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 · Apr 29, 2009
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 - (Sec. 2) Adopts the definition of "hate crime" as set forth in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (i.e., a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person).
(Sec. 3) 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 a violent crime, a hate crime, or a crime that constitutes a felony under state, local, or tribal law. Directs the Attorney General, in providing such assistance, to give priority to cases involving crimes committed 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 tribal law enforcement agencies for extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. Requires the Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to work with grantees to address the needs and concerns of all affected parties in implementing grants. Sets forth requirements governing the submission and approval of grant applications. Limits the amount of any grant to $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any one-year period.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Attorney General to: (1) approve or deny a grant application within 180 days after receipt of such application; and (2) report to Congress by December 31, 2011, on the grant program.
Authorizes appropriations for FY2010-FY2011.
(Sec. 4) Authorizes the Office of Justice Programs to award grants to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles. Authorizes appropriations.
(Sec. 5) Authorizes appropriations for FY2010-FY2012 to increase DOJ personnel to assist state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies in combating hate crimes.
(Sec. 6) Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit willfully causing bodily injury to any person through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person. Imposes a fine and/or prison term of up to 10 years for violations and a life term if a death results from a violation or certain other violent crimes are involved. Requires the Attorney General or other designated DOJ official to certify certain findings before initiating a prosecution for a hate crime. Sets a seven-year statute of limitations on prosecuting such an offense not resulting in death. Prohibits the admission of evidence as substantive evidence in a hate crime prosecution of the expression or associations of a defendant unless the evidence specifically relates to the hate crime offense.
(Sec. 7) Provides that any provision of this Act that is held to be unconstitutional shall be severable from the remaining provisions of this Act.
(Sec. 8) Declares that nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit the exercise of constitutionally-protected free speech.
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 recorded vote: 249 - 175 (Roll no. 223).
House roll call 223 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 249 - 175 (Roll no. 223).
House roll call 223 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit with instructions Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 185 - 241 (Roll no. 222).
House roll call 222 · Individual votesDEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Gohmert 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 that expand the punishments outlined in the bill to include the death penalty. The amendments also seek to expand the applicability requirements to include age, status as a current or former member of the Armed Forces, or status as a law enforcement officer beyond what is currently contained in the bill.
Mr. Gohmert moved to recommit with instructions to Judiciary. (consideration: CR H4956-4958; text: CR H4956)
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H4956)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour and twenty minutes of debate on H.R. 1913.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1913 with 1 hour and 20 minutes 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. A specified amendment is in order. The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The resolution provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, modified by the amendment printed in this report, shall be considered as adopted and the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 372. (consideration: CR H4940-4958)
Rule H. Res. 372 passed House.
Supplemental report filed by the Committee on Judiciary, H. Rept. 111-86, Part II.
Supplemental report filed by the Committee on Judiciary, H. Rept. 111-86, Part II.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 372 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1913 with 1 hour and 20 minutes 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. A specified amendment is in order. The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The resolution provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, modified by the amendment printed in this report, shall be considered as adopted and the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 40.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 111-86.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 111-86.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 15 - 12.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E878-879)
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.1913 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.1913 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.1913 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.1913 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.