, and the dragging death of James Byrd, Jr. in Jasper, TX, as evidence that there is a problem that Congress should address. The Shepard and Byrd cases, however, both were fully prosecuted by local authorities who sought and obtained convictions. In the Byrd case, local prosecutors obtained the death penalty--something that would not be permitted under the Kennedy amendment. Moreover, the Justice Department has identified only eight cases in which, in the Justice Department's view, States or localities were unwilling to investigate and prosecute a hate-motivated crime. Of the thousands and thousands of criminal cases that are brought each year, the Justice Department could identify only eight cases. These eight cases, I might add, are at the very least equivocal on the issue of whether States and localities are failing or refusing to prosecute hate crimes. Because the evidence is so scarce on the issue of whether States and localities are unwilling to combat hate crimes, my amendment provides for a comprehensive study to see if there really is a problem with State and local prosecution of hate crimes. Studying this issue to see if there really is a problem seems to me to be a reasonable course of action. Even if it could be clearly shown that States and localities were failing or refusing to investigate and prosecute hate crimes, the approach taken by the Kennedy amendment raises serious constitutional questions, especially in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision last month in United States v. Morrison. As written, the Kennedy amendment likely would be held to be unconstitutional under the commerce clause, the 13th amendment, the 14th amendment, and quite possibly, the 1st amendment. In conclusion, it is my hope that those of my colleagues who intend to vote for the Kennedy amendment also will support my amendment. While I disagree with the approach taken by Senator Kennedy, our two amendments are not inconsistent. My amendment provides for an effective and workable assistance program for State and local law enforcement, a program that enjoys the strong support of the National District Attorneys Association. And, it requires a comprehensive study so that we can really learn what, if any, problems and difficulties exist at the State and local level.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, what happened to James Byrd and Matthew Shepard should not happen in a great nation such as ours. Hate crimes are abysmal. They are horrible. We should all be against them. My amendment does two things. First, it requires that a comprehensive analysis be conducted to determine whether or not State and local jurisdictions are failing or refusing to prosecute hate-motivated crimes to the fullest extent of the law. Second, it provides monetary assistance to State and local jurisdictions who lack the resources to combat hate crimes. My amendment is strongly supported by the National District Attorneys Association, the major organization that represents State and local prosecutors throughout the country. The National District Attorneys Association endorsed my amendment because State and local prosecutors believe that the assistance offered in my amendment would be helpful to them as they seek to fight hate-motivated crime. In a letter, the National District Attorneys Association also states that it strongly endorses my amendment because my amendment ``appropriately recognizes that local law enforcement has the primary responsibility to safeguard their citizens while working as a team with the Federal Government.'' I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Oregon made my case. I decry what happened in the Matthew Shepard case. I decry what happened in the James Byrd case. Those horrific crimes, however, were investigated by local authorities and prosecuted by local prosecutors. In both instances, the local prosecutors obtained appropriate sentences--life terms in the case of the Shepard defendants and death sentences in the case of the Byrd defendants. Local law enforcement and local prosecutors did their jobs and investigated and prosecuted truly awful hate crimes. All of these horrible examples of hate crimes were handled properly by State and local authorities. That is why my amendment is strongly supported by the National District Attorneys Association, the major organization that represents State and local prosecutors throughout the country. The National District Attorneys Association has endorsed my amendment because State and local prosecutors believe that the assistance offered in my amendment would be very helpful to them as they seek to fight hate-motivated crime. In a letter of support, the National District Attorneys Association also states that it strongly endorses my amendment because my amendment ``appropriately recognizes that local law enforcement has the primary responsibility to safeguard their citizens while working as a team with the Federal Government.'' I have at least a couple of problems with the Kennedy amendment. First, it is unconstitutional. The Morrison case, decided only a month ago, is directly on point and leads to the inexorable conclusion that the Kennedy amendment, if adopted, will be struck down as unconstitutional. Second, the Kennedy amendment is overbroad. It would make a federal case out of every single hate-motivated crime that occurs in this country--including all rapes and sexual assaults, which currently are prosecuted under State law. Can you imagine what will happen if our Federal courts are clogged with all the rape cases in this country that are