Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the bringing of this resolution. This is a time when we should join our hearts and minds together in condemning the violent act that occurred at, of all places, the Holocaust museum, a place that I, with countless others, in my case, multiple occasions going to the museum, have been touched to tears to just try to get your mind around the inhumanity of man to man.

This is a Nation that was brought together as a Nation, fought hard, so that within this Nation we could have civility. And one of the Founding Fathers' favorite lines was often to quote Voltaire in saying, I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

The criminal who invoked and created this violence in the Holocaust museum should be properly punished, and I am thankful that we have laws that will punish him. I wouldn't mind seeing a death penalty as a possibility in the case of such violence, but in this town that is, apparently, not an option. But violence of this nature within this country must not be tolerated.

But it also must not minimize the commitment, the love and devotion of Officer Stephen Tyrone Johns, who gave his life in doing his job in devotion to others and to this country and all it stands for.

So we thank Stephen Tyrone Johns. We thank his memory. We thank his family, and we will pray for their peace and healing during this very, very difficult time.

We condemn the attack, such a violent nature, encourage all to understand that in this Nation, in every State, in the District of Columbia, no matter how someone may disagree with someone else, provoking words are never a defense to violence. Violence must be condemned, no matter what someone deems to be the provocation in their own mind.

We must be and we must make this a Nation of civility. We can disagree. Disagreement is a good and healthy thing. When there's disagreement, it means we're not all useless. But we must never allow this kind of violence to go unaddressed.

So we pay tribute to the Johns family--our prayers will be with them--and condemn the violent attack at the Holocaust museum, of all places, and appreciate this resolution being brought forward.

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my friend Ms. Kaptur's comments and appreciate her insights. It's always very valuable.

And she believes, as I do, that we're making a big mistake by running up the deficit like crazy. Well, some say, well, it was going on back under the Bush administration. Yes, it was, and it wasn't right then, and it's even worse now that it's being multiplied many times. Every week, we're running up more of a deficit. It's got to stop.

China continues to buy our debt. We just sent the Secretary of the Treasury over to China to encourage them to keep buying America. Buy our debt because we cannot control ourselves. Can you imagine a parent going into a bank and saying, I need a loan because I can't control my spending, but you see my little children over there, I've even got some grandchildren, I am going to pledge to you that some day--I can't pay it back, but some day they will? Well, there would be a move to take the children away from somebody that irresponsible.

And yet we sent our Secretary of State over to beg China to keep buying our debt because we couldn't control our spending. We send our Secretary of the Treasury over there to tell them to keep buying our debt because we can't control our spending.

We've done things in the last weeks, like $25 million we voted for in this Chamber to buy land in foreign countries for rare dogs and cats. China has some. We'll borrow that money from China to buy land from China, so that they can have rare dogs and cats, if they're not eaten by people that are starving. And we are paying for that with interest while we run up our debt even higher. It makes no sense at all.

You know, I went back and did some looking. I remember pretty good-- having been a history major, I've loved to follow things as they occur because we're told those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it, which as a corollary to that, those who do learn from history will find new ways to screw up, but that's another story. Right now, we're not learning from history.

But you can look back at the Soviet Union, and we were reminded by that by bipartisan speeches just yesterday as Ronald Reagan's statue was unveiled. It's a great statue, a great tribute to a great President. But as he pushed the SDI, the missile defense system, and the Soviets tried to keep up, they were spending too much money. They were running up too much debt, and people were nervous about loaning the Soviet Union more debt.

Do you remember as Eastern Europe, the Baltic States started rebelling, what happened? Russia had seen that happen before. The Soviet Union would roll in with tanks. They could put it down. But for some reason, they didn't roll in with tanks and suppress it like they had in years past.

Well, it appears there's information indicating that they were needing us to loan them $100 billion, which 20 or so years ago was real money, $100 billion to keep them afloat. And we gave them word, We got your country, but if you roll in with tanks, we're not going to be able to loan you that money. We owned their future, so we could dictate what they could or couldn't do. Does it ring any bells?

If we keep selling our debt as we can't control it, we can't control the spending--we vote in here tonight to spend millions and millions of dollars to pay people for not working, while they're called employees, when they are millions and millions of Americans who are champing at the bit to go back to work and to get paid to actually work. And this is what we're passing?

You know, some believe here in this body that running up the debt is what's going to save the country, and I've been told, look, we don't think we're wrong, but if we were wrong, we can always come back and fix it. The Soviets couldn't because at some point when you no longer own your future, you don't have a future.

We owe the people we represent. We owe our own children better than that. Let's quit destroying this Nation's future. Let's quit running up the deficit. I yield back.

I appreciate your yielding. I don't think there's anybody who brings more clarity to the issues of energy than my friend from Utah, Mr. Bishop. I sure do appreciate the clarity he brings.

But when we talk about this cap-and-tax-away-jobs bill that's apparently going to be coming rather quickly upon us, you need to look at the reasons being given as to why we have to have this cap-and-tax- away-jobs bill, why we have got to get rid of more jobs, cost more Americans more money when they don't have it. And we're told it's because of the carbon dioxide out there and that it's creating global warming.

Well, have you noticed we're not calling it global warming anymore? Now we're calling it climate change. And you wonder why have they started calling it climate change. Well, you start looking at some of the scientific data that's coming out and they're realizing, you know what, this planet may be cooling instead of warming. It may be starting on a cooling cycle instead of warming.

