Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I will yield the balance of my time to my good friend and colleague from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman fro Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Judiciary Committee, and also the ranking deputy member of the Crimes Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), also a member of the Judiciary Committee. (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney), a member of the Judiciary Committee and a former speaker of the Florida house.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and a ranking member of the IP subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and a former attorney general of California.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill, H.R. 1592, for three reasons. First, the bill will result in disproportionate justice for crime victims who do not fall within the categories it contains. Second, it will have a chilling effect on religious freedom and first amendment rights. And third, it is probably unconstitutional and raises significant Federalism issues. We can all agree that every violent crime is deplorable, regardless of its motivation. Every violent crime can be devastating not only to the victim, but also to the larger community whose public safety has been violated. That is why all violent crimes must be vigorously prosecuted. However, this bill, no matter how well intended, undermines basic principles of our criminal justice system. Our criminal justice system has been built on the ideal of equal justice for all. Under this bill, justice will no longer be equal, but depend on the race, sex, sexual orientation, disability or status of the victim. It will allow different penalties to be imposed for the same crime. For example, criminals who kill a homosexual or transsexual will be punished more harshly than criminals who kill a police officer, a member of the military, a child, a senior citizen or any other person. To me, all victims should have equal worth in the eyes of the law. In fact, in 1984, Congress, in a bipartisan manner, enacted the Sentencing Reform Act to ensure the consistent application of criminal penalties to avoid, ``unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants who have been found guilty of similar criminal conduct.'' Why are we departing from the fairness embodied in that Act? Ordinarily, criminal law does not concern itself with motive, but rather with intent. This legislation forces law enforcement officials to comb the offender's past to determine whether the offender ever expressed hostility toward a protected group. In addition, the bill raises the real possibility that religious leaders or members of religious groups could become the subject of a criminal investigation focusing on a suspect's religious beliefs, membership and religious organizations and any past statements made by a suspect. A chilling effect on religious leaders and others who, press their constitutionally protected beliefs, unfortunately, could result. Some of my colleagues on the other side will claim that an amendment adopted during committee markup protects religious speech. However, it would not diminish the chilling effect of possible involvement in criminal investigations. Religious speakers and groups will feel in greater jeopardy as a result of this bill. The facts of the Supreme Court decision in Wisconsin v. Mitchell underscore the danger of this legislation. In that case, Todd Mitchell received an enhanced hate crime sentence because of remarks he made to prior to others attacking a teenager because of his race. Mitchell did not participate in the physical assault of the teenager. His sentence was upheld. He was punished for his words. My colleagues on the other side have argued that no prosecutor would ever subject members of a religious community to the criminal process. Are we willing to take the risk and leave the first amendment protections to a prosecutor's discretion? I also believe the bill itself is probably unconstitutional and will likely be struck down by the courts. There is little evidence to support the claim that hate crimes impact interstate or foreign commerce, an important consideration for any Federal court reviewing the constitutionality of this legislation. In 2000, the Supreme Court in the United States v. Morrison struck down a prohibition on gender-motivated violence. In that case, the court specifically warned Congress that the commerce clause does not apply to noneconomic violent criminal conduct that does not cross State lines, nor does the proposed legislation authorized under the 14th and 15th amendments. Those amendments only extend to State action and do not cover the actions of private persons who commit violent crimes. While the 13th amendment reaches private conduct such as individual criminal conduct, it is difficult to argue that one's sexual orientation, disability or gender identity constitutes a badge and incidence of slavery. Aside from the constitutional defects of this bill, it purports to federalize crimes that are being effectively prosecuted by our States and local governments. FBI statistics show that the incidence of so-called hate crimes has actually declined over the last 10 years. Only six of approximately 15,000 homicides in the Nation involved hate crimes. As the Washington Post stated in a previous editorial, ``Rape, murder and assault--no matter what prejudice motivates the perpetrator--are presumptively local matters in which the Federal Government should intervene only when it has a pressing interest. The fact that hatred lurks behind a violent incident is not, in our view, an adequate Federal interest . . .'' Unfortunately we cannot legislate away the hatred that some feel in their hearts. We need fewer labels and more unity in our country. For all the reasons I have mentioned above, I oppose the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I also object to that request.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully object.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is straightforward. It seeks to protect America's senior citizens and those who serve in our Armed Forces. My colleagues on the other side contend that a new law is needed to cover crimes against persons based on race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. The motion to recommit makes sure that seniors and our military personnel are added to the list of protected groups. We all care greatly about the safety and security of our senior citizens. We all understand that they are particularly vulnerable to crime. Criminals who prey on our senior citizens because they are senior citizens should be vigorously prosecuted and punished. The statistics paint a disturbing picture of violence against senior citizens in our country. A recent Justice Department study found that each year over the last 10 years, for every 1,000 persons over 65, four are violently assaulted. This includes rape, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assaults. Approximately 65 percent of these crimes against senior citizens are committed by strangers or casual acquaintances. In my hometown, the San Antonio police report rising crime against the elderly, with over 6,200 crimes just this last year. We were all horrified by the recent videotaped robbery in New York City committed against 101-year-old Rose Morat. Rose was leaving her building to go to church when a robber, who pretended to help her through the vestibule, turned and delivered three hard punches to her face and grabbed her purse. He pushed her and her walker to the ground. Rose suffered a broken cheekbone and was hospitalized. The robber got away with $33 and her house keys. Police believe the same man robbed an 85-year-old woman shortly after beating Rose. These are horrible crimes that strike fear into the hearts of America's senior citizens and make them wonder whether they will be victimized next. This motion to recommit also adds the category of current or former members of the Armed Forces to the list of groups in this bill. We honor our men and women of the military because of their patriotism, their commitment to protecting our freedom and their service to our country. In times of controversy surrounding the use of our military, we have seen unfortunate acts by those who use their hostility towards the military to further their political agenda. With the rising debate over the Iraq war, we are seeing increasing threats to Iraqi war veterans. Recently, a Syracuse woman pleaded guilty to spitting in the face of a Fort Drum soldier at an airport. Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to make it clear to everyone that we honor our veterans and current members of our Armed Forces. Congress can make the message clear that hate of our Armed Forces will be punished at a heightened level, just like the other groups under this act. If Congress rejects this motion to recommit, who will explain to the thousands of victims who are senior citizens or military victims that their injuries are less important than those of others protected under the hate crimes law? Are we really prepared to tell seniors and our men and women in uniform across our country that crimes committed against victims because of race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability are, as a rule, more worthy of punishment than those committed against seniors and military personnel? Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I do oppose it, in the current form.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to my friend and colleague from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) who is the ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee and also a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, last month the House considered a similar piece of legislation. As has become the Democrats' antidemocratic custom, no amendments were allowed. The language of the bill was changed hours before it came to the House floor, and Republicans were allowed only a motion to recommit. Today, we are back again to consider legislation to unconstitutionally give D.C. residents a voting representative in Congress. Since the wording of the legislation has been changed without approval by the committee of jurisdiction, we will not have an opportunity to give D.C. residents the right to possess weapons to protect themselves and their families. And the reason we cannot give them that right is the same reason the bill was withdrawn last month: The Democratic leadership is afraid Congress would approve it. It is a shame that a bill that supposedly supports democracy is being brought up in such an undemocratic manner. The majority waived its own rules and will pass a separate tax increase, all to ram through the House an unconstitutional bill they rewrote at the 11th hour with no amendments allowed. At the Judiciary Committee hearing on this bill, Professor Jonathan Turley, someone the majority consults frequently for his views, said: ``Permit me to be blunt. I consider this act to be the most premeditated, unconstitutional act by Congress in decades.'' This legislation was constitutionally suspect last month and it is constitutionally suspect today. The Constitution explicitly says that Members of Congress can only be elected by people who live in States. Article I section 2 reads, ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States.'' Judges and legal experts agree that since D.C. is not a State, it cannot elect Members of Congress. In fact, a Federal district judge here in D.C. already has spoken on this point stating clearly, ``We conclude from our analysis of the text that the Constitution does not contemplate that the District may serve as a State for purposes of the apportionment of congressional representatives.'' And the House Judiciary Committee also has spoken on this point. When the House Judiciary Committee under the leadership of Democratic Chairman Peter Rodino in the 95th Congress reported out a constitutional amendment to do what this bill purports to be able to do by statute, the report stated, ``If the citizens of the District are to have voting representation in the Congress, a constitutional amendment is essential. Statutory action alone will not suffice.'' So what is being attempted with the legislation before us today is something long recognized as requiring a constitutional amendment. Further, this bill unfairly subjects many citizens to unequal treatment. It grants Utah an additional Representative who will run at- large or statewide rather than in the individual district provided for in the redistricting plan the Utah legislature passed last year. The at-large provision creates a situation this country has not seen since the development of the Supreme Court's line of cases affirming the principle of one man, one vote. Under this provision, voters in Utah would be able to vote for two Representatives, their own district Representative and their at-large Representative, whereas voters in every other State would only be able to vote for their one district Representative. The result would be that Utah voters would have more voting power than the voters of every other State. The new bill the majority drafted at the 11th hour even fails to strike the current position of the Delegate that represents Washington, D.C. Currently, that delegate can vote in committee. So this bill not only grants voters in Utah two voting Members when every other voter only gets one, but also gives District voters two votes in committee, one vote for the D.C. Delegate and one vote for the new D.C. Member of Congress. Congratulations to Utah and D.C. voters. Some feel sincerely that the Constitution can be pulled and stretched a little and interpreted otherwise, but at least we can agree that it is by no means certain that the bill is constitutional. What is certain is that congressional voting for D.C. residents could be obtained by a constitutional amendment. In 1978, Congress approved such a constitutional amendment, but only 16 of the 38 States necessary ratified it. As I mentioned, at the time the Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee said the only legitimate way to give D.C. residents the right to vote in Federal elections was a constitutional amendment as opposed to this kind of legislation. Why is that process being ignored now? Is it because of the fear of failure again? Like many Members of Congress, I favor giving D.C. residents the right to vote for Members of the House and the Senate; but this bill doesn't do that. It limits D.C. residents to voting only for House Members. This bill does not allow D.C. residents to vote for Senators. Why are we considering a bill that gives D.C. residents only half their rights? Isn't that ``taxation without representation''? Or maybe it is ``taxation with half-representation.'' Maybe we should refund D.C. residents half their taxes if this bill passes. There is a solution, and it treats the residents of D.C. better than this bill. It is constitutional. It is more likely to succeed in a constitutional amendment, and it will give D.C. residents the right to vote for both House Members and Senators. D.C. was originally carved out of Maryland. If D.C. were given back to Maryland, except for the Capitol and some Federal buildings, D.C. residents would be residents of a State and have the same voting rights. It has been done before. That part of D.C. that was once part of Virginia was returned to Virginia in 1846, so the precedent is there. Such legislation would only require a majority vote in Congress and in the Maryland legislature. Both are controlled by the Democratic Party. Why are we waiting? Why not the best for D.C. residents? Why are we spending time on a bill that is constitutionally suspect and would be challenged in court? Why are we not acting now to return the District to Maryland and assure D.C. residents the right to vote in all Federal elections as quickly as possible? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.