currently being handled very well by State and local prosecutors? That is why the National District Attorneys Association is strongly supportive of what I am trying to do here today. My amendment takes action with regard to the horrible crimes that are being committed in our country that have come to be known as hate crimes. They are violent crimes that are committed against a victim because of that victim's membership in a particular class or group. These crimes are abhorrent to me, and to all Americans. They should be stopped. That is why I have offered this amendment. My amendment does two things. First, it requires that a comprehensive analysis be conducted to determine whether State and local jurisdictions are failing or refusing to prosecute hate-motivated crimes to the fullest extent possible. Second, it provides assistance to State and local jurisdictions who lack the resources to carry out their duties of combating hate crimes. Let me talk about the comprehensive study first. Under the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, which I worked to get enacted in 1990, data has been collected regarding the number of hate-motivated crimes that have been committed throughout the country. This data, however, has never been properly analyzed to determine whether States are abdicating their responsibility to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. My amendment calls for a comprehensive analysis of this raw data that would include a comparison of the records of different jurisdictions--some with hate crimes laws, others without--to determine whether there, in fact, is a problem with the way certain States are investigating and prosecuting these crimes. Supporters of broad hate crimes legislation, like that proposed in the Kennedy amendment, claim that there are States and localities that are unwilling to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. It is unclear whether this claim is true. There is little or no evidence showing that there is a widespread problem with State and local police and prosecutors refusing to enforce the law when the victim is black, or a woman, or gay, or disabled. Of the thousands--perhaps hundreds of thousands--of criminal cases that are brought every year, the Justice Department could identify only five cases where it believed that it could have done a better job than the States in prosecuting a particular hate crime. In each of these five cases, however, the States either investigated and prosecuted the hate crime themselves, or worked with the federal government to investigate and prosecute the hate crime. In none of these cases did the perpetrator of the hate crime escape the heavy hand of the law. In United States v. Lee and Jarrad, a 1994 case from Georgia, the State obtained a guilty plea from one of the defendants and, after investigating the matter for several months, determined that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the other defendant. In United States v. Black and Clark, a 1991 case from California, the county sheriff--who lacked resources--ceded investigatory authority to the FBI after the federal government indicated its desire to investigate and prosecute the case. Because the defendants were charged federally, State prosecutors declined to bring State charges. My amendment would provide grants for similarly situated Sheriffs who operate on a tight budget. In United States v. Bledsoe, a 1983 case from Kansas, the State prosecuted the defendant for homicide and, after a trial, the defendant was acquitted. The Justice Department then brought federal charges and obtained a life sentence. In United States v. Mungia, Mungia and Martin, a Texas case, state prosecutors worked with federal prosecutors and agreed that federal charges were preferable because (1) the defendants could be tried jointly in federal court and (2) overcrowding in State prisons might have led to the defendants serving less than their full sentences. And, in United States v. Lane and Pierce, a 1987 case from Colorado, State prosecutors worked with federal prosecutors and agreed that federal charges were preferable because most of the witnesses were in federal custody in several different States. These five cases hardly show wholesale abdication of prosecutorial responsibility by State and local prosecutors. To the contrary, these cases show that State and local authorities are vigorously combating hate crimes and, where necessary, cooperating with federal officials who may assist them in investigating, charging, and trying these defendants. During the debate yesterday, Senator Kennedy indicated that the Justice Department had produced to the Judiciary Committee additional examples of cases where State and local prosecutors have failed or refused to prosecute hate crimes. In fact, the Justice Department did identify three additional cases to Senator Kennedy. However of these three additional cases produced by the Justice Department and cited by Senator Kennedy, none establishes that State and local authorities are unwilling to combat hate crimes. In the 1984 case of United States v. Kila, the State authorities who were investigating the case requested that the Justice Department become involved in the case and bring federal charges. A federal jury then acquitted the defendants of the federal charges. In a 1982 case that the Justice Department does not name, the defendant was acquitted of federal charges; the Justice Department does not state whether State charges were brought or whether the local prosecutors simply deferred to the federal prosecutors. And, in United