[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10950-10956]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT OF 2009

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I very much appreciate the 
honor of addressing you here tonight on the floor of the House of 
Representatives.
  There is an issue that comes to mind for me immediately. It is the 
reason that I have asked for some time tonight here in this Special 
Order in this hour of privilege that we have. It is a disturbing factor 
that I have experienced, along with a number of others, through a 
markup in the Judiciary Committee last week, and that is this dramatic 
departure from the rule of law, the dramatic departure from the 
Constitution, the dramatic departure from the understanding that 
criminal law in America would be focused on overt acts, not on the 
thoughts that we might divine would be within the heads of the 
perpetrators.
  I'm speaking specifically, Mr. Speaker, about the hate crimes 
legislation that has been pushed through the Judiciary Committee and 
that will arrive here on the floor of the House of Representatives 
tomorrow.
  By the rule, the rules process that has taken place, there were a 
whole series of amendments that were offered in the Judiciary 
Committee. Those who watched the committee will know that the Judiciary 
Committee in the United States House of Representatives is the most 
polarized committee on the Hill. It's the committee that goes out and 
recruits, I'll say, the most hardcore, left-wing people in this 
Congress to advocate for the most hardcore, left-wing--and I'll say--
sometimes unconstitutional, often illogical proposals that might come 
before this Congress to be rammed through the Judiciary Committee but 
not without a legitimate markup. I will concede that point to the 
chairman, Mr. Conyers.
  Many of us offered amendments, but there was a determination to vote 
down, to shoot down and to defeat every constructive amendment that was 
offered before the Judiciary Committee on this so-called ``hate crimes 
legislation,'' Mr. Speaker.
  On Thursday, after a full day Wednesday and a most-of-the-day 
Thursday markup and after that legislation on the so-called ``hate 
crimes'' passed the House Judiciary Committee, it went to the Rules 
Committee, which met today, Mr. Speaker. The Rules Committee's job is 
to also enhance something that is the responsibility of every chairman 
on this Hill, that is the responsibility of you, Mr. Speaker, and that 
is the responsibility of all of those who have gavels in their hands. 
I've spent some time with a gavel in my hand, Mr. Speaker. The job of 
the chairman is to bring out the will of the group. It's not to impose 
the Chair's will on the group. To bring out the will of the group is 
the constitutional act of justice that should come from the hand that 
holds the gavel.
  What happened instead--and perhaps, just perhaps, the hate crimes 
legislation flowed out of the Judiciary Committee reflecting the will 
of the Judiciary Committee, but when it is filtered through the Rules 
Committee--the Rules Committee that sits in judgment upon whether there 
will be amendments that are allowed to be offered here on the floor of 
the House of Representatives or whether there will not and which of 
those amendments might be offered--the Rules Committee has a profound 
responsibility to weigh the proposals and to make a determination that 
this House can work in an expeditious fashion but can still reflect the 
will of the United States House of Representatives.
  That will has been frustrated, Mr. Speaker, because the Rules 
Committee, I'm told, has ruled there will be no amendments on this hate 
crimes legislation, that it will come to the floor under a closed rule 
with no amendments allowed, only the amendments that were offered in 
the Judiciary Committee and by no other Member of Congress. All of 
those who do not sit on the Judiciary Committee will have an 
opportunity to try to perfect this legislation that they call the hate 
crimes legislation but that I call, Mr. Speaker, the thought crimes 
legislation.
  That's at the core of our discussion here this evening, and I'll 
submit that the will of this group, that the will of the United States 
House of Representatives, is directly frustrated by the actions that, I 
believe, are directed from the Speaker's office, by the actions of the 
Chair of the Rules Committee and by the actions of the majority members 
on the Rules Committee who have decided to shut down the amendments 
process and ram through a piece of legislation tomorrow with only 30 
minutes allowed for all of the Members of the United States House of 
Representatives to voice their objections here on the floor of the 
House of Representatives.

