[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 143 (Tuesday, October 6, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H10477-H10484]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 2647, NATIONAL DEFENSE 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Armed 
Services, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the 
bill (H.R. 2647) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense, for military 
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, 
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, to 
provide special pays and allowances to certain members of the Armed 
Forces, expand concurrent receipt of military retirement and VA 
disability benefits to disabled military retirees, and for other 
purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate 
amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FORBES. I have a motion at the desk, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Forbes moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2647 be instructed 
     to not recede to the Senate on division E of the Senate 
     amendment (regarding the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes 
     Prevention Act).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) and the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. FORBES. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is truly a sad day as we come before the House today 
to have to even bring this motion to instruct conferees. But 
essentially what the motion to instruct conferees does is to simply 
make sure, when we're dealing with something as important as the 
Defense authorization bill, that we're dealing with the Defense 
authorization bill--that we're not saddling it with the hate crimes 
legislation which, sadly, is what we are now doing.
  Mr. Speaker, across America, people are becoming more and more 
disillusioned by the processes that they see taking place here in the 
House of Representatives and down the hall in the Senate. And this is a 
perfect example of what that process has come to be, when we take a 
hate crimes legislation that should stand on its own accord, that has 
nothing to do with the Defense authorization bill, but we marry them 
together and saddle them and bring them to the House floor with the 
take-it-or-leave-it approach.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to watch what's happening from this 
administration and unfortunately from the leadership in both the House 
and the Senate to destroy any even pretense of transparency anymore in 
the country.
  I watched this year as we saw a sea change where so many of the 
policies have now led us to a point where our budget is driving defense 
posture instead of defense posture driving the budget. For the first 
time in my lifetime that I know of, this administration came down and 
literally issued a gag order to individuals in the Pentagon where they 
couldn't even talk to Members of Congress to tell us where they were 
cutting programs, where they were spending money, and to give us the 
reports that we needed, or even testify. In fact, the Army had to even 
cancel a hearing that it had before the Armed Services Committee 
because of that gag order.
  In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation where the law 
requires the administration to tell us a plan. How are you going to 
build ships? That just makes sense. Americans should know: How are you 
going to build ships? What's the plan? The law requires that they do it 
and certify that the budget meets that plan. They just refuse to do it 
because the law doesn't apply to them.
  And then they came down with an aviation--they were supposed to give 
us an aviation plan. The law mandates

[[Page H10478]]

it. It's in the statute. Again, they have to tell us what are you doing 
with planes; how many are you building; what's your plan--and certify 
that that aviation plan is going to be met by that budget. Mr. Speaker, 
they just refused.
  When the House Armed Services Committee came together and every 
Member unanimously passed a congressional inquiry mandating that the 
administration give us that information before this conference report 
came to the House today, that it was supposed to be here on September 
15--they just refused to do it. And they look at every soldier across 
the country and say, The law applies to you, but it must not apply to 
us.
  And then, Mr. Speaker, we come down today to the situation we're in 
where we just made a motion to go to conference. And as we made the 
motion, they are literally writing the bill now in legislative services 
at this very time, and we haven't even had some hearings--the Readiness 
Subcommittee never even had a hearing.
  Mr. Speaker, what this motion to instruct simply does is this: It 
says you may not give us all of the information the law requires, you 
may not hold hearings that we need to get the facts straight, but for 
goodness sake, at least make sure that we do a Defense authorization 
bill. And if we're going to do hate crimes legislation, let's do it 
separately. This gives us a clean vote up or down on that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, once again we see shenanigans going on on the 
floor of the House. And the idea is that we're going to sneak stuff 