States v. Franklin, a 1980 case from Indiana, the defendant was acquitted of federal charges; again, the Justice Department does not state whether State charges were brought or whether local prosecutors deferred to federal prosecutors. In summary, my amendment calls for a comprehensive analysis of hate crimes statistics to determine whether, in fact, any State and local law enforcement authorities are unwilling, for whatever reason, to combat these horrific crimes. Even if the eight cases I have just discussed did show that State and local authorities were unwilling to investigate and prosecute hate- motivated crimes, they still would only be eight cases out of the thousands and thousands of cases that are brought each year. In no way do they show a widespread problem regarding State and local prosecution of hate-motivated crime. Reasonable people should agree that an analysis of the hate crimes statistics that have been collected ought to be conducted to determine whether there is anything to the argument that State and local authorities are failing to combat hate rimes. If the study shows that State and local authorities are derelict in their duties when it comes to hate crimes, I will be the first to support legislation targeted at such government conduct. The second main thing that my amendment does is create a grant program to help provide resources to States and local jurisdictions to investigate and prosecute hate-motivated crimes. Supporters of the Kennedy amendment claim that some State and local jurisdictions do not have adequate resources to combat hate crimes. They say that these jurisdictions, while willing to combat hate crimes, are unable to do so because they lack the resources. My amendment seeks to answer this very real concern. My amendment would equip States and localities with the resources necessary so that they can combat such crimes. And my amendment would do so without federalizing every hate-motivated crime. Now, I should make clear what my amendment does not do. It does not create a new federal crime. It does not federalize crimes motivated because of a persons's membership in a particular class or group. Such federalization would, in my estimation, be unconstitutional and would unduly burden federal law enforcement, federal prosecutors and federal courts. I must say that the serious constitutional questions that are raised by the Kennedy amendment's broad federalization of what now are State crimes is its greatest drawback. The intention of Senator Kenndy's amendment--to combat hate-motivated crimes--is certainly praiseworthy. But the Kennedy amendment's method for achieving this laudable aim--by making a federal case out of every hate-motivated crime--is not. If enacted, the Kennedy amendment likely will be struck down as unconstitutional. As I discussed at length yesterday, Congress simply does not have the authority to enact such broad legislation under either Section 5 of the 14th amendment or the commerce clause. This is clear in light of the Supreme Court's decision last month in United States v. Morrison. During the debate yesterday it was argued that the 13th amendment provides Congress with the authority to enact the legislation proposed in the Kennedy amendment. I respectfully disagree. The 13th amendment provides: ``Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'' An argument could perhaps be made that the failure or refusal by State authorities to investigate and prosecute crimes committed because the victim is an African-American constitutes at badge or incident of slavery. But while this creative 13th amendment argument possibly may work for federal regulation of hate crimes committed against African-Americans, it simply does not work for federal regulation of hate crimes against women, or gays, or the disabled, as the 13th amendment applies only to the badges or incidents or relics of slavery. At no time in our nation's history, thank goodness, have our laws sanctioned the enslavement of women, homosexuals, or the disabled. Supporters of the Kennedy amendment argued yesterday that the Justice Department has placed its stamp of approval on this creative 13th amendment argument. I am fairly confident, however, notwithstanding the Justice Department's opinion, that the Supreme Court will not interpret the 13th amendment so expansively. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Kennedy amendment. It almost certainly is unconstitutional, given the current state of constitutional law. In addition, it is bad policy to enact a broad federalization of what traditionally have been State crimes-- crimes that are, by all accounts, being vigorously investigated and prosecuted at the State and local level. I also would urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment that I have offered. It calls for a study of the way States are dealing with the problem of hate crimes and provides grants to States so they will have the resources to continue their efforts. And, my amendment has the added benefit of being constitutional. For the reasons that I have stated, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment. I commend Senator Kennedy and those who are supporting his amendment in the sense that all of us should be against this type of tyranny, this type of criminal activity that is motivated by hate, this type of mean, venal, vile conduct that lessens our society. But nobody should make the mistake of not understanding that I do not think the case has been made that States and localities are unwilling to combat hate crimes. In the cases I have seen, the evidence is to the contrary: States and localities are leading the fight against hate-motivated crimes. The only way to resolve this issue regarding the willingness of the States to engage in the fight against hate crimes is to do what I suggest: conduct a thoroughgoing study of the hate crimes statistics that we do have to see if, in fact, States and local jurisdictions are not doing their jobs. I, for one, do not believe that the case has been made against local prosecutors.