[[Page 10951]]

  There will be no amendments allowed, just a voice where there will be 
more than 30 people lined up who will have less than a minute to add 
their words to this, and where there will be no chance to sway the 
opinion of this body, the opinion of this body that is locked in on an 
idea that we're going to have hate crimes legislation in America that 
punishes the thoughts of people who may or may not be perpetrating 
crimes against folks because of their particular, special protected 
status that would be created under this hate crimes legislation.
  I, Mr. Speaker, oppose, and I defy the logic of the people who would 
advocate for such legislation and the very idea that we could divine 
what goes on in the heads of people when they commit crimes.
  I will argue that the history of criminal law in Western civilization 
has always been about the overt act, not about the covert act; about 
the overt act, not about the thought, not about what goes on in the 
head of the perpetrator and certainly not what goes on in the head of 
the victim. We recognize and have for millennia that the value of the 
victim is intrinsic in that each human life has a unique value, a 
unique value that is priceless and sacred. Whether it's a baby who was 
just conceived a moment ago or whether it's someone in the last days or 
hours of his life, we all measure that life equally.
  In fact, former Governor of Pennsylvania Robert Casey said human life 
cannot be measured. It is the measure, itself, against which all other 
things are weighed.
  Yet this hate crimes legislation would weigh it differently. It would 
weigh the life or the health or the physical well-being of an 
individual who fit within this special protected status--the status 
that might be wrapped up in their sexual orientation, their gender 
identity or their gender, itself--of having a special status if it 
happens to fit the list of proclivities that they believe should be 
protected status.
  Now, when you start valuing one person's well-being, one person's 
life differently than that of another, we have deviated dramatically 
from the essence of criminal law and have started ourselves down a path 
by which we're evaluating not as the proponents of the bill--and I will 
say there is the gentlelady from Madison, Wisconsin, whom I 
specifically asked:
  Is this a crime committed, and is it evaluated by what's in the head 
of the perpetrator or by what's in the head of the victim? I think I 
might have misunderstood her, but they corrected me clearly, and they 
said: Well, it's what's in the head of the perpetrator.
  All right. So, if we're going to presume that a crime could be 
committed and if we're going to enhance the penalty, maybe, 10 years or 
maybe as much as life in prison for kidnapping, for example, because 
we're going to judge what goes on in the mind of the perpetrator at the 
time he committed the crime and what provided him the incentive for 
committing that crime, then we're evaluating here by law what goes on 
in the head of the perpetrator.
  But, Mr. Speaker, there's another component of this. This is what 
goes on in the head of the victim as well, because the special 
protected status rests upon not physical characteristics, not immutable 
characteristics--those characteristics that can be independently 
verified and that cannot be willfully changed. No, Mr. Speaker. These 
characteristics are those mutable characteristics, those that reflect 
not just the physicality of the victim but the attitude and what goes 
on in the head of the victim.
  So, for the first time, if this legislation should become law, the 
Federal Government will be punishing and will be acting upon 
legislation that presumes to be able to know what's in the mind of the 
perpetrator and what's in the mind of the victim. It will match those 
two things together and will determine if a crime were committed and, 
if so, how to enhance the penalty. This is a bizarre thing, Mr. 
Speaker.
  This takes me back to the book ``1984'' by George Orwell, written in 
1949, where George Orwell wrote--and I will summarize this because I 
don't exactly have the quote in front of me:
  We don't care about the overt act. We don't care about any overt act. 
What we care about is the thought, because, if you can control the 
thought, you can control the overt act.
  So why would we care about the act, itself, when we could control the 
thought? By the way, we're not going to be satisfied if you just simply 
agree with us. You must do so willingly. We must bring your mind around 
to the point where you're eager to agree with us. When that point 
comes, there will be no more overt acts that we disagree with, and 
therefore, we will have controlled the mind, and by controlling the 
mind, we've controlled the actions, themselves.

