Family Self-Sufficiency Act of 2009

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the author of H.R. 46, the Family Self-Sufficiency Act, I encourage all my colleagues to support this important legislation which will help more disadvantaged families gain independence from government assistance.

Thanks to the support of my colleague from California (Ms. Waters) last Congress as a part of the larger section 8 voucher reform package and as a stand-alone measure, twice the House passed the Family Self- Sufficiency Act. Today, we will again consider the same measure.

The Senate didn't act on section 8 reform legislation last Congress, which is why we are moving this legislation again. The Family Self- Sufficiency Program, also called FSS, is offered in connection with the Department of Housing and Urban Development Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program.

Local public housing authorities employ FSS coordinators and administer these programs. In addition to rental housing assistance, FSS programs connect families to housing counseling, job training, child care, education, and other services to help them reduce their dependence on public assistance. FSS also helps families save for homeownership.

The FSS program is well worth it. Let me give you a quick example of an FSS success story from my congressional district.

After 6 years of service, a Navy veteran and a single mom of two secured a part-time job, and thanks to the GI Bill, enrolled as a full- time student. Despite struggling to make ends meet, she received her degree and enrolled in the DuPage County Housing Authority Family Self- Sufficiency Program. This program connected her to a resume writing class at the University of Illinois' Employment Training Center. Within a week of posting her newly polished resume, she secured interviews and eventually a full-time job that doubled her salary. She also worked with a financial planner to improve her budgeting and management skills. Today, this single mother and veteran is an independent and self-sufficient homeowner, a long way from public housing.

So what is the problem? Well, in fiscal year 2004, HUD changed its FSS coordinator funding process, and the result, in a 20-month period: the number of FSS coordinators dropped by about two-thirds, and 4,000 fewer families participated in the program. HUD has attempted to fix the mistake, but without success. So that is why H.R. 46 is necessary, to ensure that public housing authorities have consistent coordinator funding necessary to administer the program and serve people who choose the FSS path to independence.

H.R. 46 establishes a minimum ratio of program coordinators to participants; ensures the Public Housing Authority gets funding for one coordinator for 25-plus families enrolled in its FSS program; with 75 or more families enrolled, funding for two coordinators; and with 125 or more families enrolled, funding for three coordinators. It also requires HUD to establish and implement performance measures, collect data on FSS programs, evaluate their effectiveness, and report to Congress on its findings. Finally, the bill provides some funding flexibility to reward innovative and successful programs.

FSS works. It is a helping hand, not a handout, to American families who are working to become independent of government assistance. With the challenges American families face in this economy, the Family Self- Sufficiency Program, and those like my constituent who have benefited from it, are a glimmer of hope. With this program, families can successfully make ends meet, raise children, get an education, secure a job, and achieve the dream of homeownership. It is a simple, bipartisan step that we can take now to ensure that a brief period of economic hardship doesn't turn into a lifetime of poverty and dependence for many of our Nation's most vulnerable families. It does so by addressing the lack of consistent Federal funding for administering FSS services.

Mr. Speaker, these are good, flexible programs that help put disadvantaged families on the path to independence. Public housing can be an important safety net, but it is not a permanent solution. Let's give these individuals all the support we can to help them stand on their own two feet.

As I conclude, I would like to thank everyone who made this bill possible, including John Day, president of the DuPage Housing Authority; Jeffrey Lubell, executive director of the Center for Housing Policy; and the folks at the American Association of Service Coordinators, the National Housing Conference, the New America Foundation, and the Corporation for Enterprise Development. And of course I would like to thank my constituent for her courage and willingness to let me share her success story with all of you today, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) for managing this bill.

At this time, I would like to insert into the Record a 2008 letter from the American Association of Service Coordinators.

September 24, 2008.

Hon. Judy Biggert,

Ranking Member, Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit

Subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Ranking Member Biggert: On behalf of the undersigned

organizations, we write to thank you for the introduction of

the Family Self-Sufficiency Act of 2007 and for your support

of stabilized funding for the HUD Family Self-Sufficiency

program (FSS).

We appreciate your recognition of the importance of stable,

predictable funding for the FSS program. The improvements

prescribed in the FSS Act will enable agencies to run

effective FSS programs and ultimately provide more families

with the opportunity to build assets and work toward self-

sufficiency.

As you know, changes in the way Section 8 FSS funding has

been allocated for FSS coordinators in recent years has

caused many housing agencies to experience sudden funding

cut-offs and declining enrollment. Moreover, many

participants have been left without the necessary program

coordinators who are critical to their access to services and

support and mentorship for their progress toward self-

sufficiency.

The FSS Act of 2007 addresses this problem and places the

FSS program back on its original path as a proven approach

for helping families in the Housing Choice Voucher program

lift themselves out of poverty and achieve their dream of

education, entrepreneurship or homeownership in a safe,

viable way.

We also support the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007

(SEVRA), H.R. 1851, voucher reform legislation, that proposed

similar changes to the FSS administrative funding process and

also makes critical improvements to the overall Section 8

voucher program. By stabilizing funding for the Section 8

voucher program, SEVRA not only allows the voucher program to

run more efficiently and effectively but ensures that funding

is available for the asset-building escrow accounts provided

through FSS.

