I just want to share a few thoughts with my colleagues on the pending amendment. This hate crimes legislation is constitutionally dubious and very unusual legislation in the history of how we do law enforcement in America. What I want to say to my colleague is that a murder in Utah, a murder in Massachusetts, a murder in Alabama is not a Federal crime unless certain other events occur, unless it is related to some other event. A robbery in any State is not a Federal crime per se. It has to be robbery of a Federal bank. It has to be robbery of an interstate shipment or something of that nature. But simple assaults, simple murders, no matter how grievous, are not Federal crimes. So the Supreme Court has been cautious about that and has raised questions about it. Now, with regard to our history of legislating in this area, we have made Federal civil rights laws applicable to assaults and murders of people in America on account of their race, and the Supreme Court has upheld that.
Pete Sessions: “I just want to share a few thoughts with my colleagues on the pending amendment. This hate crimes legislation is…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of hate crimes legislation during a floor debate.
Share
More from Pete Sessions
You are the head of this organization, and you have proposed taking to 11 parts per billion.
I thank the chairwoman for the time, and I appreciate the gentleman from California standing in support of this bill, H.R. 2622. In fact, this was a bipartisan agreement that we came to. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer), and…
It is very apparent to me that competition is one of those factors that is not part of your equation for the marketplace.
It would make sense not to rely on self-certification in the future, and yet the Biden Administration is proposing to allow applicants for student loan forgiveness to self-certify for this benefit.