                              {time}  2045

  This is a bald-faced effort to enforce public affirmation for 
behaviors that have been considered to be historically aberrant 
behaviors by the American Psychological Association, Mr. Speaker. There 
is a long list of them. The list that I have is 547 of them long. As 
near as I can determine, they're all specially protected activities or 
thought processes that are protected under this hate crimes 
legislation, Mr. Speaker.
  We tried mightily to amend the bill and to try to bring some sense to 
this idea that whatever the proclivity, it was going to be protected by 
a Federal hate crimes law. We can't cross that line, Mr. Speaker. We've 
got to maintain criminal penalties for the overt act, not for the 
thought, because we can't know what goes on in the mind of the 
perpetrator, and we can't know what goes on in the mind of the victim.
  Mr. Speaker, that opens this subject matter up, and I recognize that 
there are some very effective Members of the House of Representatives 
that would like to address this subject matter. And no matter how 
focused they may be on preparing themselves, I would be so happy to 
recognize the gentleman from Texas who is my good friend, Mr. Gohmert, 
for as much time as he may consume.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I thank my friend from Iowa. You have pointed out some 
real problems and real issues with this hate crimes bill.
  We are constantly being told there is an epidemic of hate crimes in 
America. You look at the statistics, and there are actually fewer 
crimes now attributed to any type of bias and prejudice than there were 
10 years ago. Another problem is the States, every one, have laws to 
deal with crimes against a person. That is a State obligation, and 
every State has their own. And it's governed by the State law. And most 
States have a hate crime law.
  This is the Federal Government, the Big Brother that Orwell talked 
about, coming into the thoughts of every individual.
  Now we've been told that this bill will protect constitutional 
speech. It will protect religious speech. But that breaks down when 
they have to admit that, well, of course, if it's religious or 
constitutionally protected speech that is relevant to the underlying 
offense, then, of course, it is not protected.
  Well, you can't take this new law in a vacuum because 18 U.S.C. 2(a) 
still exists, and it will exist if this becomes law. Some people who 
are not lawyers talk about it referring to accessories, but it is not. 
In legal circles, it's called the law of principals. And under Federal 
law, 18 U.S.C. 2(a), if you aid or encourage, counsel--and here's a big 
verb--or induce someone to commit a crime, then it is as if you are the 
one who committed a crime. It's called the law of principals. You 
induce someone else to commit a crime, you might as well have pulled 
the trigger or done it yourself.
  So with that law existing and not going away when we pass the hate 
crimes bill, if heaven forbid it gets passed, then how do you go about 
inducing someone to commit a hate crime? Well, you'd probably have to 
tell them that an activity is wrong.
  There are preachers, rabbis, imams across this United States of 
America all this week who will be telling people that there are certain 
types of sexual immorality that the Bible, the Tenach, the Koran, say 
are wrong. Well, if you're telling people that an activity is

[[Page 10952]]