So, since we have millions and millions and millions of dollars being made by scaring people about global warming, in case it is cooling, maybe we better change the name to climate change. That way we're going to keep the money coming in either way, because we're scaring people.

It's climate change, no matter which way it's going--warming, cooling. In fact, I saw an article that indicated, you know what, we have been saying that carbon dioxide is trapping the heat and warming the planet, but we may be wrong about that. It may be that the carbon dioxide is creating a shield and causing the Sun's rays to bounce off and, therefore, cooling the planet.

That way, they can have it either way. If it's warming the planet, then it's catastrophe and we need to pass all kinds of laws to tax people, put business out of the U.S., and go to other countries. And if it's cooling, we will have it that way, too. Keep the money flowing in.

In our Natural Resources Committee, we have talked about the polar bears. I have seen that deeply touching commercial where this mama bear with the cub, it looks like they're dying out there. Maybe they are. But what we have heard in our committee is that 20 years ago we know for sure there were less than 12,000 polar bears. And we know today, for sure, there are at least 25,000 polar bears in the world. They have more than doubled in 20 years.

But somebody is making a lot of money by telling people the polar bears are all dying, so give us money, take away American jobs, send them around the planet, and we will be better for it. Well, they will because they're going to have bigger houses. And I don't begrudge Al Gore having that wonderful house and using all that energy, but he just shouldn't make the middle class of America pay more for their energy and cause the loss of their jobs in the name of helping the planet. It doesn't help anybody but him and people like him that are out there scaring folks.

We have talked about the jobs that would be created in ANWR. You open ANWR, a million new jobs across America. You open the Outer Continental Shelf to drilling, another 1.1 million or 2 million jobs in America. The President can finally keep his promise; instead of losing more jobs, we'd have more jobs coming into America instead of going out.

That's why we don't need a cap-and-tax-away-jobs in America. We need to produce more of our own. And I mean everything. We're talking about wind. We're talking solar.

I have a bill for a prize for somebody that comes up with a way to store electrical energy in megawatt form for more than 30 days. Solar could be our answer to the future. But for right now, it's carbon-based energy. And it will keep jobs in America, bring them back.

But, for goodness sake, let's don't hurt the middle class in America any more than they're already being hurt.

I appreciate so much my friend from Utah. And with that, I will yield back to him.

On the last resolution, I heard earlier tonight my friend from California (Mr. Berman) who has a heart for those who suffer around this world, and I certainly acknowledge that.

In support of the resolution of remembering the devastation in Tiananmen Square, he asked a question about how China could rightfully take a place among the superpowers, or among the world powers, when there is so much left unresolved about Tiananmen Square. Who was shot? Who was killed? I have an answer. They're buying America. We're going into debt bigger and bigger every day, and they're buying us, so they can kind of do what they want as long as they're buying America. The answer that it started with Bush is not a good answer because, yes, it did. So stop already. We were promised change. Let's change. Let's stop running up debt, and let's stop selling this country to China.

I appreciate my friend from Iowa for yielding, and I appreciate being in the presence of my former judge, my friend Judge Carter, and my doctor friend, Dr. Broun.

Now, I was talking with a group from Baylor University working on their MBA here in Washington, and, of course, the rules are you don't acknowledge people in the gallery, so I won't do that.

But one thing they understand, as sophisticated as the Baylor MBA program is, they understand that if you find yourself in a hole, it's time to stop digging. And the economy is in a hole, and we've been digging. And we're spending so much, we're digging a bigger hole. And we've got manufacturers leaving the country because we're digging ourselves a bigger hole.

And when, as some of us have, you travel to China, Why did you move your industry here? they tell you--the number one answer I got was because the corporate tax is so--it's less than half of what it is in the U.S.--17 percent. And they will cut you a deal. If you bring them a big enough industry, they'll cut some off of that for years. We've got 35 percent, and I believe it's the most insidious tax that there is in this country because we tell the American people that you don't have to pay it. We'll tax these greedy, evil corporations, but you don't have to worry about it. And they don't realize, because the Congress misleads them, that they're the ones that pay it because if they don't, the corporation cannot stay in business.

So here we are with this insidious tax that hurts our corporations trying to compete worldwide, and we're losing jobs. The economy is in the crapper, and we are trying to bring it up. And we're bringing the economy back up, and what happens? Along comes this cap-and-trade idea that is going to further tax businesses that are producing the jobs in America that keep people working and keep people eating and living and surviving. And we're going to add another tax that those in China are not going to pay. And it is hurting the country.

I appreciate my friend yielding.

I can't think of one. This will drive so many jobs overseas. It's like somebody is sitting back thinking, How can we further hurt the economy? Let's do that. And some genius came up with cap-and-tax.

Well, I appreciate both of my friends' comments here tonight. As always, they are very thoughtful.

These are serious issues. As a former judge, like my friend from Texas, when you hear serious issues and serious allegations, you know that somebody lying, it's a serious allegation. So you look for evidence. Is there evidence to show maybe so? As my friend from Texas knows, as a judge, the rules of evidence don't allow prior activity to be introduced as evidence of what happened in a later activity unless it rises to the level in some cases of habit where it's sufficient to possibly avoid that rule. So, anyway, I've been looking for indications that, maybe, you know, it's something else.