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from Utah have?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the amendment that I have offered concerning the horrible crimes that are being committed in our country that have come to be known as hate crimes. They are violent crimes that are committed against a victim because of that victim's membership in a particular class or group. These crimes are abhorrent to me, and I believe to all Americans who think about it. They should be stopped. That is why I have offered this amendment. My amendment does two things. First, it requires that a comprehensive analysis be conducted to determine whether State and local jurisdictions are failing or refusing to prosecute hate-motivated crimes to the fullest extent possible. Second, it provides assistance to State and local jurisdictions who lack the resources to carry out their duties of combating hate crimes. Let me talk about the comprehensive study first. Under the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, data has been collected regarding the number of hate-motivated crimes that have been committed throughout the country. This data, however, has never been properly analyzed to determine whether States are abdicating their responsibility to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. My amendment calls for a comprehensive analysis of this raw data that would include a comparison of the records of different jurisdictions--some with hate crimes laws, others without--to determine whether there, in fact, is a problem with the way certain States are investigating and prosecuting these crimes. Supporters of broad hate crimes legislation, like that proposed in the Kennedy amendment, claim that there are States and localities that are unwilling to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. It is unclear whether this claim is true. There is precious little evidence showing that there is a widespread problem with State and local police and prosecutors refusing to enforce the law when the victim is black, or a woman, or gay, or disabled. At the hearing on hate crimes legislation that we held in the Judiciary Committee, Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder came to testify and explain the reasons why the Justice Department supports the expansive legislation proposed by Senator Kennedy. I asked Mr. Holder the rather basic and straightforward question of whether he could identify ``any specific instances in which State law enforcement authorities have deliberately failed to enforce the law against the perpetrator of a crime.'' After he gave a somewhat non-responsive answer, I asked him again: ``Can you give me specific instances where the States have failed in their duty to investigate and prosecute hate crimes?'' Mr. Holder could not. He then indicated that he would go back to the Justice Department, conduct some research, and then provide the Judiciary Committee with the specific instances for which I asked. In a subsequent response to written questions, the Justice Department identified three cases in which the Justice Department ``filed charges against defendants . . . after determining that the state response was inadequate to vindicate the federal interest.'' In addition, the Department identified two cases where the Justice Department determined that the State could not ``respond as effectively as the Federal Government because, for example, State penalties are less severe.'' These five cases hardly show wholesale abdication of prosecutorial responsibilities by State and local prosecutors. To the contrary, these cases show that State and local authorities are vigorously combating hate crimes and, where necessary, cooperating with Federal officials who may assist them in investigating, charging, and trying these defendants. During the debate yesterday, Senator Kennedy indicated that the Justice Department had produced additional examples of cases where State and local prosecutors have failed or refused to prosecute hate crimes. There are three of these additional cases. I have to say, however, that the three additional cases produced by the Justice Department and cited by Senator Kennedy do not establish that State and local authorities are unwilling to combat hate crimes. So where does that leave us? We are being asked to enact a broad federalization of all hate-motivated crimes that historically have been handled at the State and local level because, it is argued, States and local authorities are either unable or unwilling to prosecute them. My amendment's grant program addresses the first concern--that States and localities, because of a lack of resources, are unable to prosecute these crimes. If there is not enough money there, let's put enough money into the bill. I am not against increasing the sums. As for the second concern, we are being asked to conclude that States and localities are unwilling to prosecute hate-motivated crimes on the basis of eight cases--eight cases out of the thousands and thousands of criminal cases that are brought each year. Eight cases, I might add, that at the very least are equivocal