Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this critical issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3961, which, rightly understood, is just the latest deficit-spending bill championed by my Democrat colleagues here on Capitol Hill. It is, in a very real sense, an addendum to the government takeover of health care that was rammed through this House just 2 short weeks ago with a pricetag in excess of $1.3 trillion.

You know, the President of the United States just said in China, If we keep adding to the debt even in the midst of this recovery, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy. Maybe it would help if the President said that in America instead of China. Then maybe his party would get the message. Two days ago, we learned the national debt just pushed past $12 trillion. That means every man, woman and child in this country bears the burden of more than $38,000 in Federal Government debt.

In October alone, the deficit reached $176.4 billion and now comes one more deficit-spending bill to facilitate passage of a government takeover of health care. Under the guise of helping

doctors and seniors, this will cost the taxpayers of future generations $200 billion, and it all goes straight to deficits and debt. One analysis by the Heritage Foundation estimates the cost of this bill over 75 years at nearly $2 trillion, and Medicare premiums are estimated to increase by some $50 billion.

It seems there is no level of spending and debt that Washington Democrats aren't willing to pile on struggling families and future generations. We're here today considering this latest deficit-spending bill because Democrat leaders refuse to address health care reform in a fiscally responsible way. It is worth noting that this so-called doctors fix was a part of earlier versions of health care reform, but to perpetrate the fiction that their government takeover of health care was passed in a fiscally responsible way, we are doing this addendum to the Pelosi health care bill.

The truth is, the spending policies of this Congress and this administration are a fiscal timebomb being placed on the doorstep of our children's future. We have a responsibility to put our fiscal house in order. But sadly, there are those who would rather pursue an ambitious liberal agenda, no matter what the cost, at the possible expense of our children's posterity and prosperity.

There is a Republican plan which we support. It will fix the problem that we are trying to address over the next 4 years. It will pay for the bill. It will lay the groundwork for meaningful health care reform by ending an era of defensive medicine. I just hasten to repeat, this is just one more deficit-spending bill in an era when the American people are bone weary of runaway Federal spending.

Frankly, when Republicans were in control, we did our share of deficit spending, and the American people showed us the door. What we have here in Washington, D.C., as evidence today, is runaway Federal spending on steroids. You know, there is a rule back in Indiana, where I grew up. When you are in a hole, stop digging. Today we're going to dig the hole of the deficit even deeper, and the American people deserve better.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure and support the Republican plan.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment, though it will not change my opposition to the Pelosi health care bill. I am grateful this amendment has been brought to the floor, and I wish to commend Mr. Pitts and Mr. Stupak for their principled leadership.

Ending an innocent human life is morally wrong, but it's also morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of Americans and use them to provide for a procedure that they find morally offensive. In the Congress of the United States, we have a responsibility to respect the moral beliefs of the majority of the American people.

I urge my colleagues to prevent Federal dollars from funding abortions. Take a stand for life, support the Stupak-Pitts amendment, and vote ``no'' on Pelosi health care.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Republican substitute.

After months of overwhelming public opposition to a government takeover of health care, liberal Democrats here in Washington are choosing to ignore the clear voice of the American people, bringing forth a freight train of runaway Federal spending, bloated bureaucracy, mandates and higher taxes.

And even a few courageous Democrats have been willing to speak out. In opposing the bill, the distinguished Democrat chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Ike Skelton, a man who knew President Truman, said that he, quote, had serious concerns for Missourians who have private insurance plans they like.

And my Democrat colleague, Dan Boren of Oklahoma, said, and I quote, the worst thing we could do in a recession is raise taxes, and this bill does just that.

As these Democrat colleagues attest, if the Pelosi health care bill passes today, you probably will lose your health insurance, and you might just lose your job. The Pelosi health care plan targets us when we are most vulnerable. Illness, our own, or, more importantly, the illness of a parent, spouse or a child, has the capacity to suspend our priorities. What was important before the crisis grows dim in the harsh light of disease affecting a loved one. The result, little by little, in the midst of a family crisis we yield our freedoms and our resources to the ever-growing appetite of the Federal Government.