wrong and it hurts the moral fabric of the country and it undermines 
our moral authority in this Nation--and perhaps you even quote from the 
Bible or the Torah or the Koran where it talks about Sodom being 
destroyed because of the activity of those, that it got so bad that the 
people residing there even wanted to have sexual relations with two 
male angels that were sent, well, that, in both the Bible and the 
Torah, Tenach--where this is discussed--in the Koran, the same story is 
discussed in the Koran, you explain to people that God got so upset 
about this he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Even today, you cannot find 
remnants of Sodom and Gomorrah. And you tell people that God feels so 
strongly about this that he's destroyed a city and you can't even find 
any remnants of the people or the cities.
  And someone goes out--even though you have never encouraged 
violence--commits a violent act and says, Well, my preacher, my rabbi, 
my imam told me that this was wrong and it caused the destruction of a 
city and that really is what induced me to do this, you don't think the 
preacher, the rabbi or the imam would be arrested for inducing that 
crime? Of course.
  You can go even further. I can hear a prosecutor with a bent towards 
this kind of hate crime stuff going forward and saying, You know, we 
heard this preacher talking about homosexuality being wrong. That 
preacher should know that there are crimes of violence being carried 
out against homosexuals around the country that have gone on--even 
though they are lower in number than they were 10 years ago--they 
should know that and therefore since they are saying it's wrong, that 
stirs up all kinds of hard feelings. He should know he's inducing 
people to create crimes of violence. Therefore, we've got to stop him. 
He's attempting to induce a Federal hate crime.
  This is serious stuff, because that's where you go. And the 
prosecutor could then say, ``Look. Yes, we arrested the preacher; yes, 
we booked him into jail, and yes, it is a question of intent. Did he 
intend to induce the crime? Well, I am going to leave that question for 
a jury to decide.'' You can hear that said by many prosecutors around 
the country on other issues: ``Look, I am not God. We will allow a jury 
to decide this question of fact on whether or not he intended to induce 
the crime.''
  So getting back to basics, though, there is no epidemic. And as my 
friend from Iowa knows, in discussion, in debate in the committee and 
outside the committee, we've said, ``Now, what are the cases that 
justify the Federal intervention into this State law area?''
  We're told what about James Byrd, that horrible case down in Jasper 
where this poor African American was drug to death by white guys, three 
of them. Two were most culpable. That justifies a Federal hate crime? 
No, it doesn't. Those two guys that were most culpable got the death 
penalty. This bill doesn't even offer the death penalty as a penalty. 
This bill wouldn't affect that case. The other guy got life in prison. 
This bill wouldn't affect that case at all.
  Some have mentioned the terrible case regarding Nicholas West. From 
accounts, he was a sweet young man. He was picked as a victim because 
he was homosexual. Brutalized, kidnapped, killed. That was in my home 
county. The perpetrators have already been sentenced to death and the 
death sentence has been carried out. This case would not be affected.
  Now, everyone in America deserves protection of the law. We get in 
trouble when we begin to carve out little special groups here and there 
that deserve more protection than someone else. You think a pregnant 
mother does not deserve the protection of a homosexual? You think a 
military member doesn't deserve the protection of a transvestite? You 
think that a particular child wouldn't deserve the protection of a 
transvestite, a transgender person? Why are we carving this out? They 
are protected under the law.
  You know, there are those of us who believe the biblical teaching 
about homosexuality being inappropriate, but I've sentenced people for 
