House Proceeding 10-06-09 on Oct 6th, 2009 :: 0:45:45 to 0:49:40
Total video length: 1 hours 6 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Views:50 Duration: 0:03:55 Discussion

Previous speech:

Next speech:

0:45:40 to 0:46:00( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: nadler. the speaker pro tepore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this motion to instruct conferees. for too long we have debated whether this nation should take a stand against hate crimes. crimes of violence in which the victim has been signaled out because he who he or she is. it is remarkable that it should

0:45:45 to 0:49:40( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Jerrold Nadler

0:46:01 to 0:46:22( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: remain a controversial idea. the idea that someone can be singled out for a crime of violence because of his or her actual or perceived race or religion or color or gender or sexual orientation or gender identity or disability is simply disgusting. these crimes are real and they are all too frequent. that is a fact. it is not a somewhat -- as some would have you believe a hoax.

0:46:23 to 0:46:43( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: here are some statistics from the f.b.i. in 2007 there were 7,621 violent hate crimes. 51% because of racial bias, 18% because of religious bias, 17%ers sexual orientation bias, 13% because of ethnicity and 1% because of a bias against a

0:46:44 to 0:47:05( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: disability. those are real americans being victimizedecause of who they are, not for everything in they did -- anything they did. if you victimize someone for who they are you're terro an entire community. it sends a message that members of that group are not safe in your community. it extends well beyond the individual victim. this house has already spoken clearly. on april 29 of this year, a

0:47:06 to 0:47:26( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: bipartisan majority voted by a margin of 248-175 to pass this legislation. i do not believe that members of this house will now turn their backs on that historic vote. if you believe it was right to vote for this legislation then you have a chance to make it law anmake it history. the hate crimes prevention act will in no way undercut the other purposes of this defense

0:47:27 to 0:47:47( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: bill. by protecting all americans from the viont hate crimes we will be making everyone more secure. a new section added by the senate prescribes severe penalties for anyone assaulting a member of our military or destroying their property because of that person's being a member of the armed forces. i happen to think that's an important addition. i hope there won't be a single

0:47:48 to 0:48:09( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: member of this house who will fail to support that prevention against hate crimes against the military. i certainly think it blongs in this bill. i want to make sure everyone understands this has safeguards. this legislation applies only to acts of violence and despite the statement a moment ago, the fact that somebody ignorantly

0:48:10 to 0:48:30( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: arrested someone against the law and that the charge was subsequently dismissed says nothing about the validity of the law. every crime requires that the government prove some element of intent and we punish crimes differently based on the criminal's intent. shooting someone is a crime of passion is not treated the same way as shooting someone in the murder for hire scheme. and it is certainly not the

0:48:31 to 0:48:51( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: same as an accidental shooting. the law makes these distinctions as it should. this does not make murder for hire a thought crime. society simply judges such crimes more harshly and it is right that we do so. it is the same with hate crimes. these are particularly disgusting crimes and they deserve to be treated differently than other assaults or murders. i realize that not everyone

0:48:52 to 0:49:12( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: believes this but there's a growing social consensus on this point both in the states and at the national level. for many years this congress sat on its hands and refused to pass anti-lynching laws. many of the same arguments we heard then against anti-lynching laws we are hearing now against this provision. it was a disgrace then, it is a disgrace now.

0:49:13 to 0:49:34( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: it was a disgrace that we act then, it would be a disgrace if we do not act now. it would be a disgrace if we pass this motion to instruct conferees. i urge rejection of this motion. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia. >> mr. speaker, the distinguished gentleman from new york is very converse on this topic as well as he should

0:49:35 to 0:49:41( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: be because he sits on the judiciary committee where this legislation normally comes. and i think that's where it