Senate Ties Hate Crimes To Defense Bill

Democrats Tack Hate Crimes Legislation Onto Must-Pass Pentagon Spending Bill

(CBS/AP)  Hoping to overcome a veto threat from President Bush, the Senate on Thursday attached a federal hate crimes law to a must-pass Pentagon spending bill, CBS News correspondent Bob Fuss reports.

The proposed law would add sexual orientation to criteria such as race or religion in defining a hate crime.

Opponents, citing a Bush veto threat, predicted it ultimately would fail.

"The president is not going to agree to this social legislation on the defense authorization bill," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Nonetheless, the Senate agreed by voice vote - with no dissenting votes - to attach a pending defense authorization bill that designates billions of federal dollars to the Defense Department and the Iraq war.

The Democratic-controlled House passed the same hate crimes legislation as a stand-alone bill earlier this year despite Mr. Bush's veto threat. That makes a repeat of 2004, when the Senate passed a similar amendment to the same bill only to see it stripped out during negotiations with the Republican-led House, less likely this time around. President Bush, who says the bill is not needed, could then be faced with vetoing the vast defense authorization bill containing the same provision.

Mr. Bush believes that "all people should be protected from violent crimes," but that states have their own hate crime laws, many more strict than what is being proposed, according to White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.

"We believe that state and local law enforcement agencies are effectively using their laws to the full extent they can," Perino said. She wouldn't comment on the prospects for a veto.

The bill is named for Matthew Shepard, a gay college freshman who was beaten into a coma in 1998 in Laramie, Wyo. He died five days later.

Writing violent attacks on gays into federal hate crime laws is an appropriate add-on to legislation funding the war, Democrats argued, because both initiatives are aimed at combating terrorist acts.

"The defense authorization is about dealing with the challenges of terrorism overseas...This (bill) is about terrorism in our neighborhood," said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, the chief Democratic sponsor. "We want to fight terrorism here at home with all of our weapons."

That's a stretch, not to mention a heavy-handed maneuver that "hijacks" a bill that includes a pay increase for troops in wartime, said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

"I think it's shameful we're changing the subject to take care of special interest legislation at a time like this," Cornyn said on the Senate floor.

Other Republicans complained that states should remain the chief prosecutors of such crimes, as in current law.

"Absent a clear demonstration that the states have failed in their law-enforcement responsibilities, the federalization of hate crimes is premature," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who proposed instead a study of the matter in a separate amendment. That measure passed as well, 96-3.

Attaching hard-to-pass legislation to weighty bills is a well-established strategy used by lawmakers of both parties, no matter who controls the chamber. Success means forcing squeamish lawmakers to technically vote for controversial policies embedded in massive spending bills - then hold them accountable at re-election time.

The White House has contended that state and local laws already cover the new crimes defined under the hate crimes proposal and that there is no need to provide federal sanctions for what could be a wide range of violent crimes.

The hate crimes amendment is especially tempting for majority Democrats because of Mr. Bush's weakened, lame-duck status and some support for the measure among Republicans.

Republicans were careful not to attack the intent of the legislation, focusing instead on what they said was the "non-germane" nature of the amendment to the overall spending bill.

"There may be a time and place for a hate crimes discussion, but it is certainly not now when national security legislation is being held up," said Senate Republican Conference Chairman Jon Kyl of Arizona. "Forcing a vote on the so-called hate crimes amendment shows an utter lack of seriousness about our national defense."

Retorted Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J.: "For some, it never seems to be the right time or the right place."

Under current federal law, hate crimes apply to acts of violence against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin. Federal prosecutors have jurisdiction only if the victim is engaged in a specific federally protected activity such as voting.

The House bill would extend the hate crimes category to include sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability and give federal authorities greater leeway to participate in hate crime investigations. It would approve $10 million over the next two years to help local law enforcement officials cover the cost of hate crime prosecutions.

Federal investigators could step in if local authorities were unwilling or unable to act.

[cfscreamer]

Why won''t the mainstream media talk about this one?

http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/1861211/
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1858887/

[dante805]

Real smart Harry "wake me up" Reid. You just doomed the entire bill because you have no political corage to pass a clean bill. I just hope Bush follows through to VETO this garbage bill. Time to show the people of Nevada this clown needs to be sent back to searchlight with a flashlight.

[hwy71so]

I''d veto it on general principle.

When are these nonners going to admit that a person''s sexual CHOICE is not the same as being born Indonesian or Italian?

And to stimey our defense fund with civil issues is just downright stupid.

[homespunlady]

They should have attached articles of impeachment to the bill ... LOL
Posted by abbe91 at 08:33 AM : Sep 28, 2007

ROTFLMFAO THANKS I needed that!
As I said BEFORE I can''t remembe a year that DIDN''T have SOME bill or "earmark" attached to the defense bills. ESPECIALLY during the years that the REPUBLICANS controlled CONGRESS.

Of course that was BEFORE all of the AMERICAN budget was DIVERTED to NEOCOFASCIST "CONTRACTORS" THAT USE IRAQ AS THEIR OWN PERSONAL piggybanks!!!
BTW has ANYBODY found that THREE BILLION IN CASH they supposedly sent over there on pallets or the 190,000 WEAPONS that were lost when Petreus was in charge of them?

[deedee234-2009]

What is the point of "hate" crime? A crime is crime. No one is better or worse than the other. It''s sounds like political pandering to me too...Dem''s really courting their base to ramping for the 08'' elections. Worse of all.....I am a Democrat myself..sigh.

[oldpilot954]

The real problem with "Hate Crimes" legislation is the potiential uses of it. I am against those crimes of violence but should it be a crime to express my thoughts? I haven''t seen this bill but most include hate-speech in the verbage. Or let''s take the other approach. From what I''ve been able to read, Matthew Shepard who is the "poster child" for this legislation was killed for drugs not his sexual orientation. He was still brutally murdered but should his murderers be given a lighter sentence because it wasn''t a "hate" crime?

[abbe91]

They should have attached articles of impeachment to the bill ... LOL

[Ed0719]

To those who think the hate crimes bill is not warranted, why don''t you actively seek the repeal of the CURRENT law which addresses race, RELIGION, and ethnic origin? Religion is a choice, you know, so why should it get special treatment? Aren''t there already laws that "protect" religion?

[Ed0719]

Yes, its normal to reject homosexuality. Its a deviant sexual lifestyle and 2 or 3 % of the population are addicted to it. It should not control the rest of us. 97-98% of americans dont accept it. We got kids, and families, and are healthy, and will live to be old. Homosexuals dont have kids, 71% of them will end up with an incurable deadly disease, and die by the time they are 41.
Posted by pwrslm at 09:43 PM : Sep 27, 2007

Why do you lie? You tell complete and utter lies and try to pass them off as fact, but they''re still lies no matter how many times you and your kind tell them. I bet you call yourself a christian, too. Nobody lies like a christian.

[socrates392]

There is no honor there, its a game and the real losers are Americans, especially me, ''''''''cause I''''''''m a complete moron who can''''''''t figure out that the republicans don''''''''t give a rat''''''''s __ about our troops and never have.
Posted by pwrslm at 09:37 PM : Sep 27, 2007

pwrslm -- stop beating yourself up! Enough already! You are a good person, no matter how stupid. LOL!

Posted by SFTodd at 11:49 PM : Sep 27, 2007

No, you can keep beating yourself up if you want. In fact, maybe if you hit yourself hard enough, you''''ll knock some sense into that old noggin'''' of yours!