We had the printout from some of the information on the Speaker's Web site in the last Congress, and the statement was made that our goal is to restore accountability, honesty and openness--very much like the 2006 statement--at all levels of government, and to do so, we will create and enforce rules that demand the highest ethics.

Of course, my friends have pointed out situations that didn't necessarily meet that test where, clearly, there were ethical violations that were alleged that needed to be investigated. Each time those were brought up, they were tabled. They were not allowed to go forward. So do you think this was a lie--and I ask rhetorically--when it says that we're going to enforce the rules that demand the highest ethics from everybody here? I would pose the possibility that maybe she forgot that this was the promise originally.

If you look at another statement, it says that bills should be developed following full hearings and open subcommittee and committee markups with appropriate referrals to other committees. Well, I mean, you can look at so many of the bills in the last Congress. In fact, most of the biggest bills, when they involved money, didn't go through full committee markup in the regular order of things.

Look at the stimulus package: $800 billion. It was the biggest spending stimulus bill of any kind that just dwarfed by 500 percent the one that I was against that President Bush did. I mean, it's incredible. There were no subcommittee or committee markups. There were no amendments that were allowed, but it says here that bills were supposed to be developed with full hearings, with open subcommittee and committee markups and with referrals to other committees.

Then it went on to say that there should be at least 24 hours to examine a bill prior to consideration at even the subcommittee level. Well, there wasn't even a subcommittee level. They rammed that right through the floor and down everybody's throats. So you could say, well, was this a lie then? I don't think so. I think they forgot that this was what they promised. I think this was just a mistake. They forgot.

Then it goes on to say that bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, fair debate, consisting of a full amendment process. Now, like the stimulus package, it didn't come to the floor with any chance of amendments on the stimulus package. It was take it or leave it. It got rammed down our throats.

You say: So was this a lie? Not if they forgot that they made these promises. I pose that as another possibility. Maybe they just forgot that they kept making these promises, including right up to the election in November of 2006 and again in 2008. There

was no full amendment process as promised here.

Then it goes on to say, though, that the minority would be granted ``the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.'' Well, there was the biggest spending bill in history like this, and there was no opportunity for a substitute. There was no opportunity for alternatives. So would you say they were lying? I think you could say they forgot that they had made those promises.

Then it goes on to say that Members should have at least 24 hours to examine the bill. As we'll recall, it was put on the Internet at around midnight, and the next morning we were voting on it. We were debating and voting. There was no alternative. There was no substitute. We just had to go with that bill. We could fuss about it, but the bottom line was it was going to be rammed down our throats. I think maybe they had forgotten that they had promised that we would have 24 hours.

The President made promises about how many days the people would have to review this on his Web site. I don't necessarily think he was lying. I just think he forgot that he promised. With the stimulus, we were told that it had to be signed immediately. We didn't have time to have 24 hours. It had to be done. People were losing jobs every day. It passed the House over much of our fussing about it, and then it went to la-la land for 4 days because the President wasn't going to sign it until he had an adequate photo-op in Colorado 4 days later. According to what we were told, people were losing jobs every day, and it had to be passed immediately. I think, during those 4 days, they forgot that people were losing jobs every day, and they forgot that they told us they had to pass it immediately. That's why they took so long to do that.

It goes on to say, too, that conference report text prior to floor consideration would be provided. Well, as my friends know, in the last Congress, they came up with a way to go around conference committee reports where, if the Senate has one version and the House has another version, then under the rules, you have to go to a conference--to a bipartisan, bicameral committee. They didn't want the Republicans in the House to have any say in that, so they secretly met and worked out a compromise without having a conference as the rules required. Then they rammed that down our throats but not as a conference report. I think they forgot that they made that promise as well.

Rules governing floor debate must be reported before 10 p.m. for a bill to be considered the following day. With the biggest bills, that's not done. I think they forgot. I think they forgot.

We were also told on the current Web site of the Speaker's of honest leadership and open government. The culture of corruption practice under the Republican-controlled Congress was an affront to the idea of a representative democracy, and its consequences were devastating. See, we'd been told about all of the bipartisanship that was going to be taking effect once the Speaker was in power. This is on the official Web site. It's just a slam at the Republican-controlled Congress. I think they forgot they were in the majority. I think they forgot, and that's why they're still making political statements. This isn't bipartisanship. These are mean, partisan statements here. I think they forgot. They're in control, and there's no reason to be partisan when you're in control.

Another statement: The American people demanded not just high ethical standards but also transparency. Well, there have been requests to come forward and to disclose everything, and things have come out. They aren't transparent. We've asked the administration: Tell us what were the benefits of the waterboarding. There has been no transparency there. There has been no request from the Speaker to have that kind of transparency. I think they forgot that this was a promise that there would be this kind of transparency and disclosure and accountability.

That is also promised on the Web site. I think they forgot. They made those. So it may not be lies that some would assert--and I'm certainly not willing to assert that. I think they forgot. And this final statement--and I appreciate the yielding--but on the Speaker's Web site it says, Led by our newest Members, House Democrats have acted to make this Congress the most honest and open Congress in history.

I think they forgot they made that promise.

So I think by my friend from Texas taking the Special Order time to remind us of the promises that were made, perhaps that will jog the memory and we'll be able to get back to complete some of these promises that were made. So maybe it's just a memory problem. Memories. How about that?

