Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I very much appreciate the honor of addressing you here tonight on the floor of the House of Representatives.

There is an issue that comes to mind for me immediately. It is the reason that I have asked for some time tonight here in this Special Order in this hour of privilege that we have. It is a disturbing factor that I have experienced, along with a number of others, through a markup in the Judiciary Committee last week, and that is this dramatic departure from the rule of law, the dramatic departure from the Constitution, the dramatic departure from the understanding that criminal law in America would be focused on overt acts, not on the thoughts that we might divine would be within the heads of the perpetrators.

I'm speaking specifically, Mr. Speaker, about the hate crimes legislation that has been pushed through the Judiciary Committee and that will arrive here on the floor of the House of Representatives tomorrow.

By the rule, the rules process that has taken place, there were a whole series of amendments that were offered in the Judiciary Committee. Those who watched the committee will know that the Judiciary Committee in the United States House of Representatives is the most polarized committee on the Hill. It's the committee that goes out and recruits, I'll say, the most hardcore, left-wing people in this Congress to advocate for the most hardcore, left-wing--and I'll say-- sometimes unconstitutional, often illogical proposals that might come before this Congress to be rammed through the Judiciary Committee but not without a legitimate markup. I will concede that point to the chairman, Mr. Conyers.

Many of us offered amendments, but there was a determination to vote down, to shoot down and to defeat every constructive amendment that was offered before the Judiciary Committee on this so-called ``hate crimes legislation,'' Mr. Speaker.

On Thursday, after a full day Wednesday and a most-of-the-day Thursday markup and after that legislation on the so-called ``hate crimes'' passed the House Judiciary Committee, it went to the Rules Committee, which met today, Mr. Speaker. The Rules Committee's job is to also enhance something that is the responsibility of every chairman on this Hill, that is the responsibility of you, Mr. Speaker, and that is the responsibility of all of those who have gavels in their hands. I've spent some time with a gavel in my hand, Mr. Speaker. The job of the chairman is to bring out the will of the group. It's not to impose the Chair's will on the group. To bring out the will of the group is the constitutional act of justice that should come from the hand that holds the gavel.

What happened instead--and perhaps, just perhaps, the hate crimes legislation flowed out of the Judiciary Committee reflecting the will of the Judiciary Committee, but when it is filtered through the Rules Committee--the Rules Committee that sits in judgment upon whether there will be amendments that are allowed to be offered here on the floor of the House of Representatives or whether there will not and which of those amendments might be offered--the Rules Committee has a profound responsibility to weigh the proposals and to make a determination that this House can work in an expeditious fashion but can still reflect the will of the United States House of Representatives.

That will has been frustrated, Mr. Speaker, because the Rules Committee, I'm told, has ruled there will be no amendments on this hate crimes legislation, that it will come to the floor under a closed rule with no amendments allowed, only the amendments that were offered in the Judiciary Committee and by no other Member of Congress. All of those who do not sit on the Judiciary Committee will have an opportunity to try to perfect this legislation that they call the hate crimes legislation but that I call, Mr. Speaker, the thought crimes legislation.

That's at the core of our discussion here this evening, and I'll submit that the will of this group, that the will of the United States House of Representatives, is directly frustrated by the actions that, I believe, are directed from the Speaker's office, by the actions of the Chair of the Rules Committee and by the actions of the majority members on the Rules Committee who have decided to shut down the amendments process and ram through a piece of legislation tomorrow with only 30 minutes allowed for all of the Members of the United States House of Representatives to voice their objections here on the floor of the House of Representatives.

There will be no amendments allowed, just a voice where there will be more than 30 people lined up who will have less than a minute to add their words to this, and where there will be no chance to sway the opinion of this body, the opinion of this body that is locked in on an idea that we're going to have hate crimes legislation in America that punishes the thoughts of people who may or may not be perpetrating crimes against folks because of their particular, special protected status that would be created under this hate crimes legislation.

I, Mr. Speaker, oppose, and I defy the logic of the people who would advocate for such legislation and the very idea that we could divine what goes on in

the heads of people when they commit crimes.

I will argue that the history of criminal law in Western civilization has always been about the overt act, not about the covert act; about the overt act, not about the thought, not about what goes on in the head of the perpetrator and certainly not what goes on in the head of the victim. We recognize and have for millennia that the value of the victim is intrinsic in that each human life has a unique value, a unique value that is priceless and sacred. Whether it's a baby who was just conceived a moment ago or whether it's someone in the last days or hours of his life, we all measure that life equally.

In fact, former Governor of Pennsylvania Robert Casey said human life cannot be measured. It is the measure, itself, against which all other things are weighed.

Yet this hate crimes legislation would weigh it differently. It would weigh the life or the health or the physical well-being of an individual who fit within this special protected status--the status that might be wrapped up in their sexual orientation, their gender identity or their gender, itself--of having a special status if it happens to fit the list of proclivities that they believe should be protected status.

Now, when you start valuing one person's well-being, one person's life differently than that of another, we have deviated dramatically from the essence of criminal law and have started ourselves down a path by which we're evaluating not as the proponents of the bill--and I will say there is the gentlelady from Madison, Wisconsin, whom I specifically asked:

Is this a crime committed, and is it evaluated by what's in the head of the perpetrator or by what's in the head of the victim? I think I might have misunderstood her, but they corrected me clearly, and they said: Well, it's what's in the head of the perpetrator.

All right. So, if we're going to presume that a crime could be committed and if we're going to enhance the penalty, maybe, 10 years or maybe as much as life in prison for kidnapping, for example, because we're going to judge what goes on in the mind of the perpetrator at the time he committed the crime and what provided him the incentive for committing that crime, then we're evaluating here by law what goes on in the head of the perpetrator.

But, Mr. Speaker, there's another component of this. This is what goes on in the head of the victim as well, because the special protected status rests upon not physical characteristics, not immutable characteristics--those characteristics that can be independently verified and that cannot be willfully changed. No, Mr. Speaker. These characteristics are those mutable characteristics, those that reflect not just the physicality of the victim but the attitude and what goes on in the head of the victim.

So, for the first time, if this legislation should become law, the Federal Government will be punishing and will be acting upon legislation that presumes to be able to know what's in the mind of the perpetrator and what's in the mind of the victim. It will match those two things together and will determine if a crime were committed and, if so, how to enhance the penalty. This is a bizarre thing, Mr. Speaker.

This takes me back to the book ``1984'' by George Orwell, written in 1949, where George Orwell wrote--and I will summarize this because I don't exactly have the quote in front of me:

We don't care about the overt act. We don't care about any overt act. What we care about is the thought, because, if you can control the thought, you can control the overt act.

So why would we care about the act, itself, when we could control the thought? By the way, we're not going to be satisfied if you just simply agree with us. You must do so willingly. We must bring your mind around to the point where you're eager to agree with us. When that point comes, there will be no more overt acts that we disagree with, and therefore, we will have controlled the mind, and by controlling the mind, we've controlled the actions, themselves.

This is a bald-faced effort to enforce public affirmation for behaviors that have been considered to be historically aberrant behaviors by the American Psychological Association, Mr. Speaker. There is a long list of them. The list that I have is 547 of them long. As near as I can determine, they're all specially protected activities or thought processes that are protected under this hate crimes legislation, Mr. Speaker.

We tried mightily to amend the bill and to try to bring some sense to this idea that whatever the proclivity, it was going to be protected by a Federal hate crimes law. We can't cross that line, Mr. Speaker. We've got to maintain criminal penalties for the overt act, not for the thought, because we can't know what goes on in the mind of the perpetrator, and we can't know what goes on in the mind of the victim.

Mr. Speaker, that opens this subject matter up, and I recognize that there are some very effective Members of the House of Representatives that would like to address this subject matter. And no matter how focused they may be on preparing themselves, I would be so happy to recognize the gentleman from Texas who is my good friend, Mr. Gohmert, for as much time as he may consume.

Reclaiming my time, and I very much thank the gentleman from east Texas for his clarity with his understanding of this legislation.

