Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak in support of the bill H.R. 5284, to name the U.S. Customhouse in Norfolk, Virginia, after our colleague, Owen Pickett, who will be retiring at the end of this session. Mr. Speaker, the Members of the Virginia Congressional Delegation pride ourselves on our ability to work together for the common good of all who reside within the Commonwealth of Virginia. The fact that the Customhouse continues to serve its role in Hampton Roads is a perfect example of that, because while this building is physically located in the Third Congressional District, which I represent, Owen interceded in the effort to preserve this 141 year old structure, which has been symbolic of the history of Norfolk and all of Hampton Roads. The American flag was first raised over this building during the Civil War, and it has seen numerous renovations in its history. Norfolk was one of the first ports in the Nation to have a customs office, and the Customhouse in Norfolk remains the first Federal building constructed in Virginia for business operations. It has been designated as one of the 12 most outstanding buildings constructed in Virginia since the Revolutionary War, and it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Notwithstanding that history, when the new Federal Building in Norfolk was completed, employees of the Customs Service were moved out of the Customhouse and it was contemplated that the building would be turned into a restaurant or museum. But Owen Pickett demonstrated the leadership that makes things happen. He brought together the interested parties within the City of Norfolk, the General Services Administration and the U.S. Customs Service and secured the necessary funding for the renovation. On September 19 of this year, I was proud to participate, along with Owen, in a ceremony to reopen the newly refurbished Customhouse in Norfolk. Mr. Speaker, this is but one example of Owen's record of public service. For nearly 29 years, he has worked tirelessly for the residents of his district and the Nation. He served 15 years in the Virginia General Assembly, and almost 14 years now he has represented the Second Congressional District of Virginia in the House of Representatives. Prior to our service in Congress, Owen Pickett and I both served in the Virginia House of Delegates, where he was known as a conscientious and dedicated public servant. This reputation has continued with his service in Congress. Representative Pickett serves on the Committee on Armed Services. He is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, and he serves on the Subcommittee on Readiness. Throughout his career he has been a staunch advocate of our military and has championed the quality of life issues affecting military families. The Hampton Roads community has a significant military presence, including Oceana Naval Air Station and the Norfolk Naval Base, and I know our military community will miss Owen and his steadfast advocacy on their behalf. In addition to ensuring that our country is prepared to overcome any threats to our national security, Owen has been on the front line of protecting our Nation's environment. As a member of the Committee on Resources, he has fought hard to remind his colleagues in Congress of the importance of a balanced approach to the protection of our natural resources and the environment. As we head into the final weeks of this legislative session, Congressman Pickett will no doubt continue to demonstrate his leadership in the House. By passing the bill, H.R. 5284, the Owen B. Pickett U.S. Customhouse will serve as a lasting reminder of his leadership and his dedication to the Second District of Virginia and to our Nation.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill has not gone through committee. The issue being addressed is being addressed in the Violence Against Women Act, where we can have committee hearings and actually come up with a decent bill. There are several States that have already addressed this issue in different ways. But the way it has come to us today, it has not gone through the Committee on the Judiciary. It sounds like it does a good job, but there are a number of problems with the legislation. Frankly, there has been no attempt to fashion the bill to accomplish its worthy alleged goal by any constructive manner. For example, there has been no opportunity for anybody to review the bill, there is no opportunity for amendments and there is no opportunity for any interested parties to comment. It was just sprung on us Friday afternoon, and here it is. Six weeks before an election, I guess it is important to pass the bill without any hearings and without the opportunity to be heard, so I guess this is the way we are going to have to legislate the last few weeks. First of all, there are a number of problems with the bill. It requires a person to be subjected to an AIDS test, even if they are innocent, even if they can prove their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, some people that may actually have AIDS, may actually be innocent, and maybe they want to keep that fact a secret, and here you are, notwithstanding the fact that they can show by clear and convincing evidence that they were hundreds of miles away at the time of the alleged offense, that it was not them. They do not have an opportunity to be heard. They get tested, and there is nothing in the bill for confidentiality. This information just goes all over the place. It requires that the test be given, even though in some circumstances there is zero risk of transmission. It says a person, if requested by the victim, even though there is no chance of transmission, the tests can be given. There is no protocol, as I indicated, about confidentiality. You may have a situation where the victim actually has AIDS and wants to keep it a secret, and, all of a sudden, whether or not the perpetrator had AIDS or not, you have her subjected to the possibility of this information getting out. It is a shocking process that we are here on; no opportunity to comment, no opportunity to require any due process, no opportunity to conform this to what many of the other States have done. Six weeks before an election, here we are with legislation with a good title, and no opportunity to constructively deal with it. We asked the patron for 24 hours so we could consider some of these issues, and, no, here it is on suspension; no opportunity to review, no opportunity to amend, no opportunity for interested groups to comment. Here we are, vote it up or down. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Does the gentleman acknowledge that somebody could be factually innocent and could prove it by conclusive evidence, but does the gentleman disagree or will he acknowledge that that would become public?