I appreciate my friend yielding, and I appreciate all the good work that has gone into this bill. I do have concerns about a commission that would look into something as important as our financial situation, where it ends up being a political commission, 6-4, instead of, like, the 9/11 Commission, which was 5-5. That was a bipartisan commission that made those findings and were largely supported around the country.

If we're going to make this another political commission, 6-4, then aren't we going to get right back into the mess of: Can we trust this? Or is this another political report that we're going to spend millions and millions of dollars for?

There are many of us, I think, that can be objective about this. But when you have a commission that's 6-4, it's going to get political. There's no way around it.

There's nobody more upset, for example, with the bailout that the Republican administration proposed last September. It sure seemed to me that AIG should have gone to bankruptcy because they were bankrupt and we wouldn't have had the issue of bonuses. We should have let the car manufacturers, if they're bankrupt, then we have bankruptcy court.

And so I was not happy with our administration. I think it would be easy to have a commission that would be fair. But when it's 6-4, it's unavoidably going to end up political instead of giving us the fair analysis that this country really needs.

Mr. Speaker, you know, there is an insidious tax out there, insidious because we tell the American people that they are not going to have to pay it, that we are going to put it on the greedy corporations.

Well, how do you think a corporation stays in business if it doesn't pass that on to the people, and they don't realize, they think somebody else is paying, and yet it comes right back to their feet?

Some of us talked to CEOs of industries that moved from here to China. Why did you move? I thought maybe the number one answer would be because of labor being cheaper. They said the best labor in the world is right here in the United States, but corporate taxes are less than half of what they are here in the United States, 17 percent there, 35 percent here.

Now we are told today by the administration they are going to hire hundreds of new IRS agents. Well, as John Fleming said this morning, now we know what it means by green jobs. They are going after your green.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Arkansas yielding me this time.

On the 61st anniversary of the creation of Israel, we should stop to congratulate them. But I have a couple of points that I want to make sure that everyone understands.

Number one, there was a Holocaust. Number two, there could be another holocaust.

Now today, we are told that the Taliban is near Islamabad. If Pakistan falls to the most radical Islamic terrorists, then the world is in trouble. We need to protect our friends.

We know that Israel is a democracy, a great democracy; so we are and should be friends. We know that Israel believes in the value of human life and human rights. We are and should be friends.

Someone once referred to Israel as the miner's canary for the world because when Israel suffers, the world is about to suffer.

That's the kind of friend we need to hold close and work together with. I want to make clear these radical Islamic terrorists, they are such a tiny, tiny fraction of the Islamic believers in the world. But they are a dangerous, dangerous part that needs to be understood and dealt with.

Congratulations to Israel. They are our friend. They should be our friend, and we need to make sure another holocaust never happens.

Mr. Speaker, there should have been amendments to this because there are all kinds of problems with it. When, in America, we start dividing this country into groups, we've got trouble; and that's what this bill does. It divides America into groups and says these over here are more important to protect than the rest of you guys. That is a problem.

Now, I'd like to address the question that my friend from Texas raised about the rule of evidence I think is what she was talking about. It does say, ``In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense.''

18 U.S.C. section 2(a) says if you aid, abet, counsel, induce someone to commit a crime, you are just as guilty as the one that committed it.

So, for example, I have a Bible here that my uncle was given when he entered World War II. It has a flyleaf cover that says, ``As Commander- in-Chief, I take pleasure in commending the reading of the Bible to all who serve in the Armed Forces of the United States. Throughout the centuries, men of many faiths and diverse origins have found in the Sacred Book words of wisdom, counsel and inspiration. It is a fountain of strength, and now, as always, an aid to attaining the highest aspiration of the human soul.''

That's signed Franklin D. Roosevelt in this little Bible.

But if you look over to Romans, it talks about, ``For this cause God gave them up to vile affections, for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature; and likewise, the men, leaving the natural use of women, burned in their lust one to another, men with men, working that which is unseemly and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.''

If somebody hears a preacher preaching that and goes out and commits an act of violence, I mean, I was a prosecutor 30 years ago. It doesn't take much imagination to say, we had to arrest the preacher; it was clear he's the one that planted the seeds in this nut's head that went out and committed an act of violence. Therefore, this evidence of what he read from the Bible, even though FDR signed it and encouraged people to read it, FDR's not around, we can't go after him, but we can go after this preacher that put that in the mind of the individual. They induced it. They're guilty as a principal. And even if they're not, just arresting pastors a few times and saying, we're going to let the jury decide what his intent was will be enough to have a chilling effect.

There's no Federal nexus here. There is no epidemic. There's no evidence of an epidemic. There's no need. Every case that's been brought up, including Matthew Shepard, in that case they got life without parole. The other got two life sentences. James Byrd, the two defendants most culpable got what they deserved, they got the death penalty, and this case will not affect that. The other guy got life. Wouldn't affect him. There is no need. There is no epidemic. It divides America. Why don't we say ``no'' to this and let America be united again.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want a clarification, Mr. Speaker, for a point of order.

The gentleman said that there was a commandment against bearing false witness, as if that is what one does when they say someone can be prosecuted, and I would ask for a ruling from the Chair on whether that violates the rule of this body.

Well, unlike my friend from Tennessee, I am not going to allege that anyone on the other side of this issue is trying to bear false witness.