I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that I have sat with our committee staff, sat with my own staff. I have gone through this language. I have looked for a way that there is a consistent index between the definition that is in this legislation and understanding what it does. It doesn't exist. It is ambiguous. It is ambiguous, and it runs, actually, in contradiction to the existing statute that it references that the gentleman from Texas spoke to; one of them is a crime of violence definition, and the other one is a hate crime definition.

But also, the definition that is in the bill for gender identity, when I asked the question what is gender identity, and the answer that I received back in committee from the gentlelady from Madison, Wisconsin, was ``it is defined in the bill.'' Don't you know? Well, it is defined in the bill. Gender identity means ``actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.''

I am this Midwestern guy. We have a number of different kinds of fence posts; some of them are hedge posts, some are cedar posts, some are pine, creosote, pressure-treated. Some are steel, T-posts, round posts. You name them, we've got them. We've got electric fence posts as well. We have a whole different bunch of varieties.

Now, if I would define a fence post as ``actual or perceived characteristics of a fence post,'' you get the idea what the definition of gender identity is when it is the actual or perceived gender-related characteristics. It is no definition at all. And this definition will be defined by lawyers and judges, some activists, some that want to adhere to the law. None, if this legislation is passed, would be able to go back and track the definitions in this legislation and determine the intent of Congress, except to offer ambiguities that can be used at any extent.

And what a couple of the other ambiguities are; crime of violence means the threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another. But the bill doesn't say property, it says the person. But the definition in the bill says person or property.

A hate crime means a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property is the object of the crime, but the bill doesn't say property, it says a person that possesses these special protected characteristics--which makes them sacred cows in this society. And, Mr. Speaker, I, perhaps, will expand that thought of sacred cows, but I am much more interested in hearing from the gentlelady from Minnesota, who has arrived on the floor tonight to fill us in on her view of the hate crimes legislation.

I would be so happy to yield as much time as may be consumed by the gentlelady from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota very much for coming here to the floor and, Mr. Speaker, for inspiring the families across America to understand what's going on here in the United States Congress.

This is a powerful thing that is happening, and it undermines the principles of law that have held together for thousands of years in this modern era of special protected status for people based upon their self-alleged behavior and what goes on in their minds. This is a breathtaking thing that may take place here tomorrow, and I clearly oppose it, Mr. Speaker.

But in the interest of time, I'd be very happy to yield to the favorite daughter of Oklahoma, the gentlewoman (Ms. Fallin).

I so much thank the gentlewoman from Oklahoma for coming to the floor to raise the issue that is so important as this House prepares tomorrow to attempt to cross this great divide. This great divide from punishing the acts of a crime, the overt acts of a crime, to divining what was in the mind of the perpetrator and using a definition of what's in the mind presumably of the alleged victim in order to come to some conclusion as to how much prison time a person deserves for an overt act that can be defined but not the thoughts, Mr. Speaker.

At this point I'd be very happy to yield to the gentleman from South

Carolina. Since we had a favorite daughter from Oklahoma, I would like to introduce a favorite son of South Carolina. The wonderful hospitality of South Carolina which I have experienced in every trip I have made down there, the Representative of which is Mr. Gresham Barrett.

I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for coming to the floor tonight and for addressing this subject matter.

Mr. Speaker, this so-called Hate Crimes legislation that proposes to understand and punish what's in the minds of people who may be committing crimes against victims or property, victims or property, Mr. Speaker. I don't know how somebody hates somebody else's property enough that if they would paint some graffiti on their garage door that what goes on in the mind of the person that has committed this act of vandalism can be punished with 10 years in the penitentiary but the act itself might be, well, let's say, a minimal fine for a misdemeanor of vandalism.

Mr. Speaker, I will lay out some scenarios here so that you and everyone else that is listening in can understand, I think, more clearly what's ahead of us. I have asked that we put together some definitions and these definitions that aren't in the bill, the definition that I described a little bit earlier of gender identity, when I asked the authors of the bill what is gender identity, they tell me, well, it's defined in the bill, don't you know. Defined in the bill, don't you know. And it's on page 14, line 24 and 25. Gender identity is the ``actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.'' And I described it, Mr. Speaker, as describing that, well, what is the definition of a fence post? Well, that's an item that has the characteristics of a fence post. What's the definition of gender identity? Well, that's ``actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.''

This is a lawyer's dream. This is a judge's dream. This is a full- blown open license to do whatever one will when you get into a criminal court of law and argue whatever one will. This is almost intentional ambiguity written into legislation, legislation that we tried mightily to refine and perfect with definitions and clarity in the Judiciary Committee. Each effort was rebutted without a logical, and I repeat that, Mr. Speaker, without a logical rebuttal. Just simply: This is our bill, it's going to come out of committee the way it came in because we have determined that's what it's going to be. And we have exposed so many vulnerabilities, so many weaknesses, so many built-in biases, so many unjust scenarios in the debate in the committee that lasted 2 days that the Speaker of the House and the Chair of the Judiciary Committee and whoever else who has something to say about this decided we dare not allow one single amendment on the floor of the House of Representatives because if we do, it will expose these ambiguities, it will expose the bias, it will expose the departure from the hundreds of years old tradition and knowledge of what law is.

Natural rights that come from God, Mr. Speaker. They are reflected also in English common law, and they flow through our Declaration, and they show up in our Constitution. And they are billed here in this Congress for more than 200 years. And we've punished always the overt act, not the thought, Mr. Speaker. And this is thought crimes; it's not hate crimes. We can't know if someone hates. Someone could commit a crime and not know what someone else's gender identity is, for example.

I will ask again how does one know? Could I go on the streets of Madison, Wisconsin, and go identify someone that fits this category of sexual orientation and discriminate against them? How do I know, Mr. Speaker?

And here are some of the protected qualifications that exist within the language of this bill. Never mind the verbal response was, well, no, sexual orientation only includes heterosexuality or homosexuality. Nothing else? No, nothing else. The expert from Madison, Wisconsin, where they should have some experts, I would think. Heterosexuality or homosexuality. It doesn't include bisexuality.

So anybody on the continuum between extreme heterosexuality and extreme homosexuality, anybody that might fit exactly in the middle or anyone in the continuum, they would not be part of this definition of ``sexual orientation'' that is one of the subjects and one of the special protected classes of this bill.

So I look around, and we come up with some definitions for sexual orientation. Here is one. This is from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and it is sexual orientation. ``One's attraction to and preference in sexual partners.''

That is mental. It is up here. You can't know that. You can't see that. You can't tell that. It can't be independently verified. It is not an immutable characteristic. It may or may not be willfully changed by the person that has a particular sexual orientation, Mr. Speaker. That is a mental definition.

Here is the other physical definition of sexual orientation, and this is from the American Heritage Stedman's Medical--medical--Dictionary. It says this: ``Sexual activity with people of the opposite sex, the same sex or both.'' That is sexual orientation. So it might be the thought, it might be the act. It is not a physical characteristic. But gender may be a physical characteristic.

Now, I could go through this and confuse everyone more, and in the short period of time I have I will say this: We don't agree on what sexual orientation is, whether we are going to be defining it from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary or from the American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary. They are two different things.

But if you look at the paraphilias that are produced by the American Psychology Association, here is what they have. And ``paraphilia'' is a powerful and persistent sexual interest other than typical sexual behavior. They have 547 specific sexual orientation proclivities, all of which are specially protected in this legislation, Mr. Speaker.

Here is another definition for sexual orientation. ``Refers to feelings and self-concept, not behavior.'' But it might be behavior, because we know that the American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary says it is a behavior.

But here is a list of the particular paraphilias, you might call them proclivities, you might call them some other things, that are specially protected in this bill under the broad definition of sexual orientation. Some of these I just simply can't say here on this floor.

Asphyxophlia. That would be a fixation with, a proclivity for strangulation, starvation for oxygen.

Autogynephilia. That is someone who sees themselves as someone of the opposite sex, a man seeing himself as a woman or vice versa.

Bisexuality, which was defined in the committee as not part of it, is part of sexual orientation.

