[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 65 (Thursday, April 30, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H5046-H5047]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          ALL PEOPLE ARE EQUAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, yesterday the House passed the Local Law 
Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, H.R. 1913.
  The bill reminds me of a passage from George Orwell's book, ``Animal 
Farm,'' where he wrote, ``All animals are equal. Some animals are more 
equal than others.''
  Under this legislation, all people are equal. Some people are more 
equal than others. This bill attempts to create a new class of people 
with a new category of punishment that is determined by the thoughts 
and words, as well as other actions. It's based on the premise of a 
hate crime, a hate crime.
  If one assumes there is hate crimes, isn't it logical to assume that 
there is just the opposite, love crimes?
  Well, the concept of love crimes doesn't hold, and neither should the 
concept of a special class of citizens created by hate crimes. But it 
is true that crimes are committed. And if you are a victim of crime, 
whether it is motivated by hate, greed, envy or whatever the driving 
force is, you, as a victim, deserve equal justice under the law.
  Equal justice under the law is an old and very well accepted concept 
in America. Where we are a Nation of equals, a Nation of men and women 
who bow to no man, to no king, we should expect equal treatment under 
the law, equal justice.
  This legislation places into the judicial system and into the hands 
of a jury the determination of the thoughts of the criminal and the 
responsibility to determine were these actions different if the victim 
has a certain sexual orientation?
  However, the term sexual orientation is not defined. This is very 
vague. But the term gender identity is defined as actual or perceived 
gender-related characteristics, perceived. This is also very vague.
  In fact, the whole legislation is so vague that a minister today, 
reading aloud the book of Corinthians from the New Testament, could be 
prosecuted because it could be perceived as inciting violence. Whatever 
happened to free speech in the first amendment?
  The amendments could have been offered to clarify some of the 
passages

[[Page H5047]]

but were rejected by the Democrats. Amendments were offered in the 
Judiciary Committee to extend special victims status to veterans, the 
elderly and pregnant women. All were rejected. No amendments were 
allowed on the floor.
  Madam Speaker, I believe this legislation is, in fact, 
unconstitutional, violating the freedom of expression and equal 
protection under the law. I fear for this Nation as Congress continues 
to ignore and abuse the foundation and the principles that built this 
great Nation.

                          ____________________