I believe the motivation is good, but we even heard the majority leader say this bill stands for equality under the law. I don't believe he meant to misstate the truth, but the truth is this bill sets out different classifications that are more special than others. Someone suggested that perhaps people would be happy if we just said, I'll tell you what. If you assault a white male, then you just get half the sentence of assaulting someone else.

We want equal justice under the law; that's what we are supposed to have. I have a letter here from the National Black Church Initiative that was sent to Senator Leahy 2 years ago. It is signed by one, two, three, four, five, six, seven--well, I can't count them all. There are four pages of names. But the first is Anthony Evans, President of the D.C. Black Church Initiative. But it says things including, ``The National Black Church Initiative is a coalition of 16,000 churches.'' ``We have 18,000 sister churches.'' They are located in virtually every congressional district in America. ``If the U.S. Senate passes this bill and thus codifies sexual orientation as a protected legal class, it will open up a constitutional war between the church and the radical gay community. We know the gay community plans to use this piece of legislation to try to legally force the church to recognize their abominable lifestyle''--some very strong statements there.

I have just received a letter dated April 29 from the United States Commission on Civil Rights. ``We write today to urge you to vote against the proposed Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.'' They said, ``We believe the bill will do little good and a great deal of harm.'' They say some suggest it will only apply to hate crimes. But they point out, It is sufficient if he acts because of someone's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. Consider, rapists seldom are indifferent to the gender of their victims. They are virtually always chosen because of their gender. A robber might well steal from women or the disabled. Why? Because they perceive them to be weaker and more vulnerable.

Moreover, they say, The objective meaning of the language and considerable legal scholarship would certainly include these being covered. So all of these things would now become Federal crimes.

There is no epidemic. There are fewer numbers now than 10 years ago. There is no nexus. Ryan Skipper and Matthew Shepard's cases keep being brought up. For the defendants in those cases, I would have been happy to have signed an order for death. They got life. It would not affect them.

This law would not affect the Matthew Shepard case. It would not affect the Ryan Skipper case.

My friend from Florida brought up the Ryan Skipper case in Florida when I was talking in Judiciary and was asking: Is there a case you can give me where this would make a difference? That case was brought up. We did the research after the hearing. Well, guess what? Two defendants. One has already got life plus extra years on top of life. The other is about to go to trial. They didn't need a hate crimes law, a Federal hate crimes law.

This divides America. We don't need to divide America. Everybody deserves equal justice. The gangs who pick their victims based on violence against random targets get acquitted under this bill. They get acquitted for acting randomly.

We've got to vote ``no'' on this.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes.

I would object.

Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit is simple and straightforward. It adds three categories to the list of groups in this bill and provides the death penalty for certain hate crime offenses.

I would like to address what our friend from Massachusetts has indicated when he talked about the people who were arrested for their Christian position, nonviolent, and he kept indicating the charges were dismissed.

But as my friend from Massachusetts would surely know, when you can arrest people, even if you don't pursue charges, it has a chilling effect. Over and over it has a chilling effect.

And, also, there was some inference in his comments that we may believe that transgender individuals who were not worthy of being defended under the law or were not victims, I wasn't sure, but the truth is every American deserves to be equally protected. That is the law. That's the way it should be. That's the way wherever you go in the country. You don't find cases that are held up as poster cases for hate crimes that justify the hate crimes.

The James Byrd family, bless their hearts, I grieved with them. And based on the evidence that was presented, it was clear that these defendants committed a violent crime for which they should have gotten the death penalty. The two that did got it appropriately. This bill will not affect that case one bit. It will not affect it.

So we have tried to say, look, please don't divide us. Don't keep dividing into different categories and say these deserve more protection than these. Treat us all the same. That has fallen on deaf ears.

Every amendment was voted down in committee that we tried to present to make it more clear and to treat Americans equally. It's clear the majority has the votes to move forward and pass this. So our effort is then to add other worthy classes to this.

For example, in 2004, Private First Class Foster Barton of Grove City, Ohio, was brutally beaten. Six witnesses who didn't know Barton said the person that beat him up was screaming profanities and crude remarks about U.S. soldiers.

In 2007, a Syracuse woman pleaded guilty for spitting in the face of a Fort Drum soldier she didn't know.

These things happen. My friend from Florida in committee had indicated that she was not sure it appeared that the military should be added as a protected class under this bill, that not necessarily were they victims.

But I can tell you personally, having been spat at and on, after Vietnam, when I was at Fort Riley, Kansas, and we were ordered not to wear our uniforms off post in our platoon because of violence that was being done to servicemembers. It still happens. It still happens.

And witness the unseemly events outside some of our military hospitals by those who are so very insensitive. Now even the administration is targeting returning veterans as potential extremists. As the report said, ``Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists.'' Even the administration is trying to target veterans. So we would hope that they were included.

And there is absolutely no question that law enforcement officers are frequently targeted specifically because of who they are and because they are wearing the uniform and attempting to protect all the rest of us. We have so many brave public servants. Even in this building people have given their lives so that others in the building could have theirs. That needs to be honored.

The statistics show that even though the number of hate crimes, or crimes reportedly committed because of bias or prejudice, are lower now than they were 10 years ago. Those crimes have increased against law enforcement.