It goes on. I have a more concise list over here, Mr. Speaker, and that goes down the line of exhibitionism; incest; partialism, which is an obsession with a specific body part; masochism; sadism; scatalogia, that is obscene phone calls; toucherism, which is, you can imagine, someone who gropes; voyeurism; bestiality. The list of these things go on and on and on.

I offered the amendment, Mr. Speaker, that would have at least eliminated and given us a start, eliminated pedophilia. But pedophiles are specifically protected under this hate crimes legislation. Everything you can imagine is under there, every proclivity, every paraphilia is specially protected under this hate crimes legislation.

It makes a Federal crime out of something that has been a local crime, and they reach across the lines of logic in an unconstitutional fashion to define acts against these proclivities as Federal crimes.

So imagine this. Let's just say you were in Chicago, the President's hometown, and there are folks all in there at a sports bar watching a White Sox game versus the Cubs, or an inter-league game perhaps, Mr. Speaker. And let's just understand that there is some friction involved between White Sox fans and Cubs fans, and they start to hurl some expletives and start to call each other some names and start to make some presumptions about the other side, the other fans, about what their particular proclivities might be. And someone throws a beer or an ashtray and pretty soon they get in a fight, and you have got 15 people on one side that are Cubs fans, 15 people on the other side who are White Sox fans, all of whom have been called some kind of name about their particular paraphilias or proclivities, and we have now a Federal hate crimes brawl on our hands that can enhance the penalties beyond that imagined by the aldermen of Chicago, the local jurisdiction that might be there.

It brings the Feds in to deal with this, to sort this all out, because we are going to imagine what is in the minds of these people that are Cubs fans and White Sox fans, and I for one can't imagine what would be in the mind of a White Sox fan.

Madam President, the pending amendment Senator McCain and I have offered would strike the $1.75 billion that was added to the bill by a very close vote in committee to purchase additional F-22 aircraft that the military does not want, that the Secretary of Defense does not want, that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and all the Joint Chiefs do not want, that President Bush did not want, that the prior Chairman of the Joint Chiefs did not want, and they all say the same thing: The expenditure of these funds jeopardizes other programs which are important, and they provide aircraft we do not need.

These are fairly powerful statements from our leaders, both civilian and military leaders, in this country. I hope the Senate will heed them and reverse the action that was taken on a very close vote in the Armed Services Committee.

We received a few minutes ago a letter from the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A letter is on its way also from the President. When I get that letter, I will, of course, read the President's letter. But for the time being, let me start with the letter we have received from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, as well as the Secretary of Defense, because it is succinct. It is to the point. It states the case for not adding additional F-22s as well as anything I have seen.

Dear Senators Levin and McCain: We are writing to express

our strong objection to the provisions in the Fiscal Year

2010 National Defense Authorization Act allocating $1.75

billion for seven additional F-22s. I believe it is

critically important to complete the F-22 buy at 187--the

program of record since 2005, plus four additional aircraft.

There is no doubt that the F-22 is an important capability

for our Nation's defense. To meet future scenarios, however,

the Department of Defense has determined that 187 aircraft

are sufficient, especially considering the future roles of

Unmanned Aerial Systems and the significant number of 5th

generation Stealth F-35s coming on-line in our combat air

portfolio.

It is important to note that the F-35 is a half generation

newer aircraft than the F-22, and more capable in a number of

areas such as electronic warfare and combating enemy air

defenses. To sustain U.S. overall air dominance, the

Department's plan is to buy roughly 500 F-35s over the next

five years and more than 2,400 over the life of the program.

Furthermore, under this plan, the U.S. by 2020 is projected

to have some 2,500 manned fighter aircraft. Almost 1,100 of

them will be 5th generation F-35s and F-22s. China, by

contrast, is expected to have only slightly more than half as

many manned fighter aircraft by 2010, none of them 5th

generation.

The F-22 program proposed in the President's budget

reflects the judgment of two different Presidents, two

different Secretaries of Defense, three chairmen of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff, and the current secretary and chief of staff

of the Air Force.

If the Air Force is forced to buy additional F-22s beyond

what has been requested, it will

come at the expense of other Air Force and Department of

Defense priorities--and require deferring capabilities in

areas we believe are much more critical for our Nation's

defense.

The letter concludes with the following very pointed paragraph:

For all these reasons, we strongly believe that the time

has come to close the F-22 production line. If the Congress

sends legislation to the President that requires the

acquisition of additional F-22 aircraft beyond Fiscal Year

2009, the Secretary of Defense will strongly recommend he

veto it.

It is signed by Secretary of Defense Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen.

The determination of the Department of Defense to end the production of the F-22 is not new. Secretary Rumsfeld, President Bush, as well as the current President and Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, are recommending the same thing. We have testimony on the record at the Armed Services Committee from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, both urging us strongly to end the production of the F-22.

Let me read, first, Secretary Gates's testimony on May 14 of this year:

. . . [T]he fact is that the F-22 is not going to be the

only aircraft in the TACAIR arsenal, and it does not include

the fact that, for example, we are going to be building,

ramping up to 48 Reapers unmanned aerial vehicles in this

budget.

The F-35, he said, is critically important to take into account.

. . . and the fact is that based on the information given to

me before these hearings, the first training squadron for the

F-35 at Eglin Air Force Base is on track for 2011. The

additional money for the F-35 in this budget is to provide

for a more robust developmental and test program over the

next few years to ensure that the program does stay on the

anticipated budget.

You can say irrespective of previous administrations, but

the fact remains two Presidents, two Secretaries of Defense,

and three Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have

supported the 183 build when you look at the entire TACAIR

inventory of the United States.

And when you look at potential threats, for example, in

2020, the United States will have 2,700 TACAIR. . . .

The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Cartwright, just a few days ago, on July 9, told the Senate Armed Services Committee the following:

I was probably one of the more vocal and ardent supporters

for the termination of the F-22 production. The reason's

twofold. First, there is a study in the Joint Staff that we

just completed and partnered with the Air Force on that,

number one, said that proliferating within the United States

military fifth-generation fighters to all three services was

going to be more significant than having them based solidly

in just one service, because of the way we deploy and because

of the diversity of our deployments.

Point number two is, in the production of the F-35 Joint

Strike Fighter, the first aircraft variant will support the

Air Force replacement of their F-16s and F-15s. It is a very

capable aircraft. It is 10 years newer--

He is referring here to the F-35--

It is 10 years newer in advancement in avionics and

capabilities in comparison to the F-22. It is a better, more

rounded, capable fighter.

He goes on relative to point No. 2:

. . . the second variant is the variant that goes to the

Marine Corps. The Marine Corps made a conscious decision to

forgo buying the F-18E/F in order to wait for the F-35. So

the F-35 variant that has the VSTOL capability, which goes to

the Marine Corps, is number two coming off the line. And the

third variant coming off the line is the Navy variant, the

carrier-suitable variant.

Another thing that weighed heavily, and certainly my

calculus, was the input of the combatant commanders. And one

of the highest issues of concern from the combatant

commanders is our ability to conduct electronic warfare. That

electronic warfare is carried on board the F-18. And so

looking at the lines we would have in hot production, number

one priority was to get fifth-generation fighters to all of

the services; number two priority was to ensure that we had a

hot-production line in case there was a problem; and number

three was to have that hot-production line producing the F-18

Gs which support the electronic-warfare fight.

General Cartwright concluded:

So those issues stacked up to a solid position . . . that

it was time to terminate the F-22. It is a good airplane. It

is a fifth-generation fighter. But we needed to proliferate

those fifth-generation fighters to all of the services. And

we need to ensure that we were capable of continuing to

produce aircraft for the electronic-warfare capability. And

that was the F-18. In the F-18 we can also produce front-line

fighters that are more than capable of addressing any threat

that we'll face for the next five to 10 years.

The letter to which I referred from President Obama has now been received. I know Senator McCain has received a similar letter. I will read the one I have just received:

Dear Senator Levin: I share with you a deep commitment to

protecting our Nation and the men and women who serve it in

the Armed Forces. Your leadership on national security is

unrivaled, and I value your counsel on these matters.

It is with this in mind that I am writing to you about S.