on the issue of whether States and localities are failing or refusing to prosecute hate crimes. Supporters of the Kennedy amendment also cite to the horrible beating death of Matthew Shepard in Laramie, WY, and the dragging death of James Byrd, Jr. in Jasper, TX, as evidence that there is a problem that Congress should address. But the Shepard and Byrd cases prove my point. Both were fully prosecuted by local authorities who sought and obtained convictions. In the Byrd case, the defendants were given the death penalty--something that would not be permitted under the Kennedy amendment. This is not a case where my mind is made up; where no matter what evidence I am shown of dereliction by State and local authorities in the area of hate crimes, I would say that it is not enough, or is not sufficient for me to believe that there is a problem. I am open to the possibility that State and local authorities are not doing their part. I hope that is not true, but my mind is not made up. That is why my amendment calls for a comprehensive study that would carefully and thoroughly and objectively study the data we have collected to see if there is a disparity in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. If there is a problem with prosecution at the State level, then I am on record calling for an effective and responsible Federal response. To summarize: My amendment calls for a comprehensive analysis of hate crimes statistics to determine whether, in fact, any State and local law enforcement authorities are unwilling, for whatever reason, to combat these horrific crimes. Even if the eight cases identified by the Justice Department did show that State and local authorities were unwilling to investigate and prosecute hate-motivated crimes, they still would only be eight cases out of the thousands and thousands of cases that are brought each year. They simply do not show a widespread problem regarding State and local prosecution of hate-motivated crime. In fact, if you look at them it show that the system is working and the two bodies, the State and local prosecutors and the Federal prosecutors generally work together and they simply do not show a widespread problem regarding State and local prosecutions of hate- motivated crime. Reasonable people should agree that an analysis of the hate crimes statistics that have been collected ought to be conducted to determine whether there is anything to the argument that State and local authorities are failing to combat hate crimes. If the study shows that State and local authorities are derelict in their duties when it comes to hate crimes, I will be the first to support legislation targeted at such government conduct. The second main thing that my amendment does is create a grant program to help provide resources to States and local jurisdictions to investigate and prosecute hate-motivated crimes. Supporters of the Kennedy amendment claim that some State and local jurisdictions do not have adequate resources to combat hate crimes. They say that these jurisdictions, while willing to combat hate crimes, are unable to do so because they lack the resources. My amendment answers this very real concern. My amendment would equip States and localities with the resources necessary so that they can combat such crimes. And my Amendment would do so without federalizing every hate-motivated crime. Now, I should make clear what my amendment does not do. It does not create a new federal crime. It does not federalize crimes motivated because of a person's membership in a particular class or group. Such federalization would, in my estimation, be unconstitutional and would unduly burden federal law enforcement, federal prosecutors and federal courts. I must say that the serious constitutional questions that are raised by the Kennedy amendment's broad federalization of what are now State crimes is its greatest drawback. The intention of Senator Kennedy's amendment--to combat hate-motivated crimes--is certainly praiseworthy. But the Kennedy amendment's method for achieving this laudable aim--by making a federal case out of every hate-motivated crime--is not. If enacted, the Kennedy amendment likely will be struck down as unconstitutional. As I discussed at length yesterday, Congress simply does not have the authority to enact such broad legislation under either Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Commerce Clause. This is clear in light of the Supreme Court's decision last month in United States v. Morrison. During the debate yesterday it was argued that the Thirteenth Amendment provides Congress with the authority to enact the Kennedy amendment. I respectfully disagree. The Thirteenth Amendment provides: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Under this amendment, Congress is authorized to prohibit private action that constitutes a badge, incident or relic of slavery. An argument could perhaps be made that the failure or refusal by State authorities to investigate and prosecute crimes committed because the victim is an African-American constitutes a badge or incident or relic of slavery. But while this creative, Thirteenth Amendment argument possibly may work for federal regulation of hate crimes committed against African-Americans, it simply does not work for federal regulation of hate crimes against women, or gays, or the disabled, as the Thirteenth Amendment applies only to the badges or incidents or relics of slavery. At no time in our nation's history, thank goodness, have our laws sanctioned the enslavement of women, homosexuals or the disabled. Supporters of the Kennedy