Age is another class that should be protected. The statistics are clear, and we have seen film evidence of elderly being attacked because they were perceived as elderly and less able to protect themselves. They deserve to be protected. These are classes that should be.

And then we come to another issue, and that is the fact that the hate crimes bill, as proposed, will not affect one of the hate crime bills held up so far as a poster case. We will add the death penalty so it can make a difference in those places where there was a horrible heinous crime. This will make a difference.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank my friend from Iowa. You have pointed out some real problems and real issues with this hate crimes bill.

We are constantly being told there is an epidemic of hate crimes in America. You look at the statistics, and there are actually fewer crimes now attributed to any type of bias and prejudice than there were 10 years ago. Another problem is the States, every one, have laws to deal with crimes against a person. That is a State obligation, and every State has their own. And it's governed by the State law. And most States have a hate crime law.

This is the Federal Government, the Big Brother that Orwell talked about, coming into the thoughts of every individual.

Now we've been told that this bill will protect constitutional speech. It will protect religious speech. But that breaks down when they have to admit that, well, of course, if it's religious or constitutionally protected speech that is relevant to the underlying offense, then, of course, it is not protected.

Well, you can't take this new law in a vacuum because 18 U.S.C. 2(a) still exists, and it will exist if this becomes law. Some people who are not lawyers talk about it referring to accessories, but it is not. In legal circles, it's called the law of principals. And under Federal law, 18 U.S.C. 2(a), if you aid or encourage, counsel--and here's a big verb--or induce someone to commit a crime, then it is as if you are the one who committed a crime. It's called the law of principals. You induce someone else to commit a crime, you might as well have pulled the trigger or done it yourself.

So with that law existing and not going away when we pass the hate crimes bill, if heaven forbid it gets passed, then how do you go about inducing someone to commit a hate crime? Well, you'd probably have to tell them that an activity is wrong.

There are preachers, rabbis, imams across this United States of America all this week who will be telling people that there are certain types of sexual immorality that the Bible, the Tenach, the Koran, say are wrong. Well, if you're telling people that an activity is wrong and it hurts the moral fabric of the country and it undermines our moral authority in this Nation--and perhaps you even quote from the Bible or the Torah or the Koran where it talks about Sodom being destroyed because of the activity of those, that it got so bad that the people residing there even wanted to have sexual relations with two male angels that were sent, well, that, in both the Bible and the Torah, Tenach--where this is discussed--in the Koran, the same story is discussed in the Koran, you explain to people that God got so upset about this he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Even today, you cannot find remnants of Sodom and Gomorrah. And you tell people that God feels so strongly about this that he's destroyed a city and you can't even find any remnants of the people or the cities.

And someone goes out--even though you have never encouraged violence--commits a violent act and says, Well, my preacher, my rabbi, my imam told me that this was wrong and it caused the destruction of a city and that really is what induced me to do this, you

don't think the preacher, the rabbi or the imam would be arrested for inducing that crime? Of course.

You can go even further. I can hear a prosecutor with a bent towards this kind of hate crime stuff going forward and saying, You know, we heard this preacher talking about homosexuality being wrong. That preacher should know that there are crimes of violence being carried out against homosexuals around the country that have gone on--even though they are lower in number than they were 10 years ago--they should know that and therefore since they are saying it's wrong, that stirs up all kinds of hard feelings. He should know he's inducing people to create crimes of violence. Therefore, we've got to stop him. He's attempting to induce a Federal hate crime.

This is serious stuff, because that's where you go. And the prosecutor could then say, ``Look. Yes, we arrested the preacher; yes, we booked him into jail, and yes, it is a question of intent. Did he intend to induce the crime? Well, I am going to leave that question for a jury to decide.'' You can hear that said by many prosecutors around the country on other issues: ``Look, I am not God. We will allow a jury to decide this question of fact on whether or not he intended to induce the crime.''

So getting back to basics, though, there is no epidemic. And as my friend from Iowa knows, in discussion, in debate in the committee and outside the committee, we've said, ``Now, what are the cases that justify the Federal intervention into this State law area?''

We're told what about James Byrd, that horrible case down in Jasper where this poor African American was drug to death by white guys, three of them. Two were most culpable. That justifies a Federal hate crime? No, it doesn't. Those two guys that were most culpable got the death penalty. This bill doesn't even offer the death penalty as a penalty. This bill wouldn't affect that case. The other guy got life in prison. This bill wouldn't affect that case at all.

Some have mentioned the terrible case regarding Nicholas West. From accounts, he was a sweet young man. He was picked as a victim because he was homosexual. Brutalized, kidnapped, killed. That was in my home county. The perpetrators have already been sentenced to death and the death sentence has been carried out. This case would not be affected.

Now, everyone in America deserves protection of the law. We get in trouble when we begin to carve out little special groups here and there that deserve more protection than someone else. You think a pregnant mother does not deserve the protection of a homosexual? You think a military member doesn't deserve the protection of a transvestite? You think that a particular child wouldn't deserve the protection of a transvestite, a transgender person? Why are we carving this out? They are protected under the law.

You know, there are those of us who believe the biblical teaching about homosexuality being inappropriate, but I've sentenced people for harming a homosexual because they deserve to be protected under the law. It doesn't matter who you are, it doesn't matter who you sleep with, you deserve to be protected, and we do our country a great injustice when we begin to say these deserve more protection than these over here.