But if liberal Democrats think this is what our Nation wants, they don't know the America that I know.

Mike Schwaller is my cousin. He is an extraordinary young man. He has been struggling with cancer, but throughout has maintained his faith in Christ and his courage. He has been an inspiration to us all.

Mike wrote me an email the other day, and he gave me permission to share it. As a cancer patient with limited treatment options, he is awaiting insurance approval for experimental treatment. He seems like just the kind of American that my Democrat colleagues keep telling us want government-run insurance. But they don't know Mike.

As he wrote about his coverage recently, he said, If this was a government bureaucracy, I have no faith that it would be processed in a timely manner, and even then, if it would be approved. The idea of a public health care option, he wrote, as a chronic cancer patient scares the living hell out of me. I feel that at this moment in time you are fighting for me, and my life. Please, please, don't give up or give in.

Michael, we won't.

The truth is, this debate is not just about health care. It is about who we are as a nation. As President Reagan said, it is about ``whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far distant capital can plan our lives better for us than we can plan them for ourselves.''

You know, earlier today I greeted about 50 Hoosiers, mostly in wheelchairs, unit caps and uniforms, down at the World War II Memorial. These heroes were gathered for their first and maybe their only visit to that monument built in their honor.

As I made my way back to the Capitol, I thought about those brave men and what sustained them in those days where the survival of democracy hung in the balance. I believe it must have been because they were fighting for a cause more important than their health or even their lives, and that cause was freedom.

In the coming hours, we are going to take a vote of incalculable significance to the American people, and we will see what our so-called Blue Dog Democrat colleagues are made of. We will see whether Democrats who profess to believe in limited government will take a stand, or whether they will fold under the weight of the Democratic majority in the White House.

Look, I know from personal experience, it is no easy thing to take on your President or your party on a major piece of legislation. But let me assure my colleagues, decent Americans all, if you will take this stand for freedom, for the right to live and work and care for a family without the unnecessary intrusion of the government, I believe with all my heart that you will know for the rest of your lives just what those men in wheelchairs have known every day since they came home, that when freedom hung in the balance, you did freedom's work, and the American people will never forget it.

Madam Speaker, for 30 years, the pro-life beliefs of millions of Americans have been protected by the federal government. Congress passed the Hyde Amendment in 1976 which bars federal funds from paying for elective abortions. This amendment must be renewed yearly in the annual Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations bill.

However, the programs included in the Pelosi health care bill, including the government-run plan, are not funded by or beholden to this annual appropriations bill and are therefore not subject to the Hyde amendment.

Legislation of this magnitude must contain clear and decisive language that makes certain that federal funds are not used to pay for elective abortions. References to provisions in current law that are susceptible to being stripped in the annual appropriations process is not any kind of protection at all.

The Pelosi health care plan is also a clear departure from the long- standing federal policy against federal funding of health plans that cover abortions. The Pelosi bill explicitly permits federal funds to subsidize health plans that cover abortions.

The bill's proponents will claim that public dollars are separated from private insurance premiums, but this is nothing more than a slick accounting gimmick rejected by the pro-life community at-large.

According to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, any outlay by a government run plan for abortions or health care services would by definition be federal funds. The Pelosi health care bill also includes a mandate requiring at least one insurance plan offered in the federal exchange to cover abortions.

The bill before us is a clear departure from the longstanding Hyde law and violates the beliefs of millions of pro-life Americans who find abortion morally unconscionable.

I urge Speaker Pelosi to allow an up-or-down vote on a truly pro-life amendment--the Stupak/Pitts amendment. The Stupak/Pitts amendment would prevent federal dollars from funding abortion and preserve the long- standing federal policy of protecting the unborn. In a last-ditch effort to garner votes, the Democrat majority plans to propose a rule for considering the legislation that claims to ``fix'' the pro-life concerns in the bill, but the new language still allows federal funding for abortions. This is little more than a political scheme, and the language has been rejected by every major pro-life group in the country.

