Jun 12, 2009  |  By: Chris Johnson  | COMMENTS     

Senate leadership has decided to address hate crimes legislation via an amendment to another bill rather than as a standalone piece of legislation, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

Trevor Thomas, an HRC spokesperson, told the Blade in a statement Monday that the Senate settled on this means of pushing the measure.

“We understand that Senate leadership does not believe a hearing or mark up on the bill is necessary and plans to bring it directly to the floor as an amendment to another moving vehicle,” he said.

The bill passed the House on April 29, 249-175, as a standalone measure. The legislation would allow the U.S. Justice Department to assist in the prosecution of hate crimes committed against LGBT people that result in death or serious injury.

The Blade reported last month that the Senate was debating whether to consider hate crimes legislation as an amendment or as a standalone bill.

Thomas said the Senate determined it would address the legislation as an amendment because the chamber’s leaders believes that’s “the most efficient way” to send the measure to the president’s desk.

Jim Manley, a spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said he couldn’t confirm whether the Senate had decided to push hate crimes legislation as an amendment, but he noted that’s how the Senate passed the legislation in previous sessions. He deferred to the legislation authors for further comment.

Anthony Coley, a spokesperson for Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), the lead sponsor of the hate crimes bill in the Senate, said in a statement to the Blade on Monday that the senator is committed to getting the legislation passed and “signed into law quickly.”

“Because of that we are not ruling out any strategy,” he said.

A Democratic aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the Senate has planned to address hate crimes legislation as an amendment for some time. He noted that a standalone bill would be open to amendments and the Senate amendment process is much more open than the House’s.

The aide said it was not yet clear which bill the hate crimes legislation would be attached to and that a viable option might not be available before late summer or early fall.

Thomas said HRC was calling on the Senate to pass the legislation before the end of the summer.

“We are urging the Senate to move the hate crimes bill before the August recess,” he said. “After more than a decade and nine successful votes in Congress, there is no good reason why this bill can’t be sent to the president’s desk for his signature.”

HRC is pushing every day for the amendment to come to the floor and believes there’s enough support in Congress to pass the measure as an amendment, Thomas said.

Noting that the Senate has passed hate crimes legislation several times before in previous congressional sessions, Thomas said “continuing to delay the passage of this bill is unwarranted.”

Attaching the measure to another bill would echo the strategy in 2007, when the Senate amended the defense authorization bill to include a hate crimes provision. At that time, anti-war and conservative lawmakers banded together to convince congressional leadership to remove the provision from the defense bill.

Thomas said the defense bill would not necessarily carry the amendment this time and supporters of the legislation are looking for “any and all options” as vehicles for the amendment.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the longest-serving openly gay member of Congress, said in an interview with the Blade in May that supporters of hate crimes legislation in the Senate were considering attaching the measure as an amendment to the 2010 defense authorization bill, but House lawmakers were trying to convince the Senate to advance the legislation in another way.

Frank told the Blade this week that he understands the danger of a filibuster in the Senate with a standalone bill and said he’s fine with passing the legislation as an amendment — so long as the amended bill doesn’t deal with defense issues.

“You get kind of cognitive dissonance where you put [a] liberal amendment on a conservative bill or vice-versa, and you have problems,” he said. “It’s basically a liberal amendment. It shouldn’t go on a conservative bill.”