Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, 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. One of the fundamental reasons for that is that in many areas of the country, for many years--truly not so today, I believe, but in the past, areas such as my area of the country, have not prosecuted those cases, and there was a historical record of a failure to effectively prosecute in racial assaults that affected people's fundamental civil liberties. So that has been upheld. But the legislation we are talking about today is about picking an area that people care about and are concerned about and feel deeply about, which is that people should not be assaulted or abused as a result of their sexual orientation, and now we want to create a Federal crime wherever in America such an assault or an illegal activity or murder against that person occurs. We want to make that a Federal crime.

   One of my colleagues said it is a backstop for the Federal Government. It is not a backstop. I was a Federal prosecutor. Federal law has priority. So this is a move in that direction.

   So the question is, what about the elderly? What about those who are sick and infirm? What about police officers, if they are murdered? Do we need the Federal Government to make that a crime also and be able to prosecute all of those murders throughout the country when we have never done that historically? It is a big deal from that perspective, and that is why it is constitutionally suspect.

   A State can pass such a law, I will admit. The Federal Government can pass such a law on Federal property, military bases, and the District of Columbia. But when the Federal Government reaches into a State that has no interstate nexus and creates a crime of this kind, I think it is, first, constitutionally questionable; secondly, not necessarily good policy because what other kinds of crimes motivated by what other kinds of malintent are we going to now make a Federal crime?

   So Senator Hatch has explicitly and openly and directly delineated the very aggressive prosecutions we are seeing in States for hate-type crimes against homosexuals, and he has shown how a number of them have gotten a death penalty, which this act does not provide for, but State laws do. We have no record to indicate there is a shortage or a lack of willingness to prosecute these cases, so I think, under those circumstances, we ought not to do it.

   I also would note it would be a tragic thing indeed if this Defense bill would be vetoed as a result of this extraneous piece of controversial legislation.

   I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.