1390, the Senate Armed Services Committee-reported National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, and in

particular to convey my strong support for terminating

procurement of additional F-22 fighter aircraft when the

current multiyear procurement contract ends. As Secretary

Gates and the military leadership have determined, we do not

need these planes. That is why I will veto any bill that

supports acquisition of F-22s beyond the 187 already funded

by Congress.

In December 2004, the Department of Defense determined that

183 F-22s would be sufficient to meet its military needs.

This determination was not made casually. The Department

conducted several analyses which support this position based

on the length and type of wars that the Department thinks it

might have to fight in the future, and an estimate of the

future capabilities of likely adversaries. To continue to

procure additional F-22s would be to waste valuable resources

that should be more usefully employed to provide our troops

with the weapons that they actually do need.

He concludes:

I urge you to approve our request to end the production of

the F-22.

This is no longer a simple recommendation of the President's staff that they would make to the President should we add additional F- 22s. This is now clear. It is crystal clear, and there is no way a President of the United States can say more directly than President Obama has said this afternoon that he will veto any bill that supports acquisition of F-22s beyond the 187 already funded by Congress. That should clear the air on a very important issue, and that is would the President veto this bill if it contained the extra F-22s the military doesn't want or wouldn't he. That speculation is no longer out there. It is now resolved, and it ought to be resolved in our minds, and we ought to realize then that those who support the added F-22s are supporting a provision which, if it is included, will result in the veto of a bill which is critically important to the men and women of our military and to their missions and operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Madam President, not only does the amendment which was adopted by the committee on a very close vote add planes which our uniform--our military--and civilian leaders do not want, and say we do not need, but the amendment also pays for these additional F-22s in the following ways:

No. 1, it cuts operation and maintenance. No. 2, it cuts civilian pay funds that need to be available. No. 3, it also reduces the balances that have to be kept available for military personnel. And No. 4, it assumes that there are going to be near-term savings in fiscal year 2010 from the acquisition reform legislation that we recently adopted and the business process reengineering provision that is in the bill that was adopted by the Armed Services Committee.

Each of those places cannot afford those cuts. We are talking here about operations and maintenance. This is the readiness accounts of our Armed Forces. These are the pay accounts of our Armed Forces. And in the case of at least one of the four sources, the assumption is unwarranted that we are going to make savings this year from the acquisition reform legislation, the very focus of which was to make changes in acquisition reform in the short term, which may actually cost us money to save money--significant money--in the long term. But there is no assessment I know of that says we are going to make savings in 2010 from our acquisition reform legislation.

As the Presiding Officer knows, because she was a strong supporter of this acquisition reform, as were all of us on the Armed Services Committee, we believed very strongly that we had to make these changes in the way in which we acquire equipment and weapons. Senator McCain has been fighting this battle for as long as I can remember--change these acquisition reform procedures--and I have been involved for about as long as I can remember as well in these efforts. The Armed Services Committee put a lot of energy in the acquisition reform that we adopted

unanimously and was ultimately passed and signed by the President. But to say we can't make savings this year in no way knocks the importance of that acquisition reform or minimizes the importance of that acquisition reform. The fact is, as we said at the time, there are going to be major savings, we believe, from that reform, but they are not going to come in the short term. They are surely not coming in 2010. Yet the amendment which added the F-22s made an assumption that there are going to be savings in 2010 from the acquisition reform legislation.

Let me spend a minute on some of the other sources of funds for the F-22, unobligated balances for operations and maintenance--O&M. We already reduced by $100 million the funds in those accounts, and we did so consistent with the report and assessment of the Government Accountability Office. So we acted in a way that would not affect readiness, would not affect O&M, and we had the guidance there of the Government Accountability Office. But what the amendment did that added the F-22s is reduced by $700 million more those O&M accounts.

The original bill we adopted avoided cutting O&M funds from the Army and from the Marines because readiness rates across the board have continued to suffer after several years in combat. Yet half of the reduction made by the amendment which added the F-22s was assessed against O&M Army. It is a dangerous thing to do. It is an unwise thing to do.

We also now face an increase in the price of oil--an increase above what the accounts assumed would be the cost of energy. So we have an additional challenge to those O&M accounts which would be made far more difficult and those reductions far more problematic in that regard as well.

Another source of funds which was used to add the F-22s was in the civilian pay accounts. Civilian pay had already been reduced by almost $400 million in the Air Force, and we did that consistent with, again, the assessments of the Government Accountability Office. Further, civilian pay reductions of $150 million to help fund the F-22s can have a negative effect on readiness, and we simply cannot take that risk. Also, that cut does not take into effect the likely additional civilian pay raise that we will have to absorb in these budgets if, as is likely, using historical acts, Congress increases the civilian pay raise to match the increased military pay raise.

Deep cuts in funds available for civilian pay will have that effect, but also these cuts will undermine the Secretary's efforts and our efforts to hire significant numbers of new employees for the acquisition workforce, it is going to set back our effort to implement acquisition reform, and it is going to cost us a lot more money in the long run.

Another source of the money for the additional F-22s came from the military personnel accounts. Our bill already has taken $400 million in unobligated balances from the military personnel accounts in order to pay for additional personnel pay and benefits, and we did that, again, in line with the recommendation of the Government Accountability Office. The Department's top line, so called, for military personnel was intact until the committee adopted the F-22 increase amendment. And if we reduce military personnel accounts for nonpersonnel matters, it is going to result in a military personnel authorization that is less than was requested, and it is going to hinder the Department's ability to execute its military personnel funding in the year 2010. That is going to be particularly problematic this year, because the Army and Marine Corps have moved their increased end strengths to the base budget. They did that because we urged them to do that.

So the cost of personnel continues to rise, and yet one of the sources of the funding for the F-22 increase came from that very military personnel account.

There is another impact of the amendment--which was barely adopted in the Armed Services Committee--and that is it is going to cause the Department of Defense to cut back in so-called nondirect pay areas, such as bonuses or other personnel support measures, which could have a very significant impact--a negative impact--on the long-term management of the all-volunteer force. It is very likely that the Department will then have to either seek a reprogramming during the next fiscal year to cover personnel costs or they may even have to file a supplemental request.

We have worked hard as a Congress to get the administration--any administration, as we tried during the Bush years and we try again during the Obama years--to make sure that its budget request is solid; that it will not require reprogramming; that it will not require a supplemental request. With this amendment--which was again adopted by just two votes in the Armed Services Committee--we are jeopardizing that longstanding effort on the part of Congress to make sure that the budget request of the administration in fact is a realistic request when it comes to the various accounts. And particularly this year, as the Army and Marine Corps have moved their increased end strengths to the base budget, as we have pressed them to do for many years, it is a mistake for us to be taking funds from that account.

I have talked about acquisition reform and the fact that the amendment which was adopted in committee assumed savings from acquisition reform. I have pointed out, and will not repeat, that while the acquisition reform, strongly supported obviously by our committee and by the Congress, is likely to result in major savings, it cannot be assumed to produce savings in the short term.

I hope this body is going to adopt the Levin-McCain amendment. Two administrations now have made an effort to end the F-22 line. This is not a partisan issue. This is a Republican and a Democratic administration that have made this effort. Our top civilian leaders and our top uniform leaders are unanimous. The Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have joined in supporting the President's request, just as they did President Bush's determination to end the F-22 line. We have to make some choices in this budget and in other budgets, and this is a choice which our military is urging us to make.

We all know the effect that this has on jobs in many of our States, and that varies from State to State, but probably a majority of our States will have some jobs impacted by a termination of the F-22 line. But we cannot continue to produce weapon systems forever. They have a purpose. They have a mission. And those missions and those purposes can be carried out by 187 F-22s. That is not me speaking as Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, that is not Senator McCain speaking as the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, that is both of us saying that we must make difficult choices and we have to build the systems we need. The F-35 is a system which all of the services need. It cuts across the services. It has greater capabilities in electronics than does the F-22. It is a half of a generation advance on the F-22. This is not to minimize the importance of the F-22. We have and will have 187 in our inventory. While not minimizing the importance of the F-22, it points out how important it is that we modernize, and in order to do that--and that means the F-35--we have to at some point say we have enough F-22s. We tried it last year. We could not succeed last year. But this year, not only does the President oppose the increase, as did President Bush, President Obama has now said in writing today that he will veto a bill that contains the unneeded F- 22s.