Mr. SCOTT. I ask the gentleman, how do they keep it private if the victim gets information, the defendant gets information, the attorneys for the victim, the attorneys for the defendant, the prosecuting attorneys, the judge, and the information can get used in a public trial? Then how does the gentleman keep that information private until the person can say, ``I was 100 miles away from the alleged incident, it was not me, and I can prove it?''

Mr. SCOTT. If the gentleman reads the bill, it requires the information to become public.

Mr. SCOTT. This is the bill. The bill requires the disclosure of information.

Mrs. SCOTT

Mrs. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000. This bill represents a compilation of the fine effort by several of our colleagues to address the DNA analysis backlog that has accumulated at laboratories all over the country. Earlier we conducted in the Subcommittee on Crime hearings on three DNA backlog elimination bills introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) and members of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot). Elimination of the DNA analysis backlog would be a significant step forward in having our criminal justice system more accurately dispense justice. Not only will it greatly enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of our criminal justice systems throughout the country, but it would also save lives by allowing apprehension and detention of dangerous individuals while eliminating the prospects that innocent individuals would be wrongly held for crimes that they did not commit. At the same time, I think it is important to recognize that with this expansion comes the increased likelihood that DNA samples and analyses may be misused. We must be ever mindful of our responsibility to protect the privacy of this DNA information, ensuring that it be used only for law enforcement purposes. To that end, I was pleased that the Committee on the Judiciary agreed to an amendment that would impose criminal penalties for anyone who uses DNA samples or analyses for purposes not designated by the law enforcement officials. I am also grateful that the majority provided for the expungement of DNA information on individuals whose convictions have been overturned on appeal. In addition to the criminal penalties for misuse of DNA, I believe that we should encourage each State to develop a specific security protocol to prevent misuse of such samples, since the DNA does include sensitive personal information. This approach will be the only way to ensure that DNA analysis will not be used for unlawful purposes. This legislation is a positive step for law enforcement, but I am disappointed that it does not include any requirement on States to provide access to DNA testing to convicted persons who did not have the opportunity for DNA testing at the time of their trial. I am hoping that the next Congress will consider additional legislation which would ensure that funds provided for H.R. 4640 might be made available to provide persons who want to prove that they were wrongfully convicted. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I am very aware of the benefits of this legislation. In fact, through his outstanding work in Virginia, Dr. Paul B. Ferrara, Virginia's Director of the Division of Forensic Sciences, has led efforts in this country on the use of DNA for criminal justice purposes. That is why I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation and urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. If the gentleman would respond, what would be the difference in sentencing? If the two went from Washington, D.C. to Northern Virginia and had consensual sex and shared dirty pictures, what would be the effect of this bill? It is already illegal to share those dirty pictures right now. It would be a Federal offense. What would be the impact of this bill on that Federal crime?

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this came to our attention late Friday afternoon that it would be on suspension and not available for amendment or any discussion. So I have been having a little trouble getting the details on it. We have contacted the sentencing commission that indicated a problem with the bill and, that is, there are certain sentencing inconsistencies. For example, if an 18-year-old were to have consensual sex with a 17-year-old, that would not be a Federal crime nor a crime in most States. However, if they shared dirty pictures, then that would be a Federal crime. Perhaps the sponsor of the bill or someone on the other side could explain to me what the probable effect of this legislation would be for the 18-year-old sharing pictures with a 17- year-old, what the effect of this legislation would be.

Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise to oppose the rule because, in its present form, good health care for children now includes a bad crime bill and a provision which waters down our fundamental civil rights. A good child health care bill should not come at such a price. By adopting the rule, we will prohibit amendments to the bill that could fix the methamphetamine drug part of the bill. A similar bill was considered in the Committee on the Judiciary, and amendments could have conformed that 46-page bill to the formal deliberations of the committee. But the rule prohibits amendments, and so the bill now provides new Draconian mandatory minimums for violations of methamphetamines, mandatory minimums that everyone knows do not work. The same mandatory minimums as for crack cocaine. Now, it is interesting that crack cocaine is prevalent in the black community; methamphetamine is more prevalent in the Hispanic community. They get the Draconian mandatory minimums. However, there is an exception to all of this. Ecstasy, which is prevalent in the middle class white community, does not suffer the same mandatory minimums. The Committee on the Judiciary at least had the common decency to make them all equal. But now we have a rule which prohibits any consideration for equalizing this penalty. We have this exemption and, because of the rule, we have to just do it. The rule also protects another form of discrimination: Religious discrimination. Section 3305 has a provision that allows some sponsors of federally funded programs to discriminate on employment based on religion. That is they can tell otherwise qualified individuals that they do not hire their kind because of their religion. These are federally funded programs. We cannot address this discrimination because the rule protects that provision and does not allow any amendments. So if we want good child health care, we have to accept the discrimination; we have to accept the mandatory minimums, with the exception for the middle class white kids. We should not be forced to accept ineffective counterproductive mandatory minimums and religious discrimination as a price for good child health care, and that is why I oppose this rule.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, although I support the children's health part of the Children's Health Act, I rise to oppose the bill for several reasons. First, I must object to the process by which we merge an anti-drug bill and attacks on religious liberty into legislation dealing with children's health. Mr. Speaker, the anti-drug part of the bill provides for more mandatory minimum sentences, making penalties for amphetamine abuses comparable to those for abusing methamphetamine and crack cocaine, which is 5 years for 5 grams of possession. It is interesting to note that the majority has taken out the mandatory minimums for penalties for Ecstasy, a methamphetamine-based drug which is prevalent in the middle-class white community. This is curious, because crack cocaine, prevalent in the African-American community, Draconian mandatory minimums. Methamphetamine, prevalent in the Hispanic community, mandatory minimums. And for Ecstasy and powder cocaine, prevalent in the white community, no mandatory minimums. Now, I oppose mandatory minimums for the same reason the Judicial Conference of the United States recently wrote to Chairman Hyde. They said that mandatory minimums are a bad idea because they treat dissimilar offenders in a similar manner, offenders who can be quite different with respect to the seriousness of their conduct or a danger to society. Mandatories require the sentencing court to impose the same sentence on offenders, when sound policy and common sense call for reasonable differences in punishment. But this bill requires no exception except for those drugs used in the middle-class white community. Additionally, I oppose the bill because it attacks our civil rights laws. It contains the charitable choice, as has already been mentioned on the floor. Let me mention that if this bill passes, some sponsors of federally sponsored programs, not church-run programs, federally funded programs will be able to say for the first time in 30 years that ``we do not hire your kind because of your religion.'' Mr. Speaker, if this bill passes, it contains counterproductive mandatory minimums applied in a racially discriminatory manner and allows religious bigotry to be practiced with Federal funds. There seems to be a suggestion that if the dollar amount is high enough and the programs are good enough, that civil rights can be bought and sold. Mr. Speaker, I will not vote for this bill, even though it includes a good Children's Health Care Act.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, can you advise how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1349, the Federal Prisoner Health Care Copayment Act. The bill authorizes the director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to collect a fee of at least $1 from an account of a prisoner for each health care visit made by that prisoner. While we were successful through the amendment process to get certain health care services excepted from that fee, such as emergency visits and prenatal care, a prisoner must still pay a fee in most instances and for conditions as serious as infectious diseases. The gentleman from Indiana suggested that chronic infectious diseases would not be assessed a fee, but other prisoners with other infectious diseases will be discouraged from seeking care with the fee. Discouraging prisoners from getting necessary health care services by charging a copay violates the government's constitutional obligation to provide such services. It will not reduce prisoner abuse of the health care system, and it will end up costing the taxpayers money. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has recognized the government's obligation to provide health care to prisoners. In 1976, in Estelle v. Gamble, the Supreme Court enunciated the principle that the government has an obligation to provide medical care to prisoners and this has been upheld in subsequent cases. For example, in 1989 in the DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services the court stated, ``When the States, by affirmative exercise of its power, so restrains an individual's liberty that it renders him unable to care for himself and, at the same time, fails to provide for his basic human needs; e.g., food, shelter, clothing, medical care and reasonable safety, it transgresses the substantive limits on State actions set by the eighth amendment and the due process clause.'' Given the limited amounts of money on hand in Federal prisoner accounts at any given time, a health care copayment requirement will impede their access to needed health care, particularly at the early treatment and intervention stage. The Bureau of Prisons reports that the majority of inmates make less than 17 cents per hour, and more than half of all inmates have no more than $60 in their account at any time, including the day immediately after their monthly pay period. Thus, even a minor copay would constitute a significant burden. Establishing such a prerequisite to health care treatment not only undermines the government's constitutional obligation to provide medical care to inmates, but it also constitutes bad public policy. An inmate's failure to get timely treatment could result in a minor problem becoming a major problem, such as complications due to delayed detection of cancer or danger to others, resulting from untreated infectious diseases. Further, the proponents' argument that the copay will deter inmate abuse of health care services simply lacks merit. Obviously, inmates with substantial amounts of money will not be deterred by a dollar or so copay from seeking unnecessary health care, and further, those inmates who are actually seeking appropriate care will still have to pay the copay, and so it discourages those who are seeking appropriate health care as well as those seeking inappropriate health care. Therefore, a more likely effect of H.R. 1349 is their ability to pay will be the determining factor of whether an inmate seeks care and not whether the prisoner truly needs medical attention. Thus, it is not surprising when the Bureau of Prisons witnesses acknowledged at a hearing on H.R. 1349 that there is no way to know how many truly sick inmates will be deterred by the copay as opposed to those abusing the system. Further, since even those who are determined to be truly sick must pay, it appears that the real purpose of the bill is simply to deter inmates from seeking health care whether they need it or not. Consistent with that purpose, the majority opposed amendments in committee which would have required a copay only if the inmate is found to have no reasonable basis for seeking health care services. Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is a significant question as to whether the cost of administering the program will actually be greater than any savings projected. Proponents of the legislation point to States which have instituted inmate health care copayments to suggest that copays really work to discourage unnecessary health care and save the State money without jeopardizing the health care of inmates. However, the only study on this issue has been a study by the California State auditor which found that the California Department of Corrections' annual copay program, the annual cost of that program of $3.2 million amounted to almost five times the annual collections, wasting $2.5 million. Certainly, it is not surprising that these audit results prompted the California State auditor to recommend that the program be terminated. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this bill violates the government's obligation to provide health care services. It constitutes bad public policy by discouraging the truly sick from seeking health care, and it will end up costing the taxpayers money. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 1349. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to point out that the crime victims who may get money, if we look at the cost in administering this program, a $1 copay would cost 33 cents just to mail the $1 to the victim. Before we have accounted for it in collecting, in accounting, and all that kind of stuff, the idea that the crime victims may get a benefit, it would be a lot easier and cheaper just to appropriate more money directly to crime victims, to the crime victims fund. This is a total waste of the taxpayers' money. Anybody that knows anything about accounting knows that trying to account for these $1 copays will be much more than any benefit that could be derived. Again, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would say the bill violates the government's obligation under the Constitution to provide health services. It constitutes bad public policy by discouraging the truly sick from seeking health care; it hits those who are sick from accessing appropriate services, as well as those that are not; and I think it is unconscionable to suggest we want to discourage people from accessing appropriate health care. In the end, this program will cost the taxpayers money, more money than they can ever collect from this program. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes just to say that, first, I could not quite tell on the pictures that were presented whether or not Members of Congress were over there pictured with the convicts, because we do not pay a copay. I would also want to point out that according to the California State auditor, when they did their study on their program they made projections, and when they looked at what they collected, they only collected about one-third of what they had anticipated. So all of these projections ought to be taken in that light. But it seems to me when we have a program that the State auditor of California calculated that they wasted $2.5 million trying to implement because the cost of implementation was more than the collections, that seems a strange reaction to a situation where we have a grandmother that someone is trying to give relief to. It seems to me we could take some of that $2.5 million and buy a whole lot of health insurance. We talk about reduction in costs. We also have to add back the cost of the fact that the infectious diseases may not be caught and other people may be infected. Other situations like cancer may not be detected earlier when it is easier to treat. These kinds of expenses will go up because of this copay. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1638. The bill is identical to the Judiciary-passed version of H.R. 2059. The bill amends the Federal Law Enforcement Dependents Assistance Act of 1996 to extend eligibility for financial assistance for higher education to spouses and dependent children to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. Current law provides that the dependents of Federal law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty after May 1, 1992, are eligible for this assistance. Dependents of State and local police officers killed in the line of duty after October 1, 1997, are also eligible. This legislation would change the date to January 1, 1978, for Federal law enforcement officers and State and local public safety officers. This is an appropriate and cost-effective change in the law, given the modest cost projections of the program. For example, less than $50,000 was spent under the program last year; and projections even under the longer eligibility periods remain modest, totaling about 24 million over the next 10 years. Mr. Speaker, I am aware of no opposition to the bill and consider it to be a reasonable and worthy way to honor the memory and contributions of slain law enforcement officials and other public safety officers and to assist their families. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), a former law enforcement official, who is a strong supporter of law enforcement.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just conclude by saying that when police officers give their lives to protect the rest of us, there is really no limit to what we ought to be willing to give back to that family. This is a really symbolic gesture. The education of the children means that the next generation has a future. We know what education will do. And this is just one symbolic gesture of our respect and admiration for the courage of police officers and for those that have given the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of the rest of us. I certainly know of no opposition to the bill and hope it can be passed unanimously. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise not only to express my support for H.R. 4999 but also to express my disappointment that the bill under consideration on the floor today is being considered without committee consideration. Among the constructive purposes authorized in the bill are the hiring, training, and equipping of police and other law enforcement personnel and the establishment of crime prevention, early intervention, and drug court programs. The bill specifically contains prohibitions on buying things like tanks, airplanes, yachts, and limousines which could have been purchased under some of the former programs that the gentleman from Arkansas referenced. While I support the reauthorization contained in the bill, I had hoped that we would be looking at a program at the committee level along with other important law enforcement programs such as the Community Oriented Policing Services program, better known as the COPS program. The COPS program has been very successful and considered to be a vital contributor to the success of local communities in bringing down the crime rate all across the country. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), a member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime introduced an authorization bill for the COPS program which had the support of the administration and a significant number of other Members of the House. I know that the law enforcement community which strongly supports the Weiner bill would have preferred to see both of these matters taken up in committee with both coming to the floor for an authorization based on a full assessment of their value to the local communities. Unfortunately, that did not happen and here we are with just this part of the bill. But before closing, Mr. Speaker, I would want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas for accommodating the concerns of the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) involving the formula for the appropriation. Inadvertently, the bill that we were to bring to the floor had an outdated allocation for Guam, but the bill before us now includes the updated allocation. Thanks to the alertness and effectiveness of the gentleman from Guam, we were able to correct this oversight. Mr. Speaker, although the bill does not contain the COPS program, I support the bill because it includes authorization for valuable, effective crime prevention initiatives which will be developed on the local level. I urge my colleagues to vote aye on the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in favor of the advisory motion to the conferees on the Defense authorization bill, but I do so with some reservations. I am in full support of legislation to punish hate crimes. Those crimes terrorize our community and they are different from other crimes, and they should be prosecuted vigorously and punished more severely. However, as we enact hate crime legislation, we have to be careful to do so without impugning First Amendment freedoms and at the risk of skewing ordinary criminal penalties. Hate crime provisions adopted by the Senate in its Defense authorization bill appear to allow evidence of mere membership in an organization and mere beliefs to be introduced in prosecutions for activities described in those provisions. We should have an amendment to prohibit the use of such evidence because allowing introduction of mere membership in an organization may be highly prejudicial and inflammatory to the jury. Recent reviews of death penalty cases have revealed that many defendants who are factually innocent are convicted anyway. Telling a jury that a defendant belongs to an unpopular organization only increases the chance that the jury will decide the case based on emotion rather than the evidence. Evidence of motivation behind the crime ought to include something in addition to mere membership in an organization or beliefs. In addition to the constitutional, Mr. Speaker, the provisions of the bill apparently allow a person guilty of what would ordinarily be simple assault and battery to receive a 10-year sentence if they can prove the appropriate motivation. Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct conferees is aimed at a Defense authorization bill that will be considered not by the Committee on the Judiciary, which ordinarily considers constitutional and criminal law implications in a bill, if we had considered the provisions in the Committee on the Judiciary, we could have considered the appropriate amendments to deal with the admission of evidence and could have ensured that the provisions were more proportional for the crime committed. To address these issues, I have sent a letter to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime asking that he immediately schedule a hearing on hate crime legislation so that we can consider these issues in an intelligent and thorough manner. This is a very important piece of legislation. We need hate crime legislation, but it has to be done right. I will be voting for the amendment, with those reservations.