What we're looking for here is Federal jurisdiction that would come into play if there was a demonstrated need.
We think that there is the demonstrated need for the Federal Government to become involved.
Yes, I think it has. I think that the legislation, wisely, has a certification provision in it.
We do not think that there is any problem in that regard.
I think it absolutely is. If one looks at the hate crimes statistics over the last decade, you will see that the third largest component of ...
We would like to have the ability to help our State and local partners.
No, I don't think so.
This would allow the Federal Government to partner with our State and local counterparts.
This is a bill that is designed to prosecute and hold people accountable for conduct, not for speech.
Well, the statute would not necessarily cover that.
We want to complement them, we want to help them.
I strongly urge passage of The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.
I couldn't be happier with your response.
What is it that we consider important? How are we going to use Federal resources?
But one has to look at the history, the unfortunate history, of our Nation.
We prefer the Senate provision.
I think there is pretty widespread agreement that there is the need for this legislation.
The vast majority of those cases will be handled by the States and by our local partners.