But when we discuss sexual orientation--we brought that up in committee, and we were told, Well, it doesn't need a definition. For one thing, it's defined in another law in the Hate Crimes Statistical Act. Well, it was defined in that law as only including heterosexuality and homosexuality. We said, All right. If you think it's confined to that, why don't you put that definition in here?

``No, we don't need to do that.'' Well, you do.

I have been an appellate judge. You want to review what a definition of any word or phrase means in a bill? First, you look to see if it's defined, and if it's not defined, is there any direction to other laws within that bill that tells you, for the purpose of this law, what the definition is. They didn't want to do that. They didn't want to refer to the Hate Crime Statistical Act.

And yet here on page two of the bill, we've got other definitions. Crime of violence has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, U.S. Code. Hate crime has the meaning given such term in 28003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Over here--I believe it's page 12--it talks about another definition of explosive or incendiary device has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title. Firearm has the meaning given such term in 921(a) of this title.

Why wouldn't you define sexual orientation? You should. Because the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV tells us the names of different conditions. It talks about all the types of sexual orientation people have. There are all kinds of sexual orientations. Some are weird. Some are sick. Some will get you put in prison. But if you don't define it, they're included.

My friend from Iowa here, Mr. Speaker, made an amendment trying to exclude pedophiles from the protection of sexual orientation here because these people are oriented sexually towards children. That was voted down. Voted down. You know, you want to give pedophiles the protection, this extra protection you're not willing to give a pregnant women or a child or a mother or military? This is incredible. But that's what they did.

It creates the scenario, too, of other types of sexual orientation. Some are oriented toward exhibitionism. Some are oriented sexually toward voyeurism. This bill sets up the incredible scenario where a woman could see a man flash her and she is astounded, hits him with her purse, and takes off running. Under that scenario, if this became law, the flasher committed a misdemeanor and the woman that hit him with a purse--because he's oriented sexually towards exhibitionism--is now a Federal felon looking at 10 years in prison. That is insane. This makes no sense.

One other thing, though, as a judge dealing with different types of defendants, hearing all kinds of psychiatric testimony, psychological testimony, and just dealing with different defendants on thousands of cases, what struck me in what I heard was that people that are the hardest to rehabilitate are those who are antisocial personalities under the DSM-IV. They are harder to rehabilitate than people who act out of a bias or prejudice. And yet this bill says we are going after the people who are probably the most easy to rehabilitate and make them suffer more, if that's possible--you can't make anybody suffer more than the death penalty--but we are going to make them suffer more than someone who commits a crime out of bias or prejudice. It makes no sense.

Antisocial personalities, they know the difference between right and wrong, they could control their conduct, but they choose to do wrong. Many antisocial personalities like to hurt people. This bill, the way it is drafted and the way we are going to vote on it tomorrow--because we were not allowed one single amendment to come to the floor--creates the scenario where someone could be arrested for a hate crime in this bill, brought to Federal court, have a jury selected, put in the box, the trial go forward, and the defendant convince the jury that he committed the act of violence causing bodily injury to the defendant randomly--he didn't care who he hurt, he was gonna hurt somebody. And if he is successful in raising a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime randomly and he had no bias or prejudice, he just wanted to hurt somebody, under this bill that we vote on tomorrow, he is acquitted. That is insane. That is insane.

We are going to let the random, senseless killer, abuser, brutalizer go free under this bill? We need to pass laws that make sense. We need to pass laws that say every life in America is important. But this doesn't do that.

What saddens me greatly is that the bottom line of this hate crimes bill is--this is the message that goes out from this hate crimes bill we will vote on tomorrow--if you are going to hurt me, shoot me, brutalize me, please don't hate me; make it a random senseless act of violence. That is what this says. And that is why this should not become law.

I thank my friend from Iowa and yield back.

Madam Speaker, I rise to address the House for 1 minute.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I would yield my minute to my friend from Louisiana.

Madam Speaker, yesterday and today in the full Judiciary Committee we have been taking up a bill called, by most people, the hate crimes act. It sounds like something that everybody would be for. You know, who favors hate? Nobody. Perhaps the only kind of hate we should be in favor of is the hatred with which we hate hate. But that's not what it's about. It is about creating new law, new crimes that are duplicates of what's in every State in the Union.

Now, there are 45 States that already have hate crimes bills, but even there, most are unnecessary. The case that you often hear that is a reason we need hate crimes is the James Byrd case, where this poor gentleman, African-American, was dragged to death.

Now, I would be in favor of allowing the victim's family to pick the terrain and the manner of dragging the defendants once they are convicted, but that's not allowed. The death penalty amendment was even voted down.

So there's no enhancements, nothing that would affect the poster cases that are constantly raised as a reason to have the hate crime laws. And, in fact, when we hear over and over there's these epidemics of hate crimes that we have to stop, actually, there were nearly a million assaults in America in 2007; 242 assaults included some kind of bodily injury in which there was some motive attributed to bias or hatred because of a selected group, 242.

Again, there was a killing of a poor young man named Nicholas West, killed because he was a homosexual. His perpetrators were not charged under a hate crimes law, they were charged under a capital murder law for kidnapping. And they have already got the death penalty, just like the worst two perpetrators in James Byrd's situation. So what is this about? Well, perhaps it's about trying to create a special class of protected people who maybe shouldn't have protection.

One of the last amendments we made today was going to--at least in this definition the term ``sexual orientation'' is included. We kept trying to confine it to things that were not just an aberration, and even the amendment to at least exclude pedophiles from the protected class was voted down on a strict party line.

Every Democrat there voted to protect pedophiles and every Republican voted to exclude them, at least, from the definition of sexual orientation. We were told, well, there is a definition in one of the other laws about sexual orientation, and it confined it to heterosexuality and homosexuality.

It's not in this law. It's not there. There is no reference to another law. So as a former appellate judge I would be left in reviewing the law to say well, what is the plain meaning? You can consider other definitions.

Well, some judge will do the right thing that a judge is supposed to do and say, hmm, sexual orientation, it means what it says. It's however you are oriented sexually. If that's towards child--and the diagnostics statistics manual has about 30 different types of sexual orientation. So that includes voyeurism, it includes the pedophilia, it includes things like exhibitionism. It includes necrophilia for corpses and all these horrible things.

But even under this law, since exhibitionists are not excluded--and I have had women tell me they have had people flash themselves, men flash themselves, and they immediately reacted and hit them with a purse.

Under that scenario, under this law, the exhibitionist committed a misdemeanor and the woman that hit him with her purse committed a new Federal felony under the hate crimes law.

That is absurd. We don't need this law. There is no reason for it. We even tried to include in here specifically the kinds of churches that were invaded and attacked for supporting the California marriage amendment, and that was voted down on a straight party line. There should be no special classes.

And the other thing here that would silence Christian ministers and eventually rabbis or imams from quoting the Bible, the Tanach or Koran where it condemns homosexuality, because under this bill if a minister, a rabbi, imam quotes from those scriptures and says homosexuality is an aberration--or whatever language they use, that it is wrong, it hurts society--and some nut hears them and goes out, commits a crime of violence, then under 18 U.S.C. (2)(a) they could be arrested, charged as a principal.

This was a bad bill, and it was a bad day for the law.

Mr. Speaker, where but Washington would there be such an atmosphere of arrogance that when in the nineties there was a drop in the crime rate we would start lauding ourselves and saying we did that here in Washington?

Let me tell you who did that. I know in Texas they raised taxes. They built more prisons. They elected judges like me. We started having longer sentences, juries worked longer and harder, law enforcement worked longer and harder through the nineties. They brought more people to justice. There were more trials. People went from serving just a month on a year in many cases to serving one-third, one-half or more of their sentences before they were paroled, and many much longer than that. We were keeping people longer.

There was a 1,000 case backlog in my one district court, but because of the hard work of hundreds of people, that got cut by 80 percent, even though the number of cases rose each year. It wasn't Washington that got that accomplished.

That is why the report from the GAO says a 1.3 percent decline in overall crime rate could be attributed to the COPS grants. And when you consider what my friend Mr. King pointed out, it took 166,000 Federal dollars to get one policeman? Man, we would be better off if we had a program that said, you know, for every dollar of local taxes or State taxes that are raised to go in law enforcement, we will cut the Federal taxes, because I can promise you the States and the local governments can do a whole lot more efficient job than hiring law enforcement for $166,000 apiece.

That is where the difference was made. It wasn't made in Washington. It was made by the hard-working law enforcement officers and court officials back in the States and local governments.

Mr. Speaker, to say that we may want to pat ourselves on the back sitting behind the bench, I didn't ask for the words to be taken down. I don't believe they quite violate the rule.

But I can tell you what sitting behind the bench did for those years. It gave me a great vantage point to see what was doing good and what wasn't.

Now, I never kept a jury past 3 a.m., so I can't say I kept anybody all night. But I can tell you that the prosecutors, the defense attorneys, the law enforcement people, the parole boards, the confinement officials, the taxpayers that kept coming up with more and more money, they did an incredible job. They worked incredibly hard. They didn't get paid enough.

And I know the gentleman has referred to 170 or so law enforcement in my district that were added. And I really do need to get to the background information and figure out exactly where all those people were and for whom the Federal Government is taking credit for hiring.

But, you know, obviously the local governments had to take over that share, and so it was an incentive to start hiring more people. But the audit indicates that, looking at only 3 percent of the COPS grants, Federal auditors have alleged $277 million in misspent funds. The studies have shown that spending on the COPS program has not led to an increase in the overall spending by local law enforcement, so it hasn't increased law enforcement spending. That's what the studies show.

So if the overall spending on law enforcement programs, even with the additional Federal increase, has not increased law enforcement spending, then it's pretty clear that the money spent here did not do the trick of reducing crime. It came from lots of other sources.

And I come back to my original point. There is nobody that does a more efficient job than the local governments and the State governments in addressing these problems, because once that money comes through Washington, it is incredible the slice that this place takes out of the money before they send it back, whether it's education, whether it's law enforcement, whatever it is. And if we could come to a bipartisan agreement that would say, for every dollar you raise local and State taxes, we're going to reduce your Federal taxes, I think we could then hit that increase in law enforcement that obviously both sides want to see. It's just that that would be far more efficient. It would get to the people back in the State and localities who are really doing the job and from which my vantage on the bench allowed me to see, not pat myself on the back, but to see who was doing the job, and not bureaucrats up here in Washington talking a good game.

That's where the difference is made and that's where we can help.