harming a homosexual because they deserve to be protected under the 
law. It doesn't matter who you are, it doesn't matter who you sleep 
with, you deserve to be protected, and we do our country a great 
injustice when we begin to say these deserve more protection than these 
over here.
  But when we discuss sexual orientation--we brought that up in 
committee, and we were told, Well, it doesn't need a definition. For 
one thing, it's defined in another law in the Hate Crimes Statistical 
Act. Well, it was defined in that law as only including heterosexuality 
and homosexuality. We said, All right. If you think it's confined to 
that, why don't you put that definition in here?
  ``No, we don't need to do that.'' Well, you do.
  I have been an appellate judge. You want to review what a definition 
of any word or phrase means in a bill? First, you look to see if it's 
defined, and if it's not defined, is there any direction to other laws 
within that bill that tells you, for the purpose of this law, what the 
definition is. They didn't want to do that. They didn't want to refer 
to the Hate Crime Statistical Act.
  And yet here on page two of the bill, we've got other definitions. 
Crime of violence has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 
18, U.S. Code. Hate crime has the meaning given such term in 28003(a) 
of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Over here--I 
believe it's page 12--it talks about another definition of explosive or 
incendiary device has the meaning given such term in section 232 of 
this title. Firearm has the meaning given such term in 921(a) of this 
title.
  Why wouldn't you define sexual orientation? You should. Because the 
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV tells us the names of different 
conditions. It talks about all the types of sexual orientation people 
have. There are all kinds of sexual orientations. Some are weird. Some 
are sick. Some will get you put in prison. But if you don't define it, 
they're included.
  My friend from Iowa here, Mr. Speaker, made an amendment trying to 
exclude pedophiles from the protection of sexual orientation here 
because these people are oriented sexually towards children. That was 
voted down. Voted down. You know, you want to give pedophiles the 
protection, this extra protection you're not willing to give a pregnant 
women or a child or a mother or military? This is incredible. But 
that's what they did.
  It creates the scenario, too, of other types of sexual orientation. 
Some are oriented toward exhibitionism. Some are oriented sexually 
toward voyeurism. This bill sets up the incredible scenario where a 
woman could see a man flash her and she is astounded, hits him with her 
purse, and takes off running. Under that scenario, if this became law, 
the flasher committed a misdemeanor and the woman that hit him with a 
purse--because he's oriented sexually towards exhibitionism--is now a 
Federal felon looking at 10 years in prison. That is insane. This makes 
no sense.

                              {time}  2100

  One other thing, though, as a judge dealing with different types of 
defendants, hearing all kinds of psychiatric testimony, psychological 
testimony, and just dealing with different defendants on thousands of 
cases, what struck me in what I heard was that people that are the 
hardest to rehabilitate are those who are antisocial personalities 
under the DSM-IV. They are harder to rehabilitate than people who act 
out of a bias or prejudice. And yet this bill says we are going after 
the people who are probably the most easy to rehabilitate and make them 
suffer more, if that's possible--you can't make anybody suffer more 
than the death penalty--but we are going to make them suffer more than 
someone who commits a crime out of bias or prejudice. It makes no 
sense.
  Antisocial personalities, they know the difference between right and 
wrong, they could control their conduct, but they choose to do wrong. 
Many antisocial personalities like to hurt people. This bill, the way 
it is drafted and the way we are going to vote on it tomorrow--because 
we were not allowed one single amendment to