I urge the Speaker to include genuinely pro-life language into one of the most important pieces of legislation we will likely consider in our lifetime. A vote on the Stupak/Pitts amendment must be allowed to ensure the protection and safety of America's future--our children.

Mr. Speaker, first, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for working in a bipartisan way on what is very worthy legislation that I support. Small business America is the engine of the American economy, and I appreciate in these tumultuous times the development of this program in this legislation.

But I rise today with a heavy heart, Mr. Speaker, a heavy heart, because this morning we crossed a milestone. Unemployment was announced this morning at 10.2 percent, the worst rate of unemployment in the United States of America since 1983. Now, that is just a number, but I can't help but feel and see in my mind the faces and the families and the businesses that that represents.

Working families, small businesses, and family farmers in this country are hurting; and at 10.2 percent unemployment, it is time for this Congress to rethink the approach that we have taken to legislation and to this economy.

First, on the economy. Clearly, the so-called stimulus bill that was passed in February of this year has failed. The American people know that we can't borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing economy. But, sadly, that was the approach that this administration and this majority took. Borrowing more than $700 billion from future generations of Americans, spreading it out in a wish list of liberal spending priorities, has seen unemployment go from 7.5 percent at the time the stimulus bill was passed to today's gut-wrenching 10.2 percent unemployment. So we have got to take a different approach to this economy.

Back in Indiana, I can tell you a lot of things we focus on out here are not really what I hear about walking up and down the streets of Muncie and Anderson and New Castle, Indiana. I hear people talking about jobs. People are asking, when is Congress going to get the message that the time has come for us to enact fast-acting tax relief for working families, small businesses, and family farms, tax relief that would take effect right now, hit the bottom line of households and businesses all across this country right now?

Republicans offered an alternative to the so-called stimulus bill earlier this year that, using the economic models of the White House at the time, would have cost half as much and created twice as many jobs; and there is still time to get it right.

The lessons of history are clear: John F. Kennedy knew it, Ronald Reagan knew it, and after the Towers fell, George W. Bush knew it. The way to jump-start the American economy is to give the American people more of their hard-earned tax dollars to spend on their families and on their enterprises, and that we should do. That is first.

Secondly, let me say I think the time has come, Mr. Speaker, for this Congress to make the priorities of the American people its priorities and set aside this massive government takeover of health care that is being driven to the floor of the Congress tomorrow, with $700 billion in higher taxes, with $1.3 trillion in new spending. 111 new government programs and bureaucracies are created; 43 entitlements are created or expanded.

At 10.2 percent unemployment, now is not the time to launch a massive new government-run insurance plan and pay for it on the backs of working families, small businesses, and family farms.

An analysis of the tax increase, there is $729.5 billion in new taxes on small businesses and individuals who can't afford health coverage in the Democrat health care bill. I saw one piece of analysis that suggested that, despite the President's promise in last year's election that he would allow no tax increases on any Americans that make less than $200,000 per year, 87 percent of the new taxes in the Democrat health care bill will be paid by Americans who make less than $200,000 per year. A 1,990-page bill creating a massive new government-run insurance plan at a time when working families and small businesses are struggling and shedding jobs and making sacrifices at home and at work just to keep the lights on and the doors open is unthinkable.

So, Mr. Speaker, I plead with this party: Belay your plans to launch a government takeover of health care. Put the interests of American families in this hurting economy first. Let's not add the insult of a massive new government program to the injury of 10.2 percent unemployment.

And one last point. I note, Mr. Speaker, an admired colleague of mine just moments ago said on the floor of this House that it was a shame that Members of the minority were using unrelated legislation to talk about health care reform, and I don't begrudge that esteemed Member his opinion.

But let me say, with press reports that suggest that we won't spend any more than half a day on the floor of this House debating what could amount to a government takeover of one-sixth of the American economy, it is a shame. There are great ideas on the Democrat side of the aisle. I want to say without hesitation, there are better ideas on the Republican side of the aisle.

