PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · May 3, 2007
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 - (Sec. 3) Defines "hate crime" as a violent act causing death or bodily injury because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability of the victim.
(Sec. 4) Authorizes the Attorney General, at the request of a state, local, or Tribal law enforcement agency, to provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or other assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that: (1) constitutes a crime of violence; (2) constitutes a felony under state, local, or Tribal laws; and (3) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim or is a violation of the state, local, or Tribal hate crime laws. Requires the Attorney General to give priority for assistance to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one state and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering extraordinary investigation or prosecution expenses.
Authorizes the Attorney General to award grants to state, local, and Indian law enforcement agencies for extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. Requires the Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs to work closely with grant recipients to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties under the grant program are addressed.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Sets forth requirements and deadlines for grant applications. Limits grant amounts to $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any one-year period.
Requires the Attorney General to submit a report to Congress on the grant program by December 31, 2008.
Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2009.
(Sec. 5) Authorizes the Office of Justice Programs to award grants to state, local, or Tribal programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles. Authorizes appropriations.
(Sec. 6) Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2010 for additional personnel to prevent and respond to hate crime violations.
(Sec. 7) Amends the federal criminal code to impose a fine and/or prison term of up to 10 years on any person who willfully causes bodily injury to any person, or who, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily harm to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of such person.
Requires certification by the Attorney General or other Department of Justice official of certain findings relating to an alleged hate crime prior to initiating a prosecution for such crime.
Excludes evidence of expression or association of a defendant in a hate crime prosecution at trial, unless such evidence specifically relates to the offense being prosecuted.
(Sec. 8) Provides that nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit expressive conduct or activities protected by the First Amendment.
People & committees
Rep. Conyers, John, Jr. [D-MI-14] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 237 - 180 (Roll no. 299).
House roll call 299 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 237 - 180 (Roll no. 299).
House roll call 299 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit with instructions Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 189 - 227 (Roll no. 298).
House roll call 298 · Individual votesThe previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H4451)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Smith (TX) motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to be reported back to the House with amendments to insert "status as a senior citizen who has attained the age of 65 years, status as a current or former member of the Armed Forces," after "orientation".
Mr. Smith (TX) moved to recommit with instructions to Judiciary. (consideration: CR H4449-4451; text: CR H4449)
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H4449-4452)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 1592.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1592 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. An amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules shall be considered as adopted.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 364. (consideration: CR H4429-4452; text of measure as reported in House: CR H4429-4431; text of measure as modified: CR H4431-4432)
Rule H. Res. 364 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 364 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1592 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. An amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules shall be considered as adopted.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 67.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 110-113.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 110-113.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 20 - 14.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E600-601)
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1592 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1592 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1592 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1592 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.