By LAURIE KELLMAN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON -- (AP) -- The Senate attached hate crimes legislation to a must-pass Pentagon spending bill Thursday, but opponents predicted it ultimately would fail either in negotiations with the House or by presidential veto.
"The president is not going to agree to this social legislation on the defense authorization bill," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "This bill will get vetoed."
Nonetheless, the Senate agreed by voice vote -- with no dissenting votes -- to attach the hate-crimes provision to a pending defense authorization bill that designates billions of federal dollars to the Defense Department and the Iraq war.
Writing violent attacks on gays into federal hate crime laws is an appropriate add-on to legislation funding the war, Democrats argued, because both initiatives are aimed at combating terrorist acts.
"The defense authorization is about dealing with the challenges of terrorism overseas...This (bill) is about terrorism in our neighborhood," said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, the chief Democratic sponsor. "We want to fight terrorism here at home with all of our weapons."
Agreed the Republican co-sponsor, Oregon Sen. Gordon Smith: "We cannot fight terror abroad and accept terror at home."
That's a stretch, not to mention a heavy-handed maneuver that "hijacks'' a bill that includes a pay increase for troops in wartime, said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.
"I think it's shameful we're changing the subject to take care of special interest legislation at a time like this," Cornyn said on the Senate floor.
Other Republicans complained that states should remain the chief prosecutors of such crimes, as in current law.
"Absent a clear demonstration that the states have failed in their law-enforcement responsibilities, the federalization of hate crimes is premature," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who proposed instead a study of the matter in a separate amendment.
Attaching hard-to-pass legislation to must-pass bills is a well-established strategy used by lawmakers of both parties, no matter who controls the chamber. Success means forcing squeamish lawmakers to technically vote for controversial policies embedded in massive spending bills -- then hold them accountable at re-election time.
The White House has contended that state and local laws already cover the new crimes defined under the hate crimes proposal and that there is no need to provide federal sanctions for what could be a wide range of violent crimes.
The hate crimes amendment, which passed as a stand-alone bill in the House this year, is especially tempting for majority Democrats because of Bush's weakened, lame-duck status and some support for the measure among Republicans.
But given Bush's veto threat against the provision, it seemed headed for a familiar fate. The Senate in 2004 attached similar legislation to the same authorization bill, but it was stripped out in negotiations with the House.
Republicans were careful not to attack the intent of the legislation, focusing instead on what they said was the "non-germane'' nature of the amendment to the overall spending bill.
"There may be a time and place for a hate crimes discussion, but it is certainly not now when national security legislation is being held up," said Senate Republican Conference Chairman Jon Kyl of Arizona. "Forcing a vote on the so-called hate crimes amendment shows an utter lack of seriousness about our national defense."
Retorted Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J.: "For some, it never seems to be the right time or the right place."
Under current federal law, hate crimes apply to acts of violence against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin. Federal prosecutors have jurisdiction only if the victim is engaged in a specific federally protected activity such as voting.
The House bill would extend the hate crimes category to include sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability and give federal authorities greater leeway to participate in hate crime investigations. It would approve $10 million over the next two years to help local law enforcement officials cover the cost of hate crime prosecutions.
Federal investigators could step in if local authorities were unwilling or unable to act.