Our men and women in the military deserve a defense authorization bill. This has a pay increase even larger than that requested. It has benefits that are essential. It has bonuses and other programs to help recruitment and retention. It helps our families. It modernizes our weapon systems. At some point, we have to acknowledge that a weapon system production, extremely valuable, has come to a logical end and that it is time to then pick up its continuity with a different plane, a different weapon system which will benefit our military and support the men and women in uniform.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, first, let me thank Senator McCain for his strong and very powerful statement about this amendment. I cannot remember a President ever saying in advance that if a specific provision in the Defense bill is included, he will veto it. Now, there may be such precedent. But this is what the stakes are here now. This is whether we are going to be supporting a bill that has essential provisions in it for the men and women of the military, including a significant pay raise and other important benefits, including support for our wounded warriors, including support for weapons systems they need.

I would hope that even those Senators who have indicated they would support the additional F-22s might reconsider their position in terms of what is involved in this bill for our men and women, given the President's statement that he will veto this bill.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank my friend from Arizona. The answer is, it will depend, I guess, on how many people wish to speak either in support of our amendment or in opposition to it and how long they want to speak. I do not have yet an indication of that.

I would be a little more optimistic even in the question. I am optimistic, and I would hope we would have a vote on this amendment by noon tomorrow.

I understand there will not be votes in the afternoon as previously agreed to. I hope prior to noon tomorrow we can have a vote on our amendment.

There are two or three things for which we hope our colleagues will come to the Chamber: One is to speak on this amendment; secondly, to speak generally about the bill. We have a number of colleagues on the committee who have worked so hard on this bill who do want to speak on it. I hope they will do that this afternoon. Third, we can begin to receive amendments that we might want to consider during this week. I hope we can finish this bill this week. That may be an optimistic goal, but it would be achievable if everybody cooperates and brings to us and our staffs amendments they are thinking about offering.

I thank Senator Levin for his eloquent statement and comments concerning this amendment. I thank him for his leadership on it.

I have been for many years engaged in the Senate consideration of the Defense authorization bill. This is probably one of the most interesting--I think my colleague will agree--because we are beginning with a measure that, if not passed, will result in a veto by the President of the United States of America.

I appreciate this letter the President of the United States sent to Senator Levin and to me and to the entire Senate. I appreciate the President's courage because right now the votes are not there. Right now I think my friend from Michigan would agree the votes are not there to pass this amendment.

What the President has said, not only do we need to stop the production of the F-22, of which we have already constructed 187, but we need to do business differently. We need to have a change in the way we do business in order to save the taxpayers billions of dollars spent unnecessarily. So this will be kind of an interesting moment in the history of a new Presidency and a new administration and, frankly, an old Secretary of Defense. I say ``old'' in the respect that he obviously covers both administrations. I do not know of a Secretary of Defense who has had more appreciation and admiration from both sides of the aisle than Secretary Gates. I appreciate very much Secretary Gates' letter, also, where he describes in some detail, as does the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, why we need to have this amendment passed to remove the additional F-22s. I want to emphasize ``additional.''

I wish to pay special appreciation to President Obama for taking a very courageous step in making it very clear, as he says:

As Secretary Gates and the military leadership have

determined, we do not need these planes. That is why I will

veto any acquisition of F-22s beyond the 187 already funded

by Congress.

The statement is very clear. I appreciate it. I hope it has a significant impact on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Again, my appreciation to President Obama and my appreciation to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the Secretary of Defense, who lay out in more detail why it is that we need to eliminate this unneeded $1.75 billion for seven additional F-22s.

I emphasize to my colleagues that these funds will go to the acquisition of the F-35, the Joint Strike Fighter, which when produced will provide a careful balance between the air superiority provided by the F-22 and the other capabilities of the Joint Strike Fighter, which is also badly needed. This argument is not about the capability of the F-22, although that will be brought to the floor and I intend to talk a little bit about many of the difficulties the F-22 has had. But I would also like to point out that the F-22 has never flown in Iraq or Afghanistan. That is a remarkable statement. It has been in production since December 2005. We are in July of 2009, and the F-22 has yet to fly in combat in the two wars in which we are engaged. It has been plagued with some significant maintenance problems, not to mention dramatic cost overruns.

This is not an argument about whether the F-22 is an important capability for our Nation's defense. It is. The question is, When do we stop buying them?

I quote from the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff letter:

It is important to note that the F-35 is a half generation

newer aircraft than the F-22, and more capable in a number of

areas such as electronic warfare and combating enemy air

defenses. To sustain U.S. overall air dominance, the

Department's plan is to buy roughly 500 F-35s over the next

five years and more than 2,400 over the life of the program.

So I think arguments that may be made on the floor that somehow we are curtailing or inhibiting the ability of the U.S. Air Force to carry out its responsibilities to defend this Nation are contradicted at least by the views of the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and literally every other individual or position that is involved in this debate.

The Secretary of Defense goes on to say:

Furthermore, under this plan the United States by 2020 is

projected to have some 2,500 manned fighter aircraft. Almost

1,100 of them will be fifth generation F-35s and F-22s.

There is going to be a lot of debate and discussion about China and its emerging capabilities.

The Secretary of Defense goes on to say:

China, by contrast, is expected to have only slightly more

than half as many manned fighter aircraft by 2020, none of

them fifth generation.

I am concerned about the rising military capabilities of China. They are increasing their naval and maritime capabilities. They are increasing the efficiency of their army and their entire overall inventories, and it is of great concern. But with the combination of the F-35 and the F-22, we will clearly have a significant advantage over the Chinese for some period of time. That is not to in any way denigrate the long-term aspect of the Chinese military buildup. But in the short term, this is the best way to make sure we maintain complete superiority with a mixture of the F-35 and the F-22.

The Secretary goes on to say:

The F-22 program proposed in the President's budget

reflects the judgment of two different Presidents, two

different Secretaries of Defense, three chairmen of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff, and the current secretary and chief of staff

of the Air Force.

My colleagues are going to come to the floor and say the Chairman of the Air National Guard says we need additional F-22s. We do not disregard that opinion, but we do weigh that opinion as opposed to the opinion and judgment of the individuals whom I just cited.

If the Air Force is forced to buy additional F-22s beyond

what has been requested, it will come at the expense of other

Air Force and Department of Defense priorities--and require

deferring capabilities in areas we believe are much more

critical for our Nation's defense.

There is no free lunch. There is no free $1.75 billion. There is no free money. Here we are with a projected $1.8 trillion deficit, a decrease overall in some defense areas that is coming sooner or later, and we cannot afford a $1.75 billion procurement that is not absolutely needed.

Again, I wish to state very clearly, F-22 is a good airplane. The fact that it has not flown in Iraq or Afghanistan is telling, and some of the issues I will mention later on are telling. But this is not an attack on the F-22. What it is is an assessment of the Nation's national security needs and what we need in its inventory to maintain our superiority over all other nations and meet various threats ranging from radical Islamic extremism to the conventional capabilities of a rising power in the east.

Again, I wish to say thanks for the great leadership of our Secretary of Defense and Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the importance they place on this amendment.

I would like to refer my colleagues to an article that appeared last Friday in the Washington Post. It was entitled ``Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings.''

I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record.

I will quote in part from this article, which I think is worthy of my colleagues' examination. It is by Mr. R. Jeffrey Smith, a person who is widely respected on defense issues. He says:

The United States' top fighter jet, the Lockheed Martin F-

22, has recently required more than 30 hours of maintenance

for every hour in the skies, pushing its hourly cost of

flying to more than $44,000, a far higher figure than for the

warplane it replaces, confidential Pentagon test results

show.

It goes on to talk about some of the problems it has experienced. It goes on to say:

While most aircraft fleets become easier and less costly to

repair as they mature, key maintenance trends for the F-22

have been negative in recent years, and on average from

October last year to this May, just 55 percent of the

deployed F-22 fleet has been available to fulfill missions

guarding U.S. airspace, the Defense Department acknowledged

this week. The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or

Afghanistan.