Together, the FSS Act and SEVRA can help restore the

strength to the Section 8 voucher program, the nation's

leading source of housing assistance for low-income people

and a critical base for the FSS program.

Again, we thank you for the introduction of the Family

Self-Sufficiency Act of 2007 and for your continued support

of the FSS program. We look forward to your continued

leadership in support of FSS and the Section 8 voucher

program.

Sincerely,

American Association of Service Coordinators.

Corporation for Enterprise Development.

National Housing Conference.

New America Foundation.

With that, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 46, ``The Family Self-Sufficiency Act of 2009.'' This bill expresses the importance of providing payment for an administrative fee to public housing agencies to cover the cost of administering family self-sufficiency programs in connection with the housing choice voucher program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Housing choice vouchers allow low-income families to choose and lease or purchase safe, decent, and affordable privately-owned rental housing. Since housing assistance is provided on behalf of the family or individual, participants are able to find their own housing, including single-family homes, townhouses and apartments. The participant is free to choose any housing that meets the requirements of the program and is not limited to units located in subsidized housing projects. Housing choice vouchers are administered locally by public housing agencies (PHAs). The PHAs receive federal funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to administer the voucher program.

A family that is issued a housing voucher is responsible for finding a suitable housing unit of the family's choice where the owner agrees to rent under the program. This unit may include the family's present residence. Rental

units must meet minimum standards of health and safety, as determined by the PHA. A housing subsidy is paid to the landlord directly by the PHA on behalf of the participating family. The family then pays the difference between the actual rent charged by the landlord and the amount subsidized by the program. Under certain circumstances, if authorized by the PHA, a family may use its voucher to purchase a modest home.

Eligibility for a housing voucher is determined by the PHA based on the total annual gross income and family size and is limited to U.S. citizens and specified categories of non-citizens who have eligible immigration status. In general, the family's income may not exceed 50 percent of the median income for the county or metropolitan area in which the family chooses to live. By law, a PHA must provide 75 percent of its voucher to applicants whose incomes do not exceed 30 percent of the area median income.

Since the demand for housing assistance often exceeds the limited resources available to HUD and the local housing agencies, long waiting periods are common. In fact, a PHA may close its waiting list when it has more families on the list than can be assisted in the near future.

PHAs may establish local preferences for selecting applicants from its waiting list. For example, PHAs may give a preference to a family who is (1) homeless or living in substandard housing, (2) paying more than 50 percent of its income for rent, or (3) involuntarily displaced. Families who qualify for any such local preferences move ahead of other families on the list who does not qualify for any preference. Each PHA has the discretion to establish local preferences to reflect the housing needs and priorities of its particular community.

When the voucher holder finds a unit that it wishes to occupy and reaches an agreement with the landlord over the lease terms, the PHA determines a payment standard that is the amount generally needed to rent a moderately-priced dwelling unit in the local housing market and that is used to calculate the amount of housing assistance a family will receive. However, the payment standard does not limit and does not affect the amount of rent a landlord may charge or the family may pay. A family which receives a housing voucher can select a unit with a rent that is below or above the payment standard. The housing voucher family must pay 30 percent of its monthly adjusted gross income for rent and utilities, and if the unit rent is greater than the payment standard, the family is required to pay the additional amount. By law, whenever a family moves to a new unit where the rent exceeds the payment standard, the family may not pay more than 40 percent of its adjusted monthly income for rent. The PHA calculates the maximum amount of housing assistance allowable. The maximum housing assistance is generally the lesser of the payment standard minus 30 percent of the family's monthly adjusted income or the gross rent for the unit minus 30 percent of monthly adjusted income.

The family self-sufficiency (FSS) is a HUD program that encourages communities to develop local strategies to help voucher families obtain employment that will lead to economic independence and self- sufficiency. Public housing agencies work with welfare agencies, schools, businesses, and other local partners to develop a comprehensive program that gives participating FSS family members the skills and experience to enable them to obtain employment that pays a living wage. FSS was established in 1990 by section 554 of the National Affordable Housing Act. It is a successor program to project self- sufficiency and operation bootstrap. FSS program services may include, but are not limited to: child care, transportation, education, job training and employment counseling, substance/alcohol abuse treatment or counseling, household skill training, and homeownership counseling.

For the most part, PHAs must rely on their own or other local resources to operate FSS programs. However, under the authority of annual appropriations acts, HUD has been able to provide some funding for FSS program coordinators to assist PHAs in operating housing choice voucher FSS programs. With this act, the secretary shall establish a fee for the costs incurred in administering the self-sufficiency program under this section to assist families receiving voucher assistance through section 8. A public housing agency serving 25 or more participants in the family self-sufficiency program under this section shall receive a fee equal to the costs of employing one full- time family self-sufficiency coordinator. An agency serving fewer than 25 such participants shall receive a prorated fee. An agency that meets minimum performance standards shall receive an additional fee sufficient to cover the costs of employing a second family self- sufficiency coordinator if the agency has 75 or more participating families, and a third such coordinator if it has 125 or more participating families. An agency that received funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development for more than three such coordinators in any of fiscal years 1999 through 2008 shall receive funding for the highest number of coordinators funded in a single fiscal year during that period, provided they meet applicable size and performance standards. For the first year in which a public housing agency exercises its right to develop a family self-sufficiency program for its residents, it shall be entitled to funding to cover the costs of up to one family self-sufficiency coordinator, based on the size specified in its action plan for such program.