amendment argued yesterday that the Justice Department has placed its stamp of approval on this creative, Thirteenth Amendment argument. I am fairly confident, however, notwithstanding the Justice Department's opinion, that the Supreme Court will not interpret the Thirteenth Amendment so expansively. In conclusion, it is my hope that my colleagues who intend to vote for the Kennedy amendment will also support my amendment. While I strongly disagree with the approach taken by the Kennedy amendment, the two amendments are not inconsistent. My amendment provides for a strong and workable assistance program for State and local law enforcement. Indeed, it has the support of the National District Attorneys Association. Further, my amendment requires a comprehensive study so that we can really learn what, if any, problems and difficulties exist at the State and local level. With that, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to announce my support for the West Desert Wilderness Land Exchange Act, introduced by my good friend and colleague, Senator Robert Bennett. This is a proposal of importance to the citizens of my home state of Utah and to all Americans. Utah is the home to some of the most environmentally diverse lands in the nation. These lands contain environmentally significant plants, animals, geology, and many priceless archaeological sites. This legislation will transfer 106,000 acres of state school trust lands that are currently held within Wilderness Study Areas to areas where they may better benefit Utah schools. School trust lands are intended to raise revenue for Utah's schools. The economic benefits of these lands are vital to Utah schools and their funding. Trapped within Wilderness Study Areas, these lands have not been able to be developed, and Utah's school children have been left holding the short end of the stick. This proposal will allow for a land swap between the Department of the Interior and the State of Utah, and both parties have given their blessing to this proposal. The lands that will be given to the Department of the Interior are home to a variety of endangered and threatened species of plants and animals. A few of these are: the desert tortoise, the chuckawalla, purple-spined hedgehog cactus, and the golden and bald eagles. These lands also contain some of the most magnificent vistas in the western United States with views of Zions National Park, Elephant Butte, and the Deep Creek Mountains. This land exchange will preserve the unparalleled landscapes characteristic of Utah. The Utah State School Lands Trust was established at the time Utah became a state with lands deeded to the trust by the federal government for the purpose of creating a reliable source of income to support our state's educational system. Every student in Utah benefits from the resources made available by the school trust lands. It is a critical source of support for Utah education. This proposal, therefore, has the backing of all major Utah educational organizations, including the Utah PTA and Utah Education Association. This land exchange will unlock our school trust lands for the long-term benefit of Utah's school children. And, quite frankly, we will never be able to designate more wilderness in Utah without protecting the integrity of our Utah State School Lands Trust. This is one proposal where everyone benefits--our schools as well as our environmental interests. It is a logical proposal; it is a fair proposal. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I look forward to working with them on this important piece of legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to announce my support for the West Desert Wilderness Land Exchange Act, introduced by my good friend and colleague, Senator Robert Bennett. This is a proposal of importance to the citizens of my home state of Utah and to all Americans. Utah is the home to some of the most environmentally diverse lands in the nation. These lands contain environmentally significant plants, animals, geology, and many priceless archaeological sites. This legislation will transfer 106,000 acres of state school trust lands that are currently held within Wilderness Study Areas to areas where they may better benefit Utah schools. School trust lands are intended to raise revenue for Utah's schools. The economic benefits of these lands are vital to Utah schools and their funding. Trapped within Wilderness Study Areas, these lands have not been able to be developed, and Utah's school children have been left holding the short end of the stick. This proposal will allow for a land swap between the Department of the Interior and the State of Utah, and both parties have given their blessing to this proposal. The lands that will be given to the Department of the Interior are home to a variety of endangered and threatened species of plants and animals. A few of these are: the desert tortoise, the chuckawalla, purple-spined hedgehog cactus, and the golden and bald eagles. These lands also contain some of the most magnificent vistas in the western United States with views of Zions National Park, Elephant Butte, and the Deep Creek Mountains. This land exchange will preserve the unparalleled landscapes characteristic of Utah. The Utah State School Lands Trust was established at the time Utah became a state with lands deeded to the trust by the federal government for the purpose of creating a reliable source of income to support our state's educational system. Every student in Utah benefits from the resources made available by the school trust lands. It is a critical source of support for Utah education. This proposal, therefore, has the backing of all major Utah educational organizations, including the Utah PTA and Utah Education Association. This land exchange will unlock our school trust lands for the long-term benefit of Utah's school children. And, quite frankly, we will never be able to designate more wilderness in Utah without protecting the integrity of our Utah State School Lands Trust. This is one proposal where everyone benefits--our schools as well as our environmental interests. It is a logical proposal; it is a fair proposal. