The Senate
attached hate-crimes legislation to a must-pass Pentagon
spending bill Thursday, but opponents predicted it
ultimately would fail. In a bipartisan vote of
60–39, the Senate accepted cloture, which
ended debate on the bill, and then moved to approve the
Matthew Shepard Act by a voice vote -- attaching it as
an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2008 Department of
Defense Authorization Bill. ''The president is not
going to agree to this social legislation on the defense
authorization bill,'' said Sen. Lindsey Graham of
South Carolina. ''This bill will get vetoed.''
The Senate
attached hate-crimes legislation to a must-pass Pentagon
spending bill Thursday, but opponents predicted it
ultimately would fail.
In a bipartisan
vote of 60–39, the Senate accepted cloture,
which ended debate on the bill, and then moved to
approve the Matthew Shepard Act by a voice vote --
attaching it as an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2008
Department of Defense Authorization Bill.
''The president
is not going to agree to this social legislation on the
defense authorization bill,'' said Sen. Lindsey Graham of
South Carolina. ''This bill will get vetoed.''
Nonetheless, the
Senate agreed by voice vote -- with no dissenting votes
-- to attach the hate-crimes provision to 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 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.
The White House
had no immediate comment Thursday.
Writing violent
attacks on gays into federal hate-crimes 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.''
Agreed the
Republican cosponsor, Oregon senator Gordon Smith: ''We
cannot fight terror abroad and accept terror at
home.''
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 of 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 of 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 must-pass 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 reelection 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 Bush's weakened, lame-duck status and some
support for the measure among Republicans.
But given Bush's
veto threat against the provision, it seemed headed for
a familiar fate. The Senate in 2004 attached similar
legislation to the same authorization bill, but it was
stripped out in negotiations with the House.
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 of New Jersey: ''For some, it never seems to
be the right time or the right place.''
Under current
federal law, hate crimes are defined as 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-crimes investigations. It would approve $10
million over the next two years to help local law
enforcement officials cover the cost of hate-crimes
prosecutions.
Federal
investigators could step in if local authorities were
unwilling or unable to act. (Laurie Kellman, AP)
Follow us on Twitter. 
Follow us on Facebook.
Page 1 of 1