House Proceeding 04-29-09 on Apr 29th, 2009 :: 0:28:10 to 0:30:55
Total video length: 3 hours 59 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

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

Views:101 Duration: 0:02:45 Discussion

Previous speech:

Next speech:

0:28:06 to 0:28:26( Edit History Discussion )

Roy Blunt: hate crimes are an unfortunate reality that must be aressed this legislation has languished, it's time it's signed into law. i urge a yes vote on this rule and on the underlying bill. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: would like to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from

0:28:10 to 0:30:55( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Roy Blunt

0:28:27 to 0:28:47( Edit History Discussion )

Roy Blunt: missouri, mr. blunt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. blunt: i thank my friend for yielding. i beieve this bill is a dangerous proposal which can transform the criminal justice system and in spite of all the protestations that now maybe we have safeguards, i think it threatens religious liberty.

0:28:48 to 0:29:08( Edit History Discussion )

Roy Blunt: the hate crimes bill federalizes each and every state and local crime. there is no evidence that states and localities are failing to prosecute crimes under existing law. a person intentionally hit by a car is the victim of the same crime regardless of why. the key there is intentionally.

0:29:09 to 0:29:32( Edit History Discussion )

Roy Blunt: whether you intentionally decide to run over somebody with a car because they're there and you're mad, the penalty should be the same and to suggest that it's not is a federal mistake at the level we're suggesting mistakes would be made. hate crimes legislation invariably has threatened religious leaders and groups

0:29:33 to 0:29:53( Edit History Discussion )

Roy Blunt: with criminal prosecution and investigation into why that person's thoughts, beliefs or statements led to their actions. this can easily jeopardize constitutional rights of freedom of speech and religious expression. in fact the very fact that the people who wrote this legislation have gone out of

0:29:54 to 0:30:15( Edit History Discussion )

Roy Blunt: their way to come up with a new protection suggests that there is danger. there's been danger in every other country that's come up with this kind of legislation this requires criminal investigations to probe if a crime occurred because of bias toward a protected group and opens the door to criminal investigations of a suspect's philosophical beliefs.

0:30:16 to 0:30:37( Edit History Discussion )

Roy Blunt: this is a suspect's philosophical beliefs, politics, biases, religion, activities, and past statements. due to the subjectivity of these kinds of feelings and motives, there's enormous potential here, mr. speaker, for error. this creates unequal treatment of victims by treating crimes against protected groups more

0:30:38 to 0:30:57( Edit History Discussion )

Roy Blunt: seriously than nonprotected groups. murder of a victim will be treated more seriously than murder of another victim. mr. speaker, i believe that's wrong. i think this is a constitutional problem. again, in every state, in every country that has hadimilar legislation, has created a problem of speech.