The family self-sufficiency program will truly benefit those who really need a helping hand out of poverty. However, there needs to be monetary assistance given to the Department of Housing and Urban Development so that they might hire the needed staff to maximize the use of federal funds and improve the lives of others. The family self- sufficiency act will ensure that these objectives are met. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting ``The Family Self-Sufficiency Act of 2009.''

I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, this issue was debated for 2 days before the Judiciary Committee. There were many, many amendments that were offered before the committee. Every one of them was rejected and shot down out of, I think, a desire to preserve the bill to be whatever it was that was presented to the committee.

And now here we are with a rule that results in a closed rule, Mr. Speaker, a closed rule because, as the gentlelady from North Carolina said, there is a fear that there could be amendments that would succeed that would be offered here.

One of those that I happened to have offered before the Judiciary Committee was to exempt pedophiles as a special protected status that is under this bill. Now, the rational thought on the other side I couldn't follow, Mr. Speaker, but I think it would be rational for this full body as a House of Representatives to make a decision on this. And I think that there was a fear on the part of the Rules Committee that that would also be a decision that would be made.

Well, I have before me a list from the American Psychological Association of the paraphilias, paraphilias being, I will call them proclivities in my vernacular, Mr. Speaker, and among them are pedophiles and a whole list of other kinds of activities. There are 547 of them altogether. We can't even exempt pedophiles, let alone the other proclivities that are there, from special protected status.

We can't define the language that's in the bill, the language in the bill that says ``gender'' versus ``sex.'' Gender isn't the same thing as using the word ``sex.'' Sex is what an individual can determine someone else to be. Gender is what a person thinks they are in their head. So the blurry language of gender replaces the clear language of sex that has been in our law for a long time in history.

Sexual orientation is another one of these. There are three different categories. We are figuring out what's in people's heads, the perpetrator and the victim. So under sexual orientation you have a mental definition, the head of, perhaps, the victim what's going on there. You have the plumbing of the victim, that's a different kind of a definition. And then you have the act that might be carried out by someone of a specific sexual orientation. No definition exists in law.

Gender identity is another broad category that can be whatever any individual wants it to be. So how does someone discriminate against someone else? How do they determine what these particular proclivities are, Mr. Speaker?

These are the broad, mushy areas of law that lead us down a path that ends up with any combination of liberal activist judges who will turn this into a mass of special protected status people, sacred cows walking through our society, self-alleged.

The gentleman from Florida mentioned the immutable characteristics. No, that's not in the bill. We tried to put it in the bill, but that amendment was shot down. I wish we could protect immutable characteristics. I think they should be. And those characteristics are those characteristics that are independently verified and can't be willfully changed.

That's the subject matter, 1984, George Orwell. I brought this up the last time we debated this. And I think it's important that we look at the book that was written in 1949 and predicted by George Orwell that by 1984 we would be where we are today in 2009.

He was writing about the new totalitarians who learned from the Nazis and the Russian Communists. And they said, ``The Party is not interested in any overt act: the thought is all we care about. We do not merely destroy our enemies, we change them. We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world.'' This is George Orwell, 1984, anticipating we would be having this debate in 1984, and today it's 2009, Mr. Speaker.

We should punish all perpetrators. There should be no special victims, and all perpetrators should be punished the same. And I think 25 years for assault on anyone is enough. But to the gentleman from Colorado that called for a life sentence for assault, what does he do to a murderer?

I oppose the rule and the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for yielding.

I want to take it back to this question. We have these vague terms in this legislation that's before us, these vague terms that the Judiciary Committee majority refused to define and refused to allow a definition, and so I've looked up some definitions of this language, and here is one of them. Sexual orientation. We'll go to the Merriam Webster's Dictionary, under medical, and it says, sexual orientation: One's attraction to and preference in sexual partners. One definition.

Here's another definition that comes from the American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary. It says sexual orientation is sexual activity with people of the opposite sex, the same sex or both.

So one is an attraction definition, and the other one is an activity definition.

And now I go to the American Psychological Association, those people that have identified 547 different paraphilias, and they say sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Individuals may or may not express that in their behaviors.

So, here we have, again, these broad definitions in the so-called hate crimes legislation that truly are thought crimes, because without the thought, you're not going to have the hate, and it can only be defined by trying to look into the skull of the victim and the perpetrator. And there's never been legislation that's presented that's been this broad or that imagines that it can define something that is in the head of a victim and in the head of the perpetrator at the same time, let alone what might be in the head of the judge, Mr. Speaker. So I oppose this legislation.