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I look forward to working with them on this important piece of legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I don't mean to prolong this, but in the handful of cases they don't like what happened. In that case, I may agree with the Senator that there should have been a verdict against the defendants, but a jury in the United States found otherwise. That doesn't mean we should federalize all hate crimes. That is what I am concerned about. I will just put forth my offer to work with the Senator to see if we can find some way of bringing everybody together in a way that will not intrude the Federal Government into all the local and State prosecutions in this country, which certainly the Senator's amendment would do. That is what I am concerned about. We will chat overnight and talk about it and see what we can do.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I haven't said this isn't an issue for the Federal Government. I think it may be. But the point is, we ought to get the facts, and we ought to find out if State and local authorities are failing or refusing to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. We ought first to find out whether State and local authorities are, in fact, denying individuals the equal protection of the laws. So far, the Justice Department has produced precious little evidence to the Judiciary Committee that would indicate that State and local authorities are abdicating their responsibility to combat hate-motivated crimes. And we asked for the Justice Department to get us this information, if there is any, a long time ago. Yet we have had actually nine decisions by the Supreme Court over the last 8 years reinforcing the principle of federalism--the principle that State governments and the federal government have distinct areas of responsibility. It is true that these Court decisions are, in many instances, 5-4 decisions, which shows again how important the Supreme Court really is in all of our lives. I am a proud cosponsor of the Violence Against Women Act. I remember the passion when we passed it. There were real concerns whether it would be upheld by the Supreme Court. Part of it was not upheld by the Supreme Court, the part that I was concerned about. But up to that point, I thought there was a chance. But with the Morrison decision, I don't think there is a chance that the Kennedy amendment, as it currently is written, will survive a constitutional challenge. And I think that we ought to at least make an attempt to abide by the Constitution, if nothing else. This is not a matter of States rights. I think there may be a role for the Federal Government. But right now, let's at least get the facts. In the process, we can lend assistance, both financial and otherwise, to the States to help them with these serious problems. I am very grateful for my distinguished colleague and his respectful remarks. They mean a lot to me because I happen to believe he is one of the most articulate Members of this body. I believe he is very sincere. It is true that we agree on much more than just a few things. But I just want to make it clear that my amendment offers a different approach--an approach that I think is constitutional, that will get us there without going through another 2 or 3 years and then having it overruled as unconstitutional and having to start all over again. I know that the amendment I have offered is constitutional. I know we can implement it from day one, without any fear that it will be struck down by the Supreme Court as violative of the Constitution. And I know it will make an impact and really do something about hate crimes, rather than just make political points on the floor. I thank my colleague.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 8 be placed on the Senate calendar.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene at 9:10 a.m. tomorrow and will shortly thereafter resume debate on the DOD authorization bill with the Dodd amendment in order regarding a Cuban commission. Also in the morning period, Senator Murray will offer her amendment relative to abortion. However, under a previous order, these votes and votes relative to hate crimes will occur in a back-to-back sequence at 3:15 p.m.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes it business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:10 a.m. on Tuesday, June 20. I further ask that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of the proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that Senator Grassley be recognized in morning business for up to 10 minutes, to be followed by Senator Biden for 10 minutes, and the Senate then resume consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I understand that S. 2752, introduced by Senator Thompson today, is at the desk. I ask for its first reading.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 2753, introduced earlier today by Senator Daschle and others, be placed on the calendar.