through, and we're going to use the good will and the support of the 
American public for our warfighters in order to pass some particular 
specialized agenda that has nothing to do with the warfighters at all.
  This is not new this year. There was a big bill we passed--it was 
called cap-and-tax--3 o'clock in the morning. Three hundred pages of 
amendments passed. It came here to the floor for us to debate, and we 
are asking is there a copy of the bill on the floor? And the answer was 
no, there's not even a copy of the bill on the floor because of the 
fact we're going to do this in the dark of night with tricky little 
procedures.
  And here we go with a bill that many of us have labored hard for. I 
have an important amendment on the bill, and yet what's going on? We're 
going to slip into this bill to fund--my own son, in fact, who's going 
to Afghanistan in 3 weeks--we're going to use the good will of the 
voters of America to slip into this thing a bill called hate crimes 
which has nothing to do whatsoever with what's being passed.
  It is more of the same cloak and mirrors, dark of the night, slippery 
kind of stuff the American public is fed up with, and I am fed up with 
it. I have three sons that have graduated from the Naval Academy. I 
have two sons who are in the Marine Corps right now. This bill talks 
about funding them and funding the defense of our country, which I take 
very seriously.
  But to put into this bill this hate crimes bill which has been, I 
think, kicked around the Judiciary Committee for years and to try to 
connect that with something that's unrelated is just procedurally 
wrong. It's something that is shameful. It should not happen on this 
floor. And in that regard, I refuse to vote for this bill in spite of 
the fact that the bill is good underneath.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it's important to note that the 
hate crimes legislation has passed as a stand-alone bill in the House 
three times over the last decade, and now it's attached to a Department 
of Defense authorization bill. And I am happy, Mr. Chairman, to see 
this bill, which is an important and long overdue step in our 
continuing efforts to secure for all Americans the full blessings of 
liberty under our Constitution.
  On several occasions, as I said, this bill has passed the House and 
the Senate. This year, with the support of the President, I am hopeful 
that we will finally see the bill signed and enacted.
  Mr. Speaker, the incidence of hate crimes is continuing at a high 
rate. I think we've seen the degeneration of the level of political 
discourse in this country as it has descended into threats of 
misconduct and violence. I just want to point out a historical fact 
here because the incidence of hate crimes certainly is continuing at a 
high rate.
  The incidence of brutal violence against individuals based on hateful 
bias against certain identifiable groups has unfortunately a long and 
shameful history in this country. For example, nearly 4,000 African 
Americans were tortured and killed between 1880 and 1930. In our day, 
since 1991--and I must confess to you, my days go back a little longer 
than that--but I must tell you that since 1991, there have been more 
than 118,000 hate crimes documented by the FBI. It has been 7,624 just 
in 2007. And those are only documented cases.
  What this bill does, ladies and gentlemen who are viewing and 
listening to this message, it enables the Justice Department to come to 
the aid of State and local law enforcement agencies in investigating 
and prosecuting this bias-based brutality, and it helps to defer their 
cost when these kinds of crimes overwhelm State and local resources. 
And when necessary--and if approved by the highest Senate-confirmed 
department officials--it authorizes the department to step in and 
prosecute at the Federal level.
  The bill expands existing Federal hate crimes law beyond the narrow 
confines of protecting access to a limited set of specified protected 
activities, and it adds to the current list of group characteristics 
deservedly recognized for protection--due to their being well-known 
targets for bias-based violence--four new ones that also clearly belong 
on the list: sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and 
disability.
  These crimes of violence are directed not just against those who are 
directly attacked--they are targeting the entire group with the threat 
of violence. No group should have to live under that kind of threat as 
they seek to go about their everyday duties and lifestyle here in 
America. Everyone should be protected.
  So the groups in the bill differ from one another. They differ from 
other groups that some have been trying to add on which do not share 
this same kind of history of being targeted for hate-based violence.
  Our approach is consistent with the judgment made by the States that 
have State hate crimes laws. They've made the same judgment as we have 
made for Federal law that many groups should be protected elsewhere in 
the law, not in hate crimes law. An argument is often made that since 
that is a State offense, the Feds should not get involved with it. But 
I'll tell you, the sale of drugs, State law violation, also a Federal 
law violation.

                              {time}  1745

  Our Federal criminal code mirrors sometimes the State laws, and other 
times State laws mirror Federal law when it comes to certain activities 
that are against the law. And so this is no different. Our approach is 
consistent with the judgment made by the States that have hate crimes 
laws, and this bill is definitely consistent with the Constitution.
  It applies only to bias-motivated violent crimes. It in no way 
impinges on constitutionally protected speech, writing or other 
expression, including expression of religious beliefs, but not limited 
to that. That would be true in any event. But we state it plainly in 
the bill.
  This bill has widespread support, over 120 cosponsors, and more than 
300 civil rights, education, religious and civic organizations, 
including the NAACP, the ACLU and the Leadership Conference of Civil 
Rights.
  Virtually every major law enforcement organization in this country 
has endorsed the bill, including the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police, the National District Attorneys Association; and most 
district attorneys that I know of are certainly not flaming liberals. 
They believe in the rule of law and they believe in adherence to it. 
When there is a criminal law violation, they will prosecute to the

[[Page H10479]]

full extent of the law. So that is very important. The National 
District Attorneys Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the 
Police Executive Research Forum and 31 State attorneys general endorse 
the bill. That is very impressive.
  And it is supported by over 45 leading mainstream religious 
organizations, who dismiss claims that the bill would somehow interfere 
with religious speech ``unfounded fears.''
  Enacting the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Protection Act is a 
critical step towards keeping our communities safe from hate-based 
violence and ensuring that all Americans can enjoy the blessings of 
liberty without fear.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia talked about the 
rule of law. It is the rule of law that we are concerned with today, 
the rule of law that this administration refuses to obey with regard to 
sending us the documents and the information the statute requires so 
that we could make an intelligent decision about this conference 
report.
  He talks about issues. Regardless of where you stand on this 
legislation, you could talk about transportation, space exploration, 
health care reform or immigration reform. But they have no place in the 
Defense authorization bill.
  I just want to point out to the Speaker and to those listening to the 
debate, at 5:36 tonight we made the motion to go into conference. The 
report is already being written. It is a take-it-or-leave-it report. 
This is the only shot anyone will have at changing this report.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
ranking member from California, Congressman McKeon.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And my 
good friend from Georgia that just gave a strong message of his support 
for hate crimes, I respect, and I have a strong feeling against it. But 
the issue that we are here on the floor talking about should be the 
defense of our Nation, especially when we are at a time of war.
  While the Senate was considering the National Defense Authorization 
Act, division E was attached to the bill as an amendment. The NDAA is 
an inappropriate vehicle for this controversial and unconstitutional 
legislation. Hate crimes proponents are using this important national 
security bill to get this legislation to the President's desk through 
the back door.
  This has no place on the Defense bill. It's not germane to the work 
of the committee, couldn't be added on in the House, had to be done in 
the Senate, and needlessly introduces a partisan matter in an otherwise 
bipartisan bill. We need a clean conference report that does honor to 
the men and women in uniform.
  There is one thing that we all agree on, and that is that violent 
crime is deplorable, regardless of its motivation. That is why all 
violent crimes must be vigorously prosecuted. However, a decision to 
prosecute should not be based on the status of the victim or the 
thought process of the perpetrator. Violence is violence and should be 
dealt with accordingly.
  We've had several meetings of the so-called ``big four'' talking 
about working on the conference report on this committee. Chairman 
Skelton and I were in agreement on this issue. We felt that it should 
not be added to the conference report. This bill passed in the House. 
It passed in the Senate. I don't know why they can't bring it to the 
floor as a freestanding bill and have it pass on its own. Why we need 
to attach it to a Defense bill is because the Defense bill needs to be 
passed, and people will vote for it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. FORBES. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. McKEON. I think it's a crime to add it to a bill that is so 
important that we pass every year for our troops, for those men and 
women in uniform, that we have to muddy up the issue by putting a hate 
crimes legislation attached onto this bill.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) who is the distinguished chairman of the 
Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I agree: it makes no more 
logical sense to add a hate crimes bill to the Defense bill than it 
would to take a bill requiring people to be allowed to use their guns 
in the national parks to a credit card bill. But that's what the Senate 
did. The Senate added a bill dealing with the rights of gun owners in 
the national parks to the credit card bill with which there was no 
logical connection.
  Now, I wish the Senate wouldn't do things like that. I wish a lot of 
things. But when we are confronted with the reality of the Senate, we 
have to act.
  Now, it is conceivable that you would have people who are so devoted 
to the principle of having no illogical attachment that they would 
oppose it in every case. I must have been in the Cloakroom when 
Republicans rose to denounce the Senate for adding the bill allowing 
the use of guns in parks to the credit card bill. That was done. Not a 
single Republican, to my recollection, objected. Indeed, quite to the 
contrary, they all voted for it, which makes it very clear: the 
objection here is not to the Senate adding an unrelated bill, because 
the Republicans in this House have voted for that time and time and 
time again. It is an objection to protecting against hate crimes people 
who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.
  Now, some say we shouldn't have these hate crimes laws. But their 
inconsistency is I don't remember them trying to repeal the hate crimes 
laws that are on the books. There is nothing new about hate crimes 
here. There is nothing new about its constitutionality. By the way, if 
you say violence should be violence, how about somebody having the 
intellectual integrity to get up and repeal that statute that says, if 
someone assaults someone standing next to me, it might be a 
misdemeanor, but if somebody assaults me, a Member of Congress, it's a 
Federal felony. We have a major distinction. We are protected by 
special laws, older people, people who are religious. Then they say, 
it's a matter of choice. The level of intelligence involved in thinking 
that being gay or lesbian is a matter of choice aside, religion is a 
matter of choice. People convert to religions. Does that mean we 
shouldn't protect people against hate crimes based on religion?
  Finally, we are told this is being sneaked through. One of the 
earlier speakers, in a total flight from reality, said it is being 
sneaked through. It passed the House. It was debated. It went through 
the regular committee process, and it passed the House. Yes, from time 
to time, the United States Senate, which has no rules preventing it, 
adds unrelated bills. If there are Members who have consistently 
opposed that practice, they have the right to oppose it here and say 
that is the reason.
  But Members who have voted for legislation which the Senate attached 
to unrelated legislation who claim now to be offended by that practice 
clearly have no logical or other basis on which to make that claim.
  There are people who do not think we should add a very vulnerable 
category, particularly people who are transgender, to the hate crimes 
protection. They lost that fight when we had it in the House. I would 
have had it come up again, but it is clearly just another example of 
another time-tried practice.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I continue to scratch my head as I listen to 
the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts who argues that just 
because the leadership of the House and the leadership of the Senate 
have followed the process time and again that the end justifies the 
means and that we ought to do it all the time.
  But I would point out to the gentleman that this is not all the time. 
This is not a credit card bill. This is the national defense of the 
United States of America. It is our very freedoms. And we need to 
understand that just because some of us have had to vote on bills where 
we had no opportunity to debate them, where we didn't have time to read 
them and where we didn't have time to amend them doesn't make it right. 
And in this particular case, it doesn't make it right because the 
reality is only two individuals, the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee and the chairman of

[[Page H10480]]

Senate Armed Services Committee, had to agree to put this in. They 
might be good men. They might have done it for good reasons. It was 
wrong. This is the only way to stop it.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, the representative to 
the conference report, had we been able to have him meet earlier, Mr. 
Gohmert.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate my friend from 
Massachusetts comparing the national parks bill to our national defense 
bill. But I see a real distinction in holding our soldiers' well-being 
hostage to this sociological attack on what used to be the morals of 
America. And for those who say this is critical, and I heard my friend 
from Georgia talking about how these crimes have increased, actually, 
the crimes, according to the FBI, have decreased regarding hate. So 
there are no statistics that demand this bill be attached and that our 
soldiers be held hostage for this bill.
  And then we have the name of the bill, the Matthew Shepard and James 
Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Those were horrible murders, and the 
people who perpetrated them deserve, in my opinion, to get the death 
penalty all. But this bill does not provide a death penalty. In fact, 
this bill will not change the outcome of those cases one iota.
  In the Texas case, James Byrd, it would be fine with me if we passed 
a bill that said when you do what was done to James Byrd, then the 
victim's family gets to choose the vehicle and the rope or chains by 
which they are going to drag the defendant to his death. But this 
doesn't do that. In the Matthew Shepard case, the defendants now say it 
was a robbery gone bad. Regardless, they got life sentences, a couple 
of life sentences. This bill wouldn't have changed that whatsoever at 
all either.
  Now, there are those who say it will not affect religious speech; but 
when we have debated this bill and people have looked at it carefully, 
you see that this situation can arise: a preacher preaching from the 
Bible, a rabbi preaching from the Tanach, or an imam teaching from the 
Koran says in his opinion homosexuality is wrong. Some nut hears him, 
goes out and commits an act of violence, and when arrested says, well, 
I was induced to do this by the preacher, the imam or the rabbi.
  Well, under 18 U.S.C. 2(a), it says that anyone who induces another 
to commit a crime is just as guilty as the one who committed it. That's 
where the preacher, the imam, or the rabbi could be arrested.
  And I appreciate in prior debate my friend from Massachusetts pointed 
to the folks in Philadelphia and said, well, they were arrested but the 
charges were dropped. Arresting and detaining has a chilling effect. 
There's no two ways around it.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. SKELTON. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. So little time, so many fallacies. The 
first fallacy is that we were not comparing the credit card bill to the 
defense bill; we were talking about a regular practice. It wasn't just 
the credit card bill. Regularly for years the Senate does this, and no 
Republican has ever risen to object to it. Their objection is not to 
the procedure, but to the substance. Nothing is being held hostage. The 
bill will pass or fail. If it failed because of this, it would come 
back without it.
  Secondly, the gentleman's last point is simply nonsensical: one 
arrest that was inappropriate. There have been other inappropriate 
arrests. Hate crimes bills have been in effect, hate crimes laws, at 
the Federal and State level for years. There is zero example of that 
happening. There is an amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas 
that makes it impossible.
  When people use wholly irrelevant arguments against the bill, it 
means that they can't find a real argument that they want to use.
  Finally, the gentleman from California, the ranking member said, 
don't have these hate crimes, violence is violence, or one of the 
Members said that. I guess then he is opposed to that amendment which 
prohibits a tax on U.S. servicemen on account of service because that 
is in here. There is in here a provision that protects servicemen who 
are attacked on account of service. If you are opposed in principle to 
that, then you ought to be opposed to that in general.
  It is clear there is an animus against those of us who are gay or 
lesbian, against people who are transgender, on the part of many in the 
House, and they are reflecting a strong political sentiment in the 
country. They are entitled to it. I do not lament the loss of their 
friendship and affection; I can live without it. But it should not lead 
them to deny protection to vulnerable people, and we are talking here 
about crimes, not just murder, but about assault and destruction of 
property which are too often ignored.
  So let's be very clear. There is no consistency to the argument about 
the procedure. There is no consistency to the argument about hate 
crimes. There is no validity whatsoever to the argument that some 
clergy would be arrested or prosecuted because none have been. This is 
simply a declaration of unhappiness that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and 
transgender people are getting some protection.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, we can pound on the desk all day long. We 
can say stuff about consistency, but the reality is the American people 
understand what is going on. They understand that it doesn't make 
sense, no matter whether they like it or don't like it, to have a hate 
crimes legislation attached to the National Defense Authorization bill. 
They understand that it doesn't make sense to put bills on the floor 
when people don't have an opportunity to read them before they vote on 
them.
  They understand it doesn't make sense to not give time to amend 
bills. And, Mr. Speaker, they understand that when you go into a motion 
to go into conference at 5:36 and you have already begun writing the 
report and this is the only way to keep this bill clean for the defense 
of the country, that it makes sense that this motion to instruct would 
pass.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, my 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the distinguished gentleman 
from Missouri and let me particularly thank Chairman Skelton for his 
open view as he fights for the men and women in the United States 
military. Your long years of history are appreciated, and I stand here 
to acknowledge that. Thank you for giving us this opportunity this 
afternoon.
  I just want to say to my good friend from Virginia, to address the 
American people as we address our colleagues today, I count the 
American people as the smartest constituency that the world could know. 
They are compassionate. They are passionate. They are patriots. They 
love their country, and they understand a mother's love.
  So let me explain to you procedurally so you would know that nothing 
has gone awry, has gone wrong, and no hostage-taking has taken place.
  The hate crimes legislation, in particular named Matthew Shepard Hate 
Crimes Prevention Act, has been introduced and introduced and 
introduced in some form. Chairman Conyers on the Judiciary Committee, 
of which I am a member, has introduced hate crimes legislation. I have 
introduced hate crimes legislation. We have seen hate crimes 
legislation pass 237-180, bipartisan.
  But if you think of the armed services or the military authorization 
bill, just in your mind get a sense of the oath that our men and women 
of the United States military take as they affirm their allegiance to 
the United States. It is to protect every single citizen. Just this 
past weekend, I was privileged to be part of the send-off for the 72nd 
Combat Brigade in Texas, some 3,000 men and women as they take their 
oath, as they go off to be deployed, they are fighting for the freedom 
of this Nation.
  The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes legislation is about the freedom of 
every citizen. This was not an ordinary burglary. If you had the 
opportunity to meet Matthew Shepard's mother, as I have, as she pressed 
the case over and over again, this was a violent, heinous, hateful 
crime, the description of which was so painful for someone to be nailed 
on some open field fence to die with no

[[Page H10481]]

one there. That is a hate crime. And the Senate, who has reviewed and 
had the opportunity for hearings, as we had in the House, is doing 
nothing more than procedurally adding an already passed bill by both of 
these institutions that captures the characterization of what freedom 
in America is all about.
  There have been 118,000 hate crimes since 1991, but the real key is 
most of the hate crimes go unreported. And they are all shapes and 
sizes. They are for race, they are for gender, and they are for sexual 
orientation. But every single one of these individuals is an American 
who is to be protected under the flag of the United States of America.

  We do not ask citizens what their pedigree is. But if they are under 
this flag, they deserve our protection, and what better vehicle than 
this bill that has been reviewed and reviewed and reviewed and 
reviewed? The FBI knows that there have been hate crimes, and they are 
saddened by the fact that most of these hate crimes are not prevented 
and/or reported.
  Just as we had attacks on churches some years ago because they were 
black churches, and we passed the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996, 
it cured those church crimes because the Federal Government took its 
stand.
  So I would say to my colleagues, understand the connection. What more 
is the United States military than the free and the brave protecting 
with courage any American that is within the boundaries of this Nation, 
giving them the sense that they can walk in dignity so mothers don't 
have to cry over brutalized bodies that are laid upon a fence because 
they are different.
  I would ask my colleagues to oppose this conference motion and vote 
for the Matthew Shepard Hates Crimes Prevention Act so we can stand for 
freedom and bravery.
  At one time lynchings were commonplace in our nation. Nearly 4,000 
African-Americans were tortured and killed between 1880 and 1930. 
During this same period and thereafter, religious groups like Jews and 
the Mormons were also subject to attack because of their beliefs. As we 
all know too well, hate violence against minority groups--most recently 
focused on gay, transgender and Muslim communities--has a long and 
ignominious history that continues even today.
  Bias crimes are disturbingly prevalent and pose a significant threat 
to the full participation of all Americans in our democratic society. 
The FBI has the best national data on reported hate crime, though the 
program is voluntary. Since 1991, the FBI has documented over 118,000 
hate crimes. For the year 2007, the most current data available, the 
FBI compiled reports from law enforcement agencies across the country 
identifying 7,624 bias-motivated criminal incidents that were directed 
against an individual because of their personal characteristics.
  As in the past, racially-motivated bias accounted for more than half 
(50.8%) of all incidents. Religious bias accounted for 1,400 incidents 
(18.4%) and sexual orientation bias accounted for 1,265 incidents--
(16.6%), followed by ethnicity/national origin bias with 1007 
incidents--(13.2%). While these numbers are disturbing, it is important 
to note that, for a variety or reasons, hate crimes are seriously 
under-reported.
  To protect the nation against this hate violence, I have introduced 
Hate Crimes legislation for many many years, with ever increasing 
support. This legislation will provide assistance to state and local 
law enforcement agencies and amend federal law to facilitate the 
investigation and prosecution of violent, bias-motivated crimes. Last 
Congress, this legislation was approved by this Committee and passed 
the House with bipartisan support by a vote of 237-180. Bipartisan 
majorities also voted in favor of hate crime legislation in the 109th, 
108th and 106th Congresses.
  The bill has attracted the support of over 300 civil rights, 
education, religious, and civic organizations (including the LCCR, HRC 
and ADL). Importantly, virtually every major law enforcement 
organization in the country has endorsed the bill--including the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National District 
Attorneys Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the Police 
Executive Research Forum, and 31 state Attorneys General.
  Despite the deep impact of hate violence on communities, current law 
limits federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to incidents directed 
against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color or national 
origin--but only when the victim is targeted because he/she is engaged 
in a federally protected activities, such as voting. Further, the 
statutes do not permit federal involvement in a range of cases where 
crimes are motivated by bias against the victim's perceived sexual 
orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. The federal 
government must have authority to be involved in investigating and 
prosecuting these crimes when state authorities cannot or will not do 
so.
  This legislation will strengthen existing federal law in the same way 
that the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 helped federal prosecutors 
combat church arson: by addressing the unduly rigid jurisdictional 
requirements under federal law. The bill only applies to bias-motivated 
violent crimes and does not impinge public speech, religious 
expression, or writing in any way. In fact, the measure includes an 
explicit First Amendment free speech protection for the accused modeled 
on the existing Washington state hate crimes statute.
  State and local authorities currently prosecute the overwhelming 
majority of hate crimes and will continue to do so under this 
legislation. The federal government will continue to defer to state and 
local authorities in the vast majority of cases; the Attorney General 
or other high ranking Justice Department official must approve any 
prosecutions undertaken pursuant to this law, ensuring federal 
restraint.
  However, in appropriate circumstances, the federal government will be 
able to provide support for local prosecutions--an intergovernmental 
grant program created by this legislation will make Justice Department 
technical, forensic or prosecutorial assistance available. The 
legislation also authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to 
state and local law enforcement agencies that have incurred 
extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and 
prosecution of hate crimes.
  The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 is a 
constructive and measured response to a problem that continues to 
plague our nation. Hate crime statistics do not speak for themselves. 
Behind each of the statistics is an individual or community targeted 
for violence for no other reason than race, religion, ethnicity, sexual 
orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.
  Law enforcement authorities and civic leaders have learned that a 
failure to address the problem of bias crime can cause a seemingly 
isolated incident to fester into wide spread tension that can damage 
the social fabric of the wider community. This problem cuts across 
party lines, and I am glad to be joined by so many of my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle in supporting this legislation today. These are 
crimes that shock and shame our national conscience and should be 
subject to comprehensive federal law enforcement assistance and 
prosecution.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, the gentlelady from Texas makes a good point 
when she references the fact that Americans understand a mother's love, 
and they also understand a few other things. First of all, they 
understand fairness. They understand it is not fair when only two 
individuals get to make a choice that impacts all of America as opposed 
to having a bill voted on on its own merits.
  They also understand when there is always this disconnect between the 
rhetoric over here--what's the problem--and the solution or the fix 
over here, and the huge disconnect between the two. And they also 
understand, Mr. Speaker, just something that so often it just seems 
that there is a dearth of here, and that is common sense. Because if 
the speakers keep coming up and saying how overwhelmingly this bill has 
support and would pass, why don't they bring it in a separate bill? Why 
do they have to go through this subterfuge of the process of putting it 
on a bill that clearly isn't germane?
  I would like to just respond to the question that was raised: What 
better vehicle? This legislation has never been under the jurisdiction 
of the Armed Services Committee. It has always come under the 
jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, and the reason is because the 
proper vehicle is a vehicle that goes through the Judiciary Committee 
and is a separate bill.
  I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. SKELTON. Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, under the new title 18 of 
United States Code section 1389, one of the classifications is 
Prohibition on Attacks on U.S. Servicemen on Account of Service.
  Let me also point out this legislation includes the Brownback 
amendment which fully protects religious speech under the First 
Amendment, which says that nothing in this bill will burden religious 
speech or expression, including sermons from the pulpit on Sundays.
  I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
  Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you, Chairman Skelton.

[[Page H10482]]

  I rise today in opposition to the minority's motion to instruct. As 
my colleagues know, hate crimes are acts of violence, motivated by hate 
and prejudice in which the victim is selected and targeted based upon a 
characteristic, such as their race, their religion, sexual orientation, 
or gender identity. Hate crimes have the consequence of harming not 
only their victims, but also all who share the same characteristics as 
the victim. Whole communities are terrorized by hate crimes.
  In 1968 in response to horrific hate-based violence in our country, 
cross burnings, lynchings, fire bombings and the like, Congress acted 
to protect people who were targeted for violence on the basis of their 
race, color, religion, and national origin by passing our Nation's 
original hate crimes laws.
  In April of this year, the House passed the Local Law Enforcement 
Hate Crimes Act of 2009 by a strong and bipartisan margin, 
strengthening our response to this form of domestic terrorism by adding 
protections for people targeted for violence because of their gender, 
disability, gender identity, or sexual orientation. We sought to add 
these new categories to the hate crimes statutes because of a history 
and a pervasive pattern of heinous violent crimes committed against 
individuals because of these characteristics. Yet the Local Law 
Enforcement Hate Crimes Act of 2009 is not yet law, and this motion to 
instruct would prevent it from becoming law, despite the support of the 
majority of the House and the majority in the other body and President 
Obama.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to share with you a few reasons why I believe 
this legislation must urgently be signed into law. I am thinking today 
of Angie Zapata, an 18-year-old transgender woman who was brutally 
murdered in Greeley, Colorado, last summer. Angie's killer beat her to 
death. Thankfully, Angie's killer was brought to justice under a State 
hate crimes law, but we know with staggering frequency, those who 
commit similar acts of violence and murder based on hate are not.
  I think of Lawrence King, a 15-year-old in Oxnard, California. Larry 
had suffered harassment from his peers and then was killed by a 14-
year-old classmate because of his sexual orientation and gender 
identity.
  And I think today of Matthew Shepard who was brutally attacked by his 
homophobic assailants and left to die on a fence in Wyoming 10 years 
ago. Matthew's death generated international outrage by exposing the 
violent nature of hate crimes and the horrific effect upon targeted 
communities. And I think of the thousands of other victims of brutal 
hate crimes. The Department of Justice reported that over 1,500 
Americans were victims of hate crimes based on sexual orientation in 
the year 2007.
  Americans across the country, young and old alike, must hear Congress 
clearly affirm that hate-based violence targeting gays and lesbians and 
transgender individuals, women, and people with disabilities will not 
be tolerated.
  Mr. Speaker, the arguments have been made, the evidence has been 
proffered, and, sadly, lives have been lost that more than justify this 
legislation becoming law. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against 
this motion to instruct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will note the gentleman from 
Missouri has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Virginia has 
14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to what the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri said a moment ago, who is my dear 
friend and I hope will be my dear friend after today as well. He 
mentioned that this bill has a protection for individuals who were 
addressing their religious beliefs, and he mentioned that the Brownback 
amendment had been part of this, as I understood his referencing. In 
point of fact, the Brownback amendment nor the Leahy addition to the 
Brownback amendment contained what this report language says, which is 
this, Mr. Speaker. It says that they will be protected unless the 
government demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is 
in furtherance of a compelling government interest.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't think most people across the country are going 
to trust that language to their religious protections, and I will just 
give you an example. The Constitution, which has no such limitations, 
also protects our right to freedom of religion, and yet 2 weeks ago we 
saw the government haul into Federal court for criminalization a 
principal who had worked in a school system 30 years and an athletic 
director for 40 years because of their great sin that they had a 
compelling government interest against, that they dared to ask a 15-
second blessing over a meal.

                              {time}  1815

  And for that they went through an all-day hearing with the threat of 
6 months in jail, a $5,000 fine, and losing retirement benefits for 30 
to 40 years. So I would just suggest, Mr. Speaker, this language is not 
nearly as protective as the Brownback amendment or the additional 
modifications in the Senate. And again, the only shot we have to change 
it will be right here, because the report's being written, and when it 
comes back it's going to be a take-it-or-leave-it basis. I hope that we 
will offer this instruction to the conferees.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield 4 minutes to my friend, my colleague, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
motion to instruct conferees. For too long we have debated whether this 
Nation should take a stand against the scourge of hate crimes, crimes 
of violence in which the victim has been singled out because of who he 
or she is. It is remarkable that at this late date this should remain a 
controversial idea. The idea that someone could be singled out for a 
crime of violence because of his or her actual or perceived race or 
religion or color or gender or sexual orientation or gender identity or 
disability is simply disgusting. These crimes are real and they're all 
too frequent. That is a fact. It is not, as some would have you 
believe, a hoax.
  Here are the most recent statistics from the FBI. In 2007 there were 
7,621 violent hate crimes, 51 percent because of racial bias, 18 
percent because of religious bias, 17 percent sexual orientation bias, 
13 percent because of ethnicity or national origin bias, and 1 percent 
because of a bias against a disability. Those are real Americans being 
victimized because of who they are and not for anything they did. And 
when you victimize someone for who they are you are terrorizing an 
entire community. It sends a clear and unmistakable message that 
members of that group are not safe in your community. It extends well 
beyond the individual victim.
  This House has already spoken clearly. On April 29 of this year, a 
bipartisan majority voted by a margin of 248-175 to pass this 
legislation. I do not believe that Members of this House will now turn 
their backs on that historic vote. If you believe it was right to vote 
for this legislation, then you know you have the chance to make it law 
and to make history. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act will in no way 
undercut the other purposes of this Defense bill. In fact, by 
protecting all Americans from the scourge of violent hate crime, we 
will be making everyone more secure.
  A new section added by the Senate prescribes severe penalties for 
anyone assaulting a member of our military or destroying their property 
because of that person's being a member of the Armed Forces. I happen 
to think that's an important addition. I hope there won't be a single 
Member of this House who will fail to support that provision against 
hate crimes against the military. I certainly think it belongs in this 
bill. I also want to be sure everyone understand that this bill 
contains express safeguards against prosecutions based on someone's 
speech or religious beliefs. This legislation applies only to acts of 
violence.
  And despite the statement a moment ago, the fact that somebody 
ignorantly arrested someone against the law and that the charges were 
subsequently dismissed says nothing about the validity of the law. 
Every crime requires that the government prove some element of intent, 
and we punish crimes differently based on the criminal's intent. 
Shooting someone as a crime of passion is not treated the same way as 
shooting someone in a murder-for-hire

[[Page H10483]]

scheme, and it is certainly not the same as an accidental shooting. The 
law makes these distinctions, as it should. This does not make murder 
for hire a thought crime. Society simply judges such crimes more 
harshly, and it is right that we do so. It is the same with hate 
crimes. These are particularly disgusting crimes and they deserve to be 
treated differently than other assaults or murders. I realize that not 
everyone believes this, but there is a growing social consensus on this 
point, both in the States and at the national level.
  For many years this Congress sat on its hands and refused to pass 
anti-lynching laws. Many of the same arguments we heard then against 
anti-lynching laws we are hearing now against this provision. It was a 
disgrace then. It is a disgrace now. It was a disgrace that we did not 
act then. It would be a disgrace if we do not act now. It would be a 
disgrace if we pass this motion to instruct conferees. I urge rejection 
of this motion.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from New York is 
very conversant on this topic, as well he should be, because he sits on 
the Judiciary Committee, where this legislation normally comes, and I 
think that's where it properly should be. However, I would suggest two 
things. First of all, that the very rule of law that will be needed to 
enforce these provisions becomes meaningless when you look at the 
administration's refusal to comply with the law to even give the 
information needed to vote on this conference report, as they did by 
refusing to give the shipbuilding plan and the certification of the 
aviation plan and the certification.
  And then to make the statement that the fact that someone improperly 
charges someone says nothing about the law misses the whole chilling 
effect that that has. When you have that possibility out there, many 
individuals are then very concerned about exercising their rights 
because they're concerned even if it's improperly, that the government 
will come in and do something that they're going to have to spend 
thousands and thousands of dollars and have that hanging over their 
head just to prove what they should never have had to prove.
  Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. I have no more speakers, but I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I have sat here and listened to this debate, 
and I've heard all kinds of reasons why the hate crimes bill is so 
wonderful. But the more they make the argument, the more confusing the 
question becomes. If this bill is so wonderful, why don't we bring it 
to the floor and just vote on it and pass it? Why, instead, are we 
going to stick this bill together with a bill for funding our national 
defense? The two don't belong together. They're not in the same 
committee. They have nothing to do with each other. What they have in 
common though is the fact that, instead of taking a straight-up vote, 
what we're going to do is we're going to hold everybody who depends on 
national defense, the people such as myself, who has a son going to 
Afghanistan in 3 weeks, they're going to hold us hostage.
  We're going say, look, if you want to fund the national defense of 
the United States of America, you're also going to have to vote for 
this hate crimes bill. And one thing that my good friend from Virginia 
has made clear, and that is the public is starting to see through the 
shenanigans that go on in this place. And this is an extremely 
frustrating situation. It wasn't so many weeks ago that at 3 o'clock in 
the morning we passed a 300-page amendment to a bill that we were 
discussing the next day, and there wasn't even a copy of that bill in 
this Chamber, the cap-and-tax bill.
  And here we are, again, with a bill which is on national defense. 
It's actually a fairly decent bill on national defense, and we're going 
to stick on this something that has nothing to do with it. I could 
speak on hate crimes, but the point of the matter is if everybody's 
who's saying hate crimes is such an important piece of legislation, 
let's bring it up on its own bases. Let's see if it will stand on its 
own base.
  No, instead what we're going to do is we're going to sneak it 
through, and we're going to put it in so that anybody who wants to vote 
for national defense now is stuck having to support hate crimes. This 
is not the way this House should be run. The American public doesn't 
like to care about procedure, but they're getting fed up with this.
  Mr. SKELTON. How much time do I have remaining, please?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 5 minutes remaining, and 
the gentleman from Virginia has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon) for his efforts in the Defense authorization 
bill this year. It's important that I do so because he's been a great 
partner. He's been jumping in with both feet as ranking member from the 
day he began serving as ranking member. At a time when the Department 
of Defense is fighting two wars and simultaneously promoting and 
serving America's strategic interests around the world, I'm proud to 
say that our Congress is nearing completion on a strong and effective 
Defense authorization bill.
  The bill that this House approved overwhelmingly on June 25, like its 
Senate counterpart, reflects the Congress' deep commitment in 
supporting American servicemembers and providing the necessary 
resources to keep our Americans safe. Both bills provide our military 
personnel with a 3.4 percent pay raise, an increase of .5 percent above 
the President's request. The House bill also includes a number of 
initiatives to support military families this year, which, of course, 
is the Year of the Military Family. We fully fund the President's 
overall budget request, and worked hard to provide robust funding for 
military training, equipment, maintenance and facilities upkeep.
  The House bill continues the commitment to oversight of the wars in 
Afghanistan and Iraq, which has been a hallmark of our committee, as 
well as personal pride on my behalf. The bill also works to equip and 
modernize our military forces and extend our acquisition reform efforts 
which we passed a substantial bill here earlier this year.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the chairman for yielding. It is certainly 
important to look at the procedure, Mr. Speaker, by which any piece of 
legislation comes to the floor. But I think it's more important to look 
at the substance. And hopefully later this week, this body will have an 
opportunity to work its will on a piece of legislation that strengthens 
our country, that increases what we pay our troops, that improves the 
respect that we show to their families, that protects our country 
against threats, both present and in the future. Now, the purpose of 
what's on the floor right now is to make a procedural point about 
whether or not legislation that deals to protect Americans against hate 
crimes should or should not be included. I believe that should be. And 
I think those who would argue that there's something irregular or 
unfair about that procedure are respectfully incorrect in two respects.
  The first is that before such a provision would be included in the 
final conference report before this House, the House will have to work 
its will on a rule. And if a majority of the Members believe that that 
rule is fair, then we will proceed. If a majority of Members believe 
the rule is not fair, we will not and have a different procedural 
setting. So there will be that opportunity for every Member of this 
House to take his or her position. Secondly, the hate crimes 
legislation has been thoroughly vetted in this Congress in hearings 
before the committees of jurisdiction, in markups in those committees 
and voting sessions in those committees, and on this floor repeatedly. 
There's nothing new, undebated, untested or unusual in the substantive 
legislation that will be before us.
  So I believe that the right thing to do is to proceed with the plan 
that would include this legislation. But frankly, the majority of this 
House will get the chance to work its will as to whether we do that or 
not. I, for one, will be voting to proceed on that basis. Those who 
disagree will have a chance

[[Page H10484]]

to have their day on this floor, and the majority will work its will.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we had one friend across the aisle cite the 
2007 statistics. The trouble is you go back 10 years, 20 years and you 
see that the crimes being conducted, taking place based on any type of 
hatred, are diminishing, so that is not a valid argument. There are no 
limitations on the definitions. There should have been. In committees, 
we tried to get them so pedophiles would be included. But we had 
another friend say, this is only about acts of violence. And as my 
friend here from Virginia pointed out, there is an ``unless'' there. 
And that's where the law principles, 18 U.S.C. 18(a), comes into play. 
If you induce someone to commit a crime, that's the government 
interest; it will be used, and that's why you heard a national 
anchorperson say about the Matthew Shepherd crimes, Gee, I wonder if 
people like James Dobson induced that crime. This is not where we need 
to go in defense of this country.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. SKELTON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, we heard the distinguished gentleman from 
New Jersey essentially say this: It's more important to look at the 
substance of the bill than to worry about the rules. And how many of us 
have been tempted to ask that same question throughout our lives--isn't 
it more important that I look at the end than I consider the means?
  But, Mr. Speaker, I plead with us, be careful when you go there, 
because those rules are designed to protect the majority and to protect 
the minority. And when we start saying, The rules don't matter; the 
process doesn't matter; it's just the end game, we get to where we're 
moving to in this country.
  I want to come back to what the distinguished gentleman, the ranking 
member of the Armed Services Committee from California, said. I didn't 
hear my good friend, the chairman of the committee, correct him--so I 
must assume it's correct--when he said that both of them agreed that 
this legislation should not be in the conference report.
  If in fact that is true, Mr. Speaker, and I have no reason to doubt 
it, then why is it in here? We have to ask, Why place it in here?
  Mr. Speaker, I come back because here's what we're going to hear. 
There's going to be people that come in here and they're going to 
recount over and over again all the great things that are in this bill 
and why can't we just do one thing that shouldn't be in the bill and 
one thing that's wrong.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to come back and I want to tell you a story 
about an individual that I knew 20, 30 years ago. He was a big, 
strapping guy. He was a football player. And I remember talking to him 
years before when I was in college. He had never told me the story.
  One day he came up and he said that he had watched as he came into 
his house when he was a young boy over and over again and his father 
would come in and his father would end up slapping his mother in the 
face and sometimes hitting her. And he would sit there in awe at that 
process, watching it happen. And every time, as the father looked to 
the children, he'd then back off and he would say, Wait a minute. I'm 
sorry. That was a bad thing to do. But remember all the good things 
I've done. Remember, I went to work today and I earned money and I 
brought it in here and I put it on the table so that you could eat. I 
paid for your Christmas presents. I'm saving money for your college 
tuition. Remember the good things and overlook that bad thing.
  And day after day and month after month he watched that, until all of 
sudden he became a senior in high school and he had picked up a lot of 
stature. One day, his father walked into the house and slapped his 
mother. And he stood up and the man turned around to him and said, 
Remember; remember all the good things that I've done. And he started 
recounting them.
  And that young senior reached over and picked up his father and said, 
There aren't enough good things in the world to justify what you've 
done to my mother. And, Mr. Speaker, he looked at the door and he 
opened it and he said, You go out that door and don't ever come back 
again. And that's what his father ended up doing.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say today, all across America, Americans are 
standing up and they're looking at us and they're tired of us walking 
in here and saying, Forget the bad things we're doing. Forget what 
we're doing to America. Remember the good things. Look at this; look at 
this; look at this.
  And one day, I don't know when it's going to come, but they're going 
to stand up with the stature and look us in the eye and they're going 
to say, There aren't enough good things in the world to justify what 
you're doing to America and to my country. There's the door. You go out 
and don't come back.
  Mr. Speaker, I only pray that that comes sooner rather than later so 
that we have a country that they remember.
  This is wrong. I hope that we will pass this motion to instruct.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________