I point out that the cost per aircraft is around $350 million, depending on how you calculate it. We have a $350 million airplane investment by the taxpayers of America that has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan, the two conflicts in which we are engaged. We know for a fact that much older aircraft--the A-10, the F-18, many of the older aircraft are flying routine missions, plus our newest kinds of technology in drone and predator aircraft.

Sensitive information about troubles with the nation's

foremost air-defense fighter is emerging in the midst of a

fight between the Obama administration and the Democrat-

controlled Congress--

I point out to my colleagues, the Democrat-controlled Congress--

over whether the program should be halted next year at 187

planes, far short of what the Air Force and the F-22's

contractors around the country had anticipated.

There are divisions over in the Pentagon.

It says:

Votes by the House and Senate armed services committees

last month to spend $369 million to $1.75 billion more to

keep the F-22 production line open were propelled by mixed

messages from the Air Force--including a quiet campaign for

the plane that includes snazzy new Lockheed videos for

lawmakers--

I do not think that the chairman or I received the snazzy new Lockheed video--

and intense political support for States where the F-22's

components are made. The full House ratified the vote on June

25, and the Senate is scheduled to begin consideration.

After deciding to cancel the program, Defense Secretary

Robert Gates called the $65 billion fleet a ``niche'' silver-

bullet solution to a major aerial war threat that remains

distant. He described the House's decision as ``a big

problem,'' and has promised to urge President Obama to veto

the bill.

The administration's position is supported by military

reform groups.

In the article it talks about pilots who have flown the aircraft who talk about its impressive capability. I do not disagree with those assessments at all. Its troubles have been detailed in dozens of Government Accountability Office reports and Pentagon audits. But Pierre Sprey, a key designer in the 1970s and 1980s of the F-16 and A- 10 warplanes, said that from the beginning, the Air Force designed it to be ``too big to fail, that is, to be cancelation proof.''

Lockheed farmed out more than 1,000 subcontracts to vendors in more than 40 States. I would like to repeat that. Lockheed farmed out more than 1,000 subcontracts to vendors in more than 40 States. And Sprey, now a prominent critic of the plane, said that by the time skeptics ``could point out the failed tests, the combat flaws, and the exploding costs, most Congressmen were already defending their contractors' revenues.''

John Hamre--this is an individual known to all of us--a very capable individual, who was on the Senate Armed Service Committee staff and served in previous administrations, was the Pentagon Comptroller from 1993 to 1997. He says the Department approved the plane with a budget it knew was too low because projecting the real costs would have been politically unpalatable on Capitol Hill.

We knew that the F-22 was going to cost more than the Air

Force thought it was going to cost and we budgeted the lower

number, and I was there [Hamre told the Senate Armed Services

committee in April.]

``I am not proud of it,'' Hamre added in a recent interview, which I think is a mark of the quality of the individual, that he admits he made a mistake, as we all do from some time to another.

So I do not want to quote and spend too much time on this article because it is a long one. But it is an important item for our colleagues to consider when we consider the vote on this amendment.

The cancellation decision got public support from the Air

Force's top two civilian and military leaders who said the F-

22 was not a top priority in a constrained budget. But the

leaders' message was muddied in a June 9 letter from Air

Combat Commander John D. W. Corley to Chambliss [that is

Senator Chambliss, the Senator from Georgia] that said

halting production would put ``execution of our national

military strategy at high risk in the near to mid-term.'' The

right size of the fleet, he said, is 381.

So it is enough to say that given our overall joint capability to obtain air superiority, stopping the F-22 at 187 fighters is vital to achieving the correct balance.

I have discussed already the importance of a fifth-generation aircraft. I discussed earlier the importance of us making these tough decisions. Not irrelevant to this debate is the view of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Cartwright. He is a Marine General aviator. He is the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and he serves as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs' most senior adviser on joint operational requirements.

In recent testimony before the Armed Services Committee, General Cartwright outlined why, in his best military judgment, the F-22 program should be terminated. He said:

Looking at the lines in hot production, the number one

priority was to get fifth generation fighters to all of the

services. Number-two priority was to ensure that we had a hot

production line in case there was a problem. And, number

three, was to have that hot production line producing F-18Gs,

which support the electronic warfare fight.

In General Cartwright's view:

Those issues stacked up to a solid position that it was

time to terminate the F-22. It is a good airplane. It is a

fifth-generation fighter. But we needed to proliferate those

fifth-generation fighters to all of the services, and we

needed to ensure that we were capable of continuing to

produce aircraft for the electronic warfare capability. In

the F-18, we can also produce front-line fighters that are

more capable of addressing any threat that we'll face for the

next 5 to 10 years.

Interesting comment. He is saying, in the F-18, we can also produce frontline fighters that are more capable of addressing any threat we will face for the next 5 to 10 years.

In any case, let me clear up the record on some discussions about the risk the Air Force is taking on by ending the F-22 line at 187 aircraft. References to some of that discussion appear to have been taken out of context. The Air Force's acceptance of risk by

discontinuing the program needs to be understood in the context of the Air Force's overall combat Air Force restructure plan, a plan that is intended to bridge the Air Force's current fleet to the predominantly fifth-generation force of the future. Basically, that plan works by restructuring the Air Force's current fleet of fighters now and directing the results and savings to fund modifying newer or more reliable fighters in the legacy fleet, weapons procurement, and joint enablers.

Under this plan, those investments will help create a more capable fleet that can bridge the Air Force to a future fleet with a smaller, more capable force. As you can imagine, the effectiveness of the plan depends on a lot of moving parts, perhaps most importantly stopping the F-22 program at 187 fighters now.

While some short-term risks in the Air Force's fighter force may arise from stopping the program at 187 aircraft, the Combat Air Force Restructure Plan is designed to accept that risk to ensure a more capable fleet in the long term. I believe this strategy is sound and needs the support of this body. Please do not be deluded by references to risk associated with ending the F-22 program.

Given the strength of the reasons cited by the National Command Authority, the best professional military advice by the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the considered recommendations of the service Secretaries, I can find no good reason why I should replace their judgment on this critical national defense issue with my own and call for funding for the continuation of the F-22 program. I, respectfully, suggest the Members of this body do the same and support the amendment under consideration.

I understand where votes are. I understand that right now, probably this morning, anyway, and I hope that the very forceful letter by the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the very strong letter from the President of the United States will move my colleagues in support of this amendment.

But I have no illusions about the influence of the military industrial complex in this town. Long ago, President Eisenhower, when he left office--probably the most noted military leader or certainly one of the most noted military leaders ever to occupy the White House-- warned America about the military industrial complex and the power and the increasing influence he saw that military industrial complex having over the decisionmaking made in the Congress and in the administration and in the funding of different programs and the expenditure of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars.

We are at a very interesting moment, if not a seminal one, in the history of this administration. If we accept the threat of the President of the United States to veto and overcome the individual concerns, I think it will be a great step forward to providing the taxpayer with a far better usage of their hard-earned dollars.

These are difficult and terrible economic times for America. We cannot afford business as usual. We cannot afford to continue to purchase weapons systems that are not absolutely vital to this Nation's security. I would point out, again, and maybe it is not appropriate to keep mentioning, this plane has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan. It is never part of the two wars we have been in. It is a good airplane. It will probably be important, the 187 of them we are procuring, to the security of the Nation.

But to continue production and procurement at some $350 million a copy, when in the judgment of the people we give the responsibility to make the judgment in the strongest possible terms have told us: We need to move on to another aircraft. We need the Joint Strike Fighter, and we do not need any more of the F-22 aircraft, it is a very interesting time. I look forward to the debate and vote on this amendment as soon as possible. I respect the views of my colleagues who feel very strongly that we need to continue the production of this aircraft. But I think it is wrong. I hope we can have an enlightened and respected debate on this issue.

I understand the passion that some of my colleagues have about it and the importance it is to jobs in their States and communities. I would point out, again, defending this Nation and expenditures of the taxpayers' dollars for its defense should not be based on jobs. It should be based on our national security needs. There are not unlimited amounts of money.

I wish to thank my colleague, the distinguished chairman again. I am sure that both those letters have been included in the Record.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleague, the distinguished chairman.

Can I ask the distinguished chairman what he thinks is going to be the situation as regarding the disposition of this amendment?

Could I say to my friend, the distinguished chairman, from our past experience, there will be at least a couple hundred pending other amendments. I do not mean to diminish the importance of this one. But I would hope we could spend whatever time in debate that anyone might want to talk about the amendment today and into tomorrow and at least have a target to have a final disposition on this amendment tomorrow, since we will have many other amendments. Would that be the desire of the chairman?

Mr. President, we encourage colleagues to come to the Senate floor so we can debate this important amendment.

I thank the chairman. I hope all colleagues will bring their amendments as well as debate on the pending amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee for yielding time to us to be able to discuss this bill, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The discussion surrounding this bill today will no doubt center on the idea of crimes committed out of hate. There will be talk about the scourge of violent hate crime, which begs the question: Is there such a thing as nonhateful violent crime?

But in all the debate over criminal acts, a larger and forgotten debate is often left unspoken, and that is the debate over the role of free expression in our society. If this bill becomes law, it will have a chilling effect on many law-abiding Americans' freedom of expression.

The robust and healthy exchange of ideas is an American distinction. Because we are a land where free expression is one of our cherished foundational ideals, we have a long tradition of protecting the speech of everyone, from those with the most mainstream ideas to those on the fringe. Why do we do this? Because we know that in the end, in a healthy marketplace of ideas where the public square allows for an airing of all ideas, the best ideas and principles come out on top. In a strong marketplace of ideas, an American marketplace, bankrupt ideas are destined to fail. We should not live and legislate in fear of bankrupt ideas.

Marginal concepts, bad ideas, and flawed philosophies will always be buried beneath the tide of free and democratic expression, where free speech protects the individual's right to hold and express an opinion, even if such an opinion may be wrong. Holding this ideal is one reason why we on the minority side are so distressed that this

is a closed rule and we are not going to be allowed to offer amendments today because we know yesterday from the Rules Committee that some of our amendments would garner majority support, and we are very distressed about that.

Ultimately, a healthy public square always has a chilling effect on the forces of hatred. But today we are considering a bill that will start us down the road towards a public square that is less robust, more restrictive, and that will squelch our cherished constitutional right to free speech. It will establish a new category of criminal activity, which is thought crimes. Today it is the politically correct thought crimes, those directed toward certain protected groups, but when we open the door creating this new criminal category of thought crimes, it is but a small step to add new types of thought crimes to the list, and suddenly we find ourselves back on the Orwellian threshold of Nineteen Eighty-Four and staring down the specter of the thought police.

In George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions but also the thoughts of its subjects, labeling disapproved thoughts with the term ``thought crime.'' The Thought Police use psychology and omnipresent surveillance to find and eliminate members of society who are capable of the mere thought of challenging ruling authority.

The way this bill is written, law enforcement will be called upon to unearth a criminal's motivation for committing a crime. The questions must then be asked: What thoughts caused the perpetrator to commit the so-called hate crime? And what caused this person to have these thoughts? Could it have been, for example, the sermon of a local religious leader, perhaps a respected local rabbi, who preached a message out of a religious conviction and belief in a sacred book? Under this law that rabbi may be guilty of inducing an act of violence simply because of his religious convictions. And it wouldn't take many arrests to put a choke hold on the free speech of religious leaders across our Nation.

In closing, I would like to quote liberal commentator Glenn Greenwald, certainly no apologist for conservatives like myself. But he has some strong words for hate crime laws such as those which already exist in Europe and in our neighbor to the north, Canada. Writing on salon.com last year, he called hate crimes laws ``oppressive'' and ``pernicious.'' Allow me to quote him at length because he summarizes the consequences of this type of legislation very well:

``Empowering the State to proscribe and punish speech is not only the most dangerous step a society can take, though it is that, it's also the most senseless. It never achieves its intended effect of suppressing or eliminating a particular view. If anything, it has the opposite effect, by driving it underground, thus preventing debate and exposure.''

As I said earlier, the best antidote to hate, perceived or real, is the bright light of public debate and scrutiny, not the outright censorship contained in this so-called hate crimes legislation.

My friends, this legislation starts us down a slippery slope. No longer are all Americans subject to equal justice under the law. No. A murderer of a police officer can be treated more leniently under this law than someone who is convicted of a so-called hate-motivated murder of a protected class of citizens. This is not equal justice. This is the codifying of a thought crimes law that weakens our first amendment and that dilutes our long tradition of equal justice under the law.

I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) a member of the Judiciary Committee, who offered several excellent amendments that were rejected by the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for us to respond to some of the comments that have been made here this afternoon by our friends on the other side, and I appreciate the gentlewoman from Texas bringing up an issue that I think needs to be responded to.

As she pointed out, these crimes are being taken care of in the States. Forty-five States already have hate crime laws. What we are doing with this bill, as one of my colleagues has said earlier, is going in and preempting what the States are doing. This is abrogating the 10th Amendment again. The Constitution has clearly left to the States and localities and the people things that are not spelled out in the Constitution.

As soon as I am finished, I will do that.

However, nobody has said that the States aren't doing an adequate job of administering the laws that they have already. We don't need the Federal Government going in and working with them.

The issue of giving them assistance is another issue. If nothing else, that is a good reason to vote against this bill, because the bill states ``such sums as are needed.'' We are creating another entitlement program. Now, the grants say $100,000, but we are going to have people going after this money, putting ourselves more in debt, not included in the budget, not included in the appropriations but outside the budget. If you didn't vote against this bill and against this rule for any other reason, you could vote against it because we are spending additional money.

I also would like to point out that there was a bill, the hate crimes bill called the Matthew Shepard Act, named after a very unfortunate incident that happened where a young man was killed. But we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay. The bill was named for him, the hate crimes bill was named for him, but it is really a hoax that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills.

In just a moment.

I also want to point out that one of the concerns that we have and why we believe that free speech is being endangered by this bill is the fact that the word ``perceived'' is used so often in this bill. In fact, I have pulled each one of them out. It says ``is motivated by prejudice based on actual or perceived race.''

Throughout the bill, there are five instances where the word ``perceived'' is used, but the word ``perceived'' is never defined. We believe that that opens up a Pandora's box in terms of how people can use this bill to stifle free speech. Our colleagues on the other side have not been willing to define this word or, again, to take amendments that many of us believe would have made this bill much, much better.

So I say to my colleagues, this is not the kind of legislation we should be passing in this country in this day.

If the gentlewoman wants to ask me a question which I can answer quickly, since I am on my time, I will yield. If it is a matter to speak on, then I would ask her to ask for time on her side.

I have read the bill and read it carefully, and I have great problems with the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to our colleague from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), who also offered several amendments that were not taken.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 90 seconds now to my colleague from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues who have spoken here today have been extremely eloquent, and they've done a very, very good job of saying why this rule is bad and why the underlying bill is bad.

I want to end with a summary and with a quote. I want to quote from a column by William Raspberry from The Washington Post, April 9, 1999. And I'm quoting from the end of that column. The title of it is Thought Crimes. ``What I'm asking is this: Isn't it enough that people be punished for what they do, rather than for the attitudes that drive them to do it? What is the advantage of prosecuting people for what amounts to crimes of wrong thinking? Surely we don't expect expanded legislation to change their thinking, and we've already got laws against the awful behavior their warped thinking may produce. But I can't see that Clinton's proposal can do any good whatever. But as I said, it's likely to do negligible harm, so I'll just shut up.''

Mr. Raspberry is certainly not a conservative speaker or writer. However, he shares the same view that I and my colleagues have shared today.

And let me summarize, again, why we're opposed to this bill. Our criminal justice system has been built on the ideal of equal justice for all. This bill turns that fundamental principle on its head. Justice will no longer be equal but will depend on the race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status of the victim. The bill is unconstitutional, we believe, and will likely be struck down by the courts.

The hate crimes bill will restrict religious freedom and first amendment rights by raising the possibility that religious leaders or members of religious groups could be prosecuted criminally based on their speech or protected activities.

We believe this bill itself will spread fear and intimidation. Religious organizations may be chilled from expressing their ideas regarding homosexuality out of fear from involvement in the criminal process.

The bill also federalizes crimes that are being effectively prosecuted by our States and local governments.

In 2007, of the approximately 17,000 homicides that occurred in the United States, only 9 of the murders were determined to be motivated by bias. Regarding crimes where there are actual victims, there's no evidence that States are not fully prosecuting violent crimes involving ``hate.''

We all agree that every violent crime is deplorable, regardless of its motivation. Every violent crime can be devastating, not only to the victim, but the larger community whose public safety has been violated.

That is why all violent crimes must be vigorously prosecuted. Individuals prosecuted under this legislation, though, are not going to be punished for just their actions, but for their thoughts.

Mr. Speaker, this underlying bill is a bad bill and it is a bad rule, and I urge its defeat.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 372 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman, my friend from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 372 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.

This legislation is a vital step towards bringing the full protection of the law to those targeted for violent, bias-motivated crimes simply because of who they are. This bill expands the Federal hate crimes law to include protections for crimes directed at individuals because of their gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.

These crimes are designed to intimidate entire communities on the basis of personal and immutable characteristics. All of us in this Chamber know

that hate crimes tear the fabric of our society and fragment communities because they target an entire community or group of people, not just the individual victim.

This legislation makes important new changes to Federal civil rights law by providing new Federal authority for investigating and prosecuting criminal civil rights violations. It authorizes the Attorney General to provide assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of violent crimes motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of the victim.

This bill spans interstate lines by establishing uniform Federal protections against hate crimes as a backdrop to existing laws in every State. It directs the Attorney General to give priority for assistance to cases in which offenders have committed crimes in more than one State and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary expenses associated with investigations and prosecutions.

This bill makes it a Federal criminal offense to cause or attempt to cause bodily harm through the use of fire, firearms, or explosive devices against a person due to bias-driven violence.

These provisions enhance our country's 233-year tradition of protecting liberty, freedom, and acceptance by protecting and recognizing the human dignity of every person. No person should live in fear of violence because of who they are.

Some have criticized this legislation by claiming that the hate crimes bill will infringe upon free speech, somehow turning Federal authorities into ``thought police.'' In my view, this is simply not true. The hate crime bill adds no new classes of crime. This legislation is not about thinking or believing, but acting and harming.

This legislation strengthens, not weakens, the First Amendment freedom of speech protections. It prohibits for use as evidence a defendant's speech or association unless specifically related to the crime, and this legislation does not disturb constitutionally protected speech or associations.

It is preposterous to argue that this bill criminalizes thoughts and beliefs. The bill does not criminalize those who hate or disagree with other people or groups of people. It criminalizes acts of violence against people based on the victim's characteristics.

Under current law, the Federal Government's involvement is only authorized in those cases in which the victim was targeted because of race, color, religion, or national origin. The current protection is neither uniform nor comprehensive, and this has important practical and symbolic consequences.

It is vital that the Federal Government send a message to the American people that hate crimes committed because of one's sexual orientation, gender identity, gender, or disability are as intolerable as those motivated by race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion.

Some also argue that we're federalizing crimes already illegal under State laws, providing limited jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute bias-motivated crimes. However, Congress has rejected this argument repeatedly by passing hundreds of bills that give the Federal Government jurisdiction over crimes that States already consider illegal.

From 1995 to 2006, my friends on the other side controlled Congress and enacted nearly 100 public laws imposing new Federal criminal penalties for conduct that was already under State law and creating over 600 new Federal crimes.

Hate crimes are destructive and divisive. A random act of violence resulting in injury or even death is a tragic event that devastates the lives of the victim and their family. But the intentional selection and beating or murder of an individual because of who they are terrorizes an entire community--and sometimes, the Nation.

It is easy to recognize the difference between the arson of an office building versus the intentional torching of a church or synagogue. The church or synagogue or mosque burning has a profound impact on the congregation, the faith community, the local community, and the Nation. We're all affected by violent acts of hatred, and there is ample evidence that violent, bias-motivated crimes continue to be a widespread and serious problem in our Nation.

In my home State, the most recent Florida Hate Crimes Report published by the Florida Attorney General reported a total of 193 hate crimes, 14.5 percent of which were motivated by sexual orientation. Additionally, poll after poll continues to show that the American public supports hate crimes legislation inclusive of sexual orientation. FBI data show 1,265 hate crime incidents directed at gays and lesbians in the year 2007 alone, the third most frequent victims and over 16 percent of all hate crimes reported that year. And 79 hate crime incidents directed at disabled victims were also reported that year. And, unfortunately, we know it is widely accepted that hate crimes specifically against those with disabilities remain vastly underreported. Mr. Speaker, this is clearly a problem that merits the passage of an expanded hate crimes law.

Furthermore, this legislation is endorsed by over 300 law enforcement, civil rights, civic and religious organizations including the National Sheriffs Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, National District Attorneys Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Human Rights Campaign, the Presbyterian Church, the Episcopal Church, the NAACP, and the National Disability Rights Network.

Mr. Speaker, this measure would give local law enforcement officials important tools to combat violent, bias-motivated crime. Federal support, through training and direct assistance, will help ensure that bias-motivated violence is effectively investigated and prosecuted. The legislation would also facilitate Federal investigations and prosecutions when local authorities are unwilling or unable to achieve a just result.

As we consider H.R. 1913 today, let us remember that this hate crimes bill is also known as the Matthew Shepard Act, in memory of the 21- year-old University of Wyoming student who was brutally tortured and murdered in 1998 just because he was gay. At the time of his murder just a few years ago, no criminal statute existed in Wyoming to charge his killers with a hate crime nor was there Federal financial assistance available to aid the local authorities in Laramie, Wyoming, with investigating and prosecuting his murder.

The fact of the matter is hate crimes happen every day and we should not wait for another Matthew Shepard to ensure justice.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado, my good friend and member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Polis.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend and former member of the Rules Committee, and my fellow Floridian, Ms. Castor.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to my good friend the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the author of this legislation, my good friend, Mr. Conyers.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to my good friend the distinguished Congressional Black Caucus Chair, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of time.

Mr. Speaker, I have been on the Rules Committee a considerable amount of time, both in the minority and in the majority, and I have seen things come to the Rules Committee that I thought were trivializing the process, but yesterday took the cake for me.

We had an amendment offered by one of our colleagues to this particular legislation. I guess it was done in a creative fashion, and certainly the author of it did spend some time looking in the dictionary or creating new terms. And I apologize to our transcriber, but I am going to put in the Record what we have to put up with in the Rules Committee.

``The term sexual orientation,'' this proposed amendment said, ``as used in this act, or any amendments made by this act, does not include apotemnophilia, asphyxophilia, autogynephilia, coprophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, gerontosexuality, incest, kleptophilia, klismaphilia, necrophilia, partialism, pedophilia, sexual masochism, sexual sadism, telephone scatalogia, toucherism, transgenderism, transsexual, transvestite, transvestic fetishism, urophilia, voyeurism, or zoophilia.''

All I can say is the late-night comedians need to come up there with me sometime so that they can get into the spirit of spuriousness that comes there on certain occasions.

This is serious business. Mr. Speaker, we can't legislate love, but we can legislate against hate. This legislation may not rid us of the intolerance and prejudices that continue to taint our society, but it will provide an added deterrent to those for whom these feelings manifest themselves into acts of violence. They will be fully aware that, should they commit a hate crime, there will be no lenience and they will not slip through the cracks of the American legal system.

Further, passage of this Hate Crimes bill will increase public education and awareness and encourage Americans to report hate crimes that all too often are silent.

Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice, and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability--or all of these philias and fetishes and isms that were put forward--need not live in fear because of who they are.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule so that we continue to move this country toward fully achieving its promise of justice and liberty for all Americans.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the question on the resolution.