But why don't we let the People's House work its will? Why don't we start the debate immediately? Let's bring the hundreds of amendments that Republicans and Democrats have offered, as we do with appropriations bills, let's bring them to the floor. Let's have wide- open, free-wheeling debate, and let's call the votes one after another. I have nowhere to be, except home standing with my veterans next Wednesday, from now until Thanksgiving. So let's get started. Let's go around the clock.

The people that should be feeling shame, Mr. Speaker, are those that would pile drive through this Congress a massive expansion of the Federal Government, an enormous increase in taxes, at a heart-breaking time when unemployment reaches historic levels in this generation. It is time for Washington, DC, to listen to the heart of the American people and make their priorities our priorities.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, across the country, the American people have been calling for months for Washington to pass responsible reform that will lower the cost of health insurance to small business owners, working families, and family farms.

Yesterday, House Republicans answered that call by putting forward commonsense legislation that will reduce the deficit, lower health insurance premiums, and ensure coverage for those with preexisting conditions. You can read all about it by going on www.healthcare.gop.gov. As a result of the House Republican bill, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office now confirms, families will see their health insurance premiums reduced by up to 10 percent, and hardworking taxpayers can expect deficits to decrease by $68 billion over the next decade.

The Pelosi health care plan: more government, more spending, more deficits. The Republican plan: less government, lower deficits, and lower health insurance premiums.

That's your choice, America. Let your voice be heard.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. And while I appreciate my good friend's clarification that this rule has to do with a credit card bill that's on the floor today, I take this opportunity respectfully to speak about that issue which is foremost in the minds of the American people at this hour, and that is this freight train of Big Government moving through the Congress at a frightening speed that we believe with all our hearts will result in a government takeover of health care in America.

After months of behind-closed-doors dealings, the Democratic majority, in cooperation with the White House and special interest groups, produced late last week finally a bill. It may be amended again, Mr. Speaker, but we have a 1,990-page bill that, according to independent press estimates, includes $1.2 trillion in new Federal spending on expanded health insurance coverage over the next 10 years. It includes $729.5 billion in new taxes on small businesses and individuals. It is in every real sense a government takeover of health care and the burden and payment of which will be borne principally by Americans that make less than $200,000 per year.

An independent estimate that we received yesterday, as Republicans spent hours reading the bill in our reading room, was that actually, despite the fact that as a candidate President Obama pledged that he would not raise taxes on Americans who make less than $200,000 a year, with the Pelosi health care bill, actually the tax increases would fall most squarely on Americans making below that threshold amount. Eighty- seven percent of the taxes that are being levied in the Democrat health care bill will be paid by Americans that make less than $200,000 a year, fees and mandates and fines and penalties falling squarely on our middle class. It's really extraordinary when you think of it that it's taking place during what is, without debate, the worst recession in a quarter of a century.

But it doesn't just stop there. When we say that it's a government takeover of health care, we are talking real numbers and real bureaucracy. Those that say otherwise ignore the fact that in this legislation there are 43 entitlement programs that are created, expanded, or extended. There are 111 additional offices, bureaus, commissions, programs, and bureaucracies that the bill creates over and above the entitlement expansions included in the prior bill.

Lastly, we all know as legislators that the word ``shall'' is not a friendly word when it comes in law. When the word ``shall'' appears in law, it means that someone must do something, a business, an enterprise, an element of the bureaucracy shall take action. The word ``shall'' appears in the Democrat health care bill 3,425 times. Yet the majority and the administration continue to insist that this is not a government takeover of health care? I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the American people are catching on and they know otherwise.

But the good news is there's an alternative. People can go to healthcare.gop.gov, and as has emerged in recent days, Republicans have a bill. I know our colleagues have been pointing at some blank pages on the floor in the last 24 hours, but the American people surfing the net know that the Republican bill is actually a little bit over 200 pages, allows Americans to purchase health insurance across State lines the way big businesses can, allows associations to pool their employees to bring down the cost of insurance. It brings about medical malpractice reform to end junk lawsuits and end defensive medicine in America, and we use those savings to actually strengthen those funds at the State level, those programs that cover preexisting conditions for Americans.

While the majority is focused on growing government to achieve something called universal coverage, Republicans are focused on what the American people want us to focus on, and that is lowering the cost of health insurance and lowering the cost of health care by giving the American people and American enterprise more choices, reasonable limits on litigation, and helping people with preexisting conditions.

The American people want health care reform that lowers the cost of health insurance rather than increasing the cost of government, but it looks like that's exactly what they're getting in the Pelosi health care bill.

Here are the numbers: 1,990 pages; $1.2 trillion in the Pelosi plan in new Federal spending over the next 10 years; $729.5 billion in new tax increases. It's just extraordinary.

Within the confines of the bill, 43 entitlement programs are created or expanded; 111 additional offices, bureaus, commissions, programs, and bureaucracies; and this legislation uses the mandatory legal language--the word ``shall''--3,425 times. And this isn't a government takeover of health care? Give me a break.

The Pelosi health care plan is a freight train of big government, higher taxes, and mandates--and it must be opposed. The American people deserve a better plan.

You can go to healthcare.gop.gov and start getting the details of a plan that will lower the cost of health insurance instead of growing the size of government.

Mr. Speaker, now comes the Pelosi plan for the government takeover of health care. It is a freight train of runaway spending, bloated bureaucracy, mandates, and higher taxes. If the liberals in Washington, D.C. have their way, they will forever change the relationship between government and we, the people, as it pertains to the health care of this Nation.

Now, the Republicans in Congress who are standing in the gap can't do this alone, but I often tell my colleagues: a minority in Congress plus the American people equals a majority. We, the people, have the power to stop the Pelosi health care plan in an effort to nationalize one- sixth of our Nation's economy. We, the people, have the ability to protect the finest health care system the world has ever known and to demand real health care reform that will reduce the cost of health care without growing government.

I appeal to my fellow Americans, not as Republicans or Democrats: if you cherish freedom, if you fear the crushing weight of Big Government, debt, mandates, and taxes, this is your moment. Now is your time; let your voice be heard.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I like to say Washington, D.C., is the world capital of unintended consequences. That seems to be becoming more true every day.

The American people want health care reform that lowers the cost of health insurance and lowers the cost of health care. But a new study produced by Indiana's leading provider of health insurance yesterday shows that the cost of health insurance under the Democratic bill will actually go up for most Americans. That's right. You heard that right.

According to a 238-page study by the actuaries at WellPoint, the Democratic plan, with its mandates and regulations, will actually drive up premiums for small business owners and individuals. Get this, young and healthy consumers will be hardest hit. For young and healthy Americans, their premiums could actually triple in some States. And for a family of four, premiums would more than double.

Now the White House has denounced this, and I know there will be denunciations here on the floor of this study; but the reality is the experts in the industry are pointing out regulations and mandates are going to result in Democrat health care reform meaning higher cost of health insurance to Americans.

P.J. O'Rourke had it right when he said if you think health care is expensive now, wait until it is free.

Mr. Speaker, at nearly $1 trillion in spending and tax increases, the Democrat health care bill is a bad deal for taxpayers; but it is a worst deal for American seniors, and senior citizens deserve to know about it.

Included in the Democrat health care plan are massive cuts in Medicare Advantage, $162 billion in reductions in this popular program. As a result, Medicare Advantage plans will drop out of the program, limiting seniors' choices and causing many to lose their current health care coverage through Medicare Advantage. This will have an exceptionally negative impact in rural areas, like my district of eastern Indiana.

According to the Congressional Budget Office as well, the Democrat's health care plan will increase the cost of Medicare prescription drug premiums by 20 percent in the next decade.

The President said, If you like your current plan, you can keep it. Well, after looking at the Democrats' plan for seniors, I guess he wasn't talking about senior citizens when he said that.

For every American President, there are moments of decision, moments where the credibility of the United States and the fate of people in foreign lands hang in the balance. President Obama faces such a moment in Afghanistan. The President must decide whether to adequately equip our military in Afghanistan or lose the war to al Qaeda and the Taliban.

General Stanley McChrystal was brought on to implement the counterinsurgency strategy the President himself endorsed in March. And that commander has made it clear what resources he needs to get the job done. If we fail in Afghanistan, we risk that country turning into a training ground again for al Qaeda, increasing instability spilling over into nuclear-armed Pakistan. The consequences to our people would only be a matter of time.

Our soldiers and the people of Afghanistan cannot afford to wait any longer. Now is not the time to risk the hard-fought, blood-bought gains in this critical front in the war on terror by extended deliberations and indecision. Now is the time for our President to act decisively, to give our commanders and our soldiers the resources they need to win the war in Afghanistan and come home safe.

You know, the American people cherish our freedom of speech and a free and independent press. That's why I found this morning's headlines so troubling.

Goaded on by a White House increasingly intolerant of criticism, lately the national media has taken aim at conservative commentators in radio and television, suggesting that they only speak for a small group of activists, and even suggests in one report today that Republicans in Washington are ``worried about their electoral effect.'' Well, that's hogwash.

To suggest the men and women that are taking a stand for fiscal discipline and traditional values in the national debate today only speak for ``grassroots activists'' is absurd. As evidenced by the hundreds of thousands who filled town hall meetings this summer and the nearly million Americans that gathered here in Washington in September, millions of American, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, are worried about liberal social policies and runaway Federal spending, deficit, and debt.

So, to my friends in the so-called mainstream media, I say, conservative talk show hosts may not speak for everybody, but they speak for more Americans than you do.

Madam Speaker, sometimes our heroes fall on foreign soil, and sometimes they come home and fall, but we honor their service and their sacrifice all the same.

Madam Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart to mark the sudden passing of a hero from my home State of Indiana and to honor his service and his life. Army Specialist Jacob Sexton, a combat veteran of conflicts both in Iraq and Afghanistan, tragically passed away while on leave from his overseas duties earlier this week.

A native of Farmland, Indiana, Jacob graduated from Monroe Central High School, and like many men in the Sexton family, Jacob chose to wear the uniform.

Jacob served with Alpha Company, 2nd Battalion, of the 151st Infantry Regiment in the Indiana National Guard. Those who served with him remember a selfless soldier who was quick to volunteer for difficult assignments.

A Humvee driver while in Iraq, he took on dangerous positions, often leaving himself exposed to IED and small-arms attacks. As an infantryman in Afghanistan, Jacob saw firsthand the perils of combat, but he faced those perils with courage.

Those close to Jacob noted that the stresses of combat and long deployments seemed to have little effect on his infectious personality. However, after this week's tragic events, it is painfully clear that Jacob Sexton was deeply affected by his experiences in uniform and on deployment.

While his loss leaves far too many questions unanswered, I believe it is yet another reminder of the special care our heroes need and deserve, those who defend freedom, when they come home.

Heroes like Army Specialist Jacob Sexton are the pride of their family and our Nation's most treasured citizens. Jacob's family, his parents, Jeff and Barbara; his brothers, Joshua, Jeremiah and Jared; and all those who

served with him, know that you have our deepest condolences, the gratitude of the people of Indiana, and you shall remain in the hearts of a grateful Nation forever.

Mr. Speaker, I respect the President of the United States of America. I pray for this President often in my private devotions. But after months of extraordinary public opposition to a government takeover of health care, opposition that spontaneously drew more than 1 million people to the West Front of this Capitol just one month ago, President Obama spoke words this weekend that were, frankly, hard to take.

He said in his radio address, ``What is remarkable is not that we have had a spirited debate about health insurance reform, but the unprecedented consensus that has come together behind it.''

Unprecedented consensus that has come together behind a government takeover of health care? Well, maybe here in Washington, D.C., but not across America.

There is an unprecedented consensus. The American people are fed up with runaway Federal spending and government takeovers. And now that the committee work is done and both chambers of the House and Senate are headed to the back rooms to write up health care reform, let's home and let's pray that the unprecedented consensus that will shape this bill will be based upon the consensus of the American people for more freedom and lower health care costs, and not the consensus in Washington for more government and higher taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and in opposition to the hate crimes provisions and the balance of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.

Throughout my nearly 9 years in Congress, I've been down range with our troops every year, in Afghanistan and Iraq. I've also supported every Defense authorization bill that has come before this body, and so I rise with a heavy heart today to say that I will break that personal tradition in opposing this bill.

Now, no one doubts that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 is an important piece of legislation whose essential elements will provide for our troops the critical resources they need to accomplish their mission. However, the majority in this Congress has cynically included hate crimes provisions in this legislation that threaten the very freedoms of speech and religion that draw our soldiers into the uniform of this Nation.

Men and women throughout our history have put on the uniform for a variety of reasons, some out of a sense of patriotism, some out of a sense of love for their families, love for their country, a sense of duty; but in every single case, I would offer that, from the American Revolution forward, every American who has put on the uniform of this country has done so to defend freedom. Therefore, the very idea that we would erode the freedoms for which our soldiers wear the uniform in a bill that is designed to provide resources those soldiers need to get the job done and come home safe is unconscionable.

It is simply inappropriate to use the Defense bill as a vehicle for divisive liberal social policies wholly unrelated to our country's national security. Here, the Democrats in the majority, with the assent of this administration, are piling liberal social priorities on to the backs of our soldiers. This is disturbing, I suspect, to millions of Americans and counterproductive to the legislative process.

But on to the substance of hate crimes. I find myself in strong agreement this day with Thomas Jefferson who said, and I quote, ``Legislative powers of government reach actions only, not opinions.'' And he actually connected that very principle with the foundation and rationale for the First Amendment. The hate crimes provisions in this legislation, as before, are antithetical to those First Amendment traditions and unnecessary. Violent attacks on people are already illegal, regardless of the motive behind them. And there's no evidence that the underlying violent crimes at issue here are not being fully and aggressively prosecuted under current law.

Therefore, in a practical sense, hate crimes serve no purpose. But they instead penalize people for thoughts, beliefs and attitude and send us down that very slope that Thomas Jefferson warned against. Now, some of these thoughts and beliefs and attitudes, racism, sexism, bias against people because of their sexual preferences, I find abhorrent. I disdain discrimination. I disdain bigotry. But these hate crimes provisions, including those that will be added to Federal law today, are broad enough to encompass legitimate beliefs, and protecting the rights of freedom and speech and religion must be first and foremost and paramount on the floor of this chamber.

To put it quite simply, adding hate crimes provisions in this Defense bill puts us on a slippery slope of deeming particular groups as more important than others under our system of justice. Singling out particular groups of victims erodes our longstanding legal principle of equal protection under the law as well. The First Amendment of the Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. America was founded on the notion that the government should not interfere with the religious practices or expressions of our people.

But there is a real possibility that these provisions in this Defense bill having to do with hate crimes and sexual preference could have that effect. These provisions, as written, could result in a chilling effect against religious leaders in this country. As has been previously stated by Judge Carter of Texas, under section two of title 18 of the U.S. Code today, an individual may be held criminally liable who aids, abets, counsels, commands or induces or procures in the commission of a Federal crime.

Therefore, to put a fine point on it, any pastor, preacher, priest, rabbi, or imam who may give a sermon out of their moral traditions about sexual practices could presumably, under this legislation, be found to have aided, abetted or induced in the commission of a Federal crime. This will have a chilling effect on religious expression from the pulpits, in our temples, in our mosques and in our churches; and it must be undone.

So let me say, as I close, the provisions added to this legislation threaten religious freedom by criminalizing thought. It is simply wrong to further criminalize thought and chill religious expressions of Americans. But let me also say, as I said before, a Defense authorization bill ought to be about the national defense. And here we have, in this majority, in an effort, presumably, any effort to move liberal social policies at home, a willingness to pile unrelated liberal priorities on the backs of an effort to advance our national security. And that's unconscionable.

Let's remember what our soldiers are fighting for. Let's remember why they put on the uniform. They wear the uniform to defend freedom. So let's take a stand for freedom today and let's take a stand for a legislative process that has genuine integrity to purpose.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule, and I sadly urge my colleagues to vote against the Defense authorization bill.