PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 27, 2001
Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2001 - Authorizes the Attorney General to provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or other assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that: (1) constitutes a crime of violence under Federal law or a felony under State or Indian tribal law; and (2) is motivated by prejudice based on the race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of the victim or is a violation of the hate crime laws of the State or tribe. Directs 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 the extraordinary investigation or prosecution expenses.Authorizes the Attorney General to award grants to assist State, local, and Indian law enforcement officials with such extraordinary expenses. Directs the Office of Justice Programs to: (1) work closely with funded jurisdictions to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties are addressed; and (2) award grants to State and local programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles.Prohibits specified offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.Directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to study and provide sentencing enhancements for adult recruitment of juveniles to commit hate crimes.Amends the Hate Crimes Statistics Act to require the crime data to be collected and published by the Attorney General to include data about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on gender.
People & committees
Sen. Kennedy, Edward M. [D-MA] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Returned to the Calendar.
Motion by Senator Daschle to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked entered in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
Cloture on the measure not invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 54 - 43. Record Vote Number: 147.
Senate roll call 147 · Individual votesConsidered by Senate. (consideration: CR S5325-5337)
Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S5267-5276)
Cloture motion on the bill presented in Senate.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S5246-5248, S5251-5252)
By Senator Leahy from Committee on the Judiciary filed written report. Report No. 107-147. Minority views filed.
By Senator Leahy from Committee on the Judiciary filed written report. Report No. 107-147. Minority views filed.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 103.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2993)
Introduced in Senate
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 S.625 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 S.625 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 S.625 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 S.625 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.