[[Page 10953]]

come to the floor--creates the scenario where someone could be arrested 
for a hate crime in this bill, brought to Federal court, have a jury 
selected, put in the box, the trial go forward, and the defendant 
convince the jury that he committed the act of violence causing bodily 
injury to the defendant randomly--he didn't care who he hurt, he was 
gonna hurt somebody. And if he is successful in raising a reasonable 
doubt that he committed the crime randomly and he had no bias or 
prejudice, he just wanted to hurt somebody, under this bill that we 
vote on tomorrow, he is acquitted. That is insane. That is insane.
  We are going to let the random, senseless killer, abuser, brutalizer 
go free under this bill? We need to pass laws that make sense. We need 
to pass laws that say every life in America is important. But this 
doesn't do that.
  What saddens me greatly is that the bottom line of this hate crimes 
bill is--this is the message that goes out from this hate crimes bill 
we will vote on tomorrow--if you are going to hurt me, shoot me, 
brutalize me, please don't hate me; make it a random senseless act of 
violence. That is what this says. And that is why this should not 
become law.
  I thank my friend from Iowa and yield back.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, and I very much thank the 
gentleman from east Texas for his clarity with his understanding of 
this legislation.
  I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that I have sat with our 
committee staff, sat with my own staff. I have gone through this 
language. I have looked for a way that there is a consistent index 
between the definition that is in this legislation and understanding 
what it does. It doesn't exist. It is ambiguous. It is ambiguous, and 
it runs, actually, in contradiction to the existing statute that it 
references that the gentleman from Texas spoke to; one of them is a 
crime of violence definition, and the other one is a hate crime 
definition.
  But also, the definition that is in the bill for gender identity, 
when I asked the question what is gender identity, and the answer that 
I received back in committee from the gentlelady from Madison, 
Wisconsin, was ``it is defined in the bill.'' Don't you know? Well, it 
is defined in the bill. Gender identity means ``actual or perceived 
gender-related characteristics.''
  I am this Midwestern guy. We have a number of different kinds of 
fence posts; some of them are hedge posts, some are cedar posts, some 
are pine, creosote, pressure-treated. Some are steel, T-posts, round 
posts. You name them, we've got them. We've got electric fence posts as 
well. We have a whole different bunch of varieties.
  Now, if I would define a fence post as ``actual or perceived 
characteristics of a fence post,'' you get the idea what the definition 
of gender identity is when it is the actual or perceived gender-related 
characteristics. It is no definition at all. And this definition will 
be defined by lawyers and judges, some activists, some that want to 
adhere to the law. None, if this legislation is passed, would be able 
to go back and track the definitions in this legislation and determine 
the intent of Congress, except to offer ambiguities that can be used at 
any extent.
  And what a couple of the other ambiguities are; crime of violence 
means the threatened use of physical force against the person or 
property of another. But the bill doesn't say property, it says the 
person. But the definition in the bill says person or property.
  A hate crime means a crime in which the defendant intentionally 
selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property is 
the object of the crime, but the bill doesn't say property, it says a 
person that possesses these special protected characteristics--which 
makes them sacred cows in this society. And, Mr. Speaker, I, perhaps, 
will expand that thought of sacred cows, but I am much more interested 
in hearing from the gentlelady from Minnesota, who has arrived on the 
floor tonight to fill us in on her view of the hate crimes legislation.
  I would be so happy to yield as much time as may be consumed by the 
gentlelady from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I want to thank so much my colleague, Steve King from 
Iowa--the ``stunning'' Steve King of Iowa, as he is known in the 
mainstream media, so grateful for your advocacy, and also for that of 
Judge Gohmert. And Judge Gohmert, I trust that you're a hanging judge 
down in the State of Texas.
  I just wanted to have a chance to speak just for a few moments on 
this hate crimes legislation. It truly is momentous, this rule that we 
will take up tomorrow.
  First of all, I just want to say, from my perspective, this appears 
to me easily to fit the definition of an unjust law. Why do I say that? 
Because this will bring to Americans more loss of freedom, more loss of 
rights than we have seen leave in this first 100 days here in Congress 
because it goes to the very heart of the Bill of Rights. When the 
Founders passed the Constitution, they would only pass it on one 
condition, and that is that the Bill of Rights would be passed next.
  This is the very first amendment--what many consider the most 
important amendment--our First Amendment right. And contained in that 
First Amendment right is the freedom of speech and expression of 
religious affiliation. And this goes to the heart of taking away 
American's right to speech and expression and sincerely held religious 
beliefs.
  I feel that this hate crimes legislation in some ways could be 
considered the very definition of tyranny because it gives government 
literally the key over deciding what the thoughts of Americans should 
be. And it says that Americans could only hold certain opinions and not 
others, and they can only express certain opinions and not others. 
Otherwise, it would be seen as a criminal act.
  And I think back over this last century of world history, and I think 
of nations where they called certain expressions of speech not only 
hateful, but criminal. And that is what this bill does, it regulates 
speech. Government regulates speech. And it just seems that it is one 
more chink resulting in the loss of American freedom.
  This bill, if it passes tomorrow, will have to be considered then a 
part of President Obama's 100-day legacy. And on his watch, if he 
chooses to sign this bill--and from all indications it appears he 
will--this will lay the foundation to further deny Americans First 
Amendment rights.
  I think it also, we could say, denies equal protection under the law. 
If you have an individual going through a crosswalk and a person is in 
their car and they hit that person in the crosswalk, it is up to the 
person who is hit to file the charge if it was a hate crime or not. So 
if the person is gay, and that is the status that is being protected, 
and the person driving the car is straight, would it be a hate crime if 
the person driving the car who is straight hit the person who is gay in 
the crosswalk? So does it say, then, that that life that was hit in the 
crosswalk is more valuable because it was a gay life versus if the 
person who was in the car, who is gay, who hits the person in the 
crosswalk, who is straight, does that mean that the straight person in 
the crosswalk doesn't have a cause of action against the person who is 
gay who is driving that car? It raises the question of whose life is 
valuable and whose isn't. That is the question that Mr. Gohmert raised 
earlier.
  Who will the government prefer? And who decides who gets protected? 
Are we protecting people on the basis of their behavioral actions; if 
they choose to have certain actions that are sexual in a certain 
manner, they get protected when others don't? Who decides who gets to 
be the good guy in this situation? Who gets to decide who is the bad 
guy in this situation?
  And I would ask this question, is it a moving target? If we give 
government this level of authority, then easily we can see that down 
the road government could amend this hate crimes law to say that now a 
new behavior will be protected.
  One thing that was mentioned by Mr. Gohmert earlier, that was brought 
up by Mr. King, that apparently people who are practicing pedophiles 
would be

[[Page 10954]]

considered protected under this legislation, but not, I understand, 
veterans, not, I understand, pregnant women, not, I understand, 85-
year-old grandmothers would be protected under this law. But who would 
be protected? A pedophile, someone who considers themselves gay, 
someone who considers themselves transgender, someone who considers 
themselves a cross-dresser? That is who is protected.
  And yet, think of the impossibility that we are tasking government 
with. We are asking government to peer into the mind of the individual 
who perpetrated the crime. Government somehow is so wise, so all 
knowing that now government can peer into the mind of the individual 
and can somehow discern if the individual in fact hated the person 
based upon, potentially, what their sexuality is versus the sexuality 
of the person who the crime was being perpetrated against. Won't that 
be a moving target? Depending on what the new behavior of the day--the 
behavior du jour, so to speak--that government approves or won't 
approve?
  Again, I think this is the very definition of tyranny because 
government's arbitrary decision will mean that more Americans will lose 
their First Amendment freedom of speech and expression. And this is 
something, again, that Mr. Gohmert had alluded to earlier. And that is 
when we can look, when this hate crime legislation has been put into 
place across the world, whether it is in Sweden, whether it is in 
Canada, whether it is in other nations, we can see what other nations 
have done with this type of legislation and what it has led to, the 
loss of freedom for individuals, citizens within those countries, and 
the citizens whose speech were protected.
  Then I look at the specter of our own Supreme Court. One of our 
Justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said, again, we need to have more 
Supreme Court Justices in our country look at international laws and 
the laws of other countries when we define our own. Well, our judges 
could look at Sweden, they could look at Spain, they could look at 
Canada. And they could see that pastors and priests who spoke out and 
who just gave sermons behind their pulpit that promoted what the Bible 
says about sexuality--and homosexuality in particular--that was 
construed as a hate crime in Sweden, construed as a hate crime in 
Canada, in Britain, in Spain. And if that is the case, we will not 
allow pastors to even have freedom of speech and expression.
  As a matter of fact, we saw in Britain where there was a collision 
course in the EU Constitution between freedom of speech and expression 
and between exercising religious rights. When that clashed and came 
into contact with the hate crimes portion of the law internationally, 
which provision prevailed? They were both contained in the 
Constitution, hate crimes and religious liberties, hate crimes versus 
freedom of speech and expression. On every occasion, the law that 
prevailed was the hate crimes provision. In every case, the provision 
that lost was the provision that so-called protected a person's right 
of religious belief and expression. Do we think we will fair any 
differently here in the United States? I don't think so.
  I think the collision course that we are on this evening, Mr. 
Speaker, is one that probably should frighten Americans almost more 
than any other. And I say it because there is probably nothing more 
sacred in our Constitution than that very First Amendment that protects 
my conscience. And even if my beliefs or your beliefs or the beliefs of 
people that are listening to us have this debate this evening are 
antithetical to what all of us believe here this evening--someone might 
hold some very hateful beliefs, but we are America, shouldn't they be 
allowed to hold those beliefs? Shouldn't they be allowed to believe, in 
this country, things that are contrary to what government believes? But 
that is not going to be allowed anymore. And people's sincerely held 
religious beliefs can now be considered contrary to public policy. And 
we can see for the first time in our Nation that people would be 
disallowed from having their sincerely held religious beliefs.
  I think we are seeing a little bit of death today in this Chamber. We 
are seeing what our Founders bled and died for go away a little bit 
more in this Chamber tonight. We can hear Patrick Henry. We can hear 
echos of Jefferson, echos of Madison this evening in this Chamber. What 
would Daniel Webster say?

                              {time}  2115

  And as much as they would rail against people assaulting other people 
on the basis of what they believed, certainly they would not elevate to 
a certain level an extra measure of protection for expression of that 
speech.
  I thank the gentleman, I thank Mr. Gohmert, and I thank the 
colleagues who are coming behind me because there is something that we 
should be fighting for. It's fighting for the idea that we are a Nation 
that is founded under God and that we have our rights emanating from a 
God who gave us unalienable rights, and we are losing that right 
tomorrow on this floor if this comes through.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota very much 
for coming here to the floor and, Mr. Speaker, for inspiring the 
families across America to understand what's going on here in the 
United States Congress.
  This is a powerful thing that is happening, and it undermines the 
principles of law that have held together for thousands of years in 
this modern era of special protected status for people based upon their 
self-alleged behavior and what goes on in their minds. This is a 
breathtaking thing that may take place here tomorrow, and I clearly 
oppose it, Mr. Speaker.
  But in the interest of time, I'd be very happy to yield to the 
favorite daughter of Oklahoma, the gentlewoman (Ms. Fallin).
  Ms. FALLIN. Thank you to the gentleman from Iowa. I appreciate your 
hosting this hour tonight for us to discuss a very important issue to 
our Nation and a very important issue to this Congress and this body. 
And I appreciate the words that have been spoken so eloquently by my 
colleagues here tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to address a couple of things in this piece of 
legislation that should give us pause as we look at the intent of this 
legislation, this bill.
  First of all, it would federalize a number of crimes that have 
traditionally been left to the States. Assault is a local crime. So is 
homicide. But under this bill, the Department of Justice would be 
allowed and encouraged to jump into these cases when they met certain 
criteria as a hate crime. The Federal Government does not have 
unlimited resources or even manpower; so do we really want the 
prosecutors, who should be dealing with things like terrorists or 
mobsters, dealing with and debating what a street corner thug may or 
may not have said or may or may not have thought when it comes to a 
mugging? Local law enforcement and local prosecutors, local courts do 
an outstanding job of handling such cases, and Congress should let them 
do their jobs.
  But, second, this bill is also a clear violation of the equal 
protection clause of the 14th amendment. It creates a special class of 
victims. It says one victim is more important than another victim, and 
in doing so, it relegates every other victim to a position of second 
class. Assault is assault, murder is murder, and they are all hate 
crimes, in my opinion. But this bill elevates some victims and 
downgrades others. And this is every bit as unconstitutional as even a 
poll tax might be for this Nation.
  And, third, this bill opens the door to the regulation of speech. And 
this really bothers me. One of our very basic foundations of our 
Nation, one of our very basic ideals of our Nation that we hold so dear 
is the freedom of speech, liberty and justice for all. I have to say I 
do find hate speech very abhorrent. It is childish. It is hurtful. It 
is wrong. But yet this piece of legislation, when you make hate speech 
a special precursor to a criminal act, you're only one step away from 
making speech itself an offense. And then who decides what comment will 
qualify for the hate speech?

[[Page 10955]]

  When you look at some other countries like Canada and Great Britain 
who started out with hate crime laws like this and then they added hate 
speech as a separate offense and then what we find in those countries 
is now that Columnists in those countries must avoid certain subjects. 
Columnists must worry whether a caricature may become a crime.
  And even more troubling is perhaps the way this legislation like this 
also threatens religion and freedom of religion. Should a Christian 
minister or a rabbi or an imam have to worry about what their message 
is maybe if it deals with something like sexuality and that might be 
considered to be hate speech? If so, that would be an unprecedented 
violation of the first amendment rights and a direct below to the 
religious liberty in this country.
  This legislation may be well intentioned, but it also puts this 
country on a very dangerous path. And more importantly, the 
Constitution, as well as a sense of very basic fairness, prohibits the 
elevation of one class of citizens above another.
  All victims deserve justice. All victims deserve equal justice, and 
it should be equally rendered. But this bill is the wrong answer, and I 
want to urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.
  To the gentleman of Iowa, I appreciate you, once again, for allowing 
us the time to discuss a very important issue with our Nation and to 
express our opinions.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I so much thank the gentlewoman from Oklahoma for 
coming to the floor to raise the issue that is so important as this 
House prepares tomorrow to attempt to cross this great divide. This 
great divide from punishing the acts of a crime, the overt acts of a 
crime, to divining what was in the mind of the perpetrator and using a 
definition of what's in the mind presumably of the alleged victim in 
order to come to some conclusion as to how much prison time a person 
deserves for an overt act that can be defined but not the thoughts, Mr. 
Speaker.
  At this point I'd be very happy to yield to the gentleman from South 
Carolina. Since we had a favorite daughter from Oklahoma, I would like 
to introduce a favorite son of South Carolina. The wonderful 
hospitality of South Carolina which I have experienced in every trip I 
have made down there, the Representative of which is Mr. Gresham 
Barrett.
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 
Not only is the gentleman from Iowa a stalwart when it comes to the 
conservative cause in this House, he is a classmate of mine and a dear 
friend. So I certainly thank him for all the fights he has been in in 
the past and will continue to be in in the future.
  H.R. 1913, the Hate Crimes bill, this legislation is wrong and I 
oppose it because it creates a special class of victim, suppresses 
religious freedom, and criminalizes thought.
  I ask you tonight why does Lady Liberty wear a blindfold? Isn't it 
because our Constitution demands equal, not special, but equal 
protection under the law?
  Under this bill, justice will no longer be equal. It will depend on a 
victim's race, gender, or sexual orientation. This legislation would 
allow for different penalties to be imposed for the exact same crime.
  While I'm not a constitutional scholar probably like my friend from 
Iowa, it's abundantly clear to me that this bill would violate the 14th 
amendment by creating a special class of victims who deserve some type 
of special protection under the law. More importantly, I fear this 
legislation would unwind a key thread to our judicial system by placing 
higher value on one life or lifestyle over another.
  In addition to creating a special class of victims, this legislation 
could allow for criminal prosecution of religious leaders or members of 
religious groups who express their beliefs of their respective faiths. 
Pastors, imams, rabbis, people from across the country would now be 
forced to question the legality of the words that they preach. 
Consequently, this bill would inhibit religious freedom in our society. 
A scary thought.
  Unfortunately, constitutionally protected speech is not the only 
freedom jeopardized by the Hate Crimes bill. This legislation would go 
so far as to guess what? Criminalize thought. No matter how fervently 
we disagree with what someone thinks, we cannot punish them for 
thinking it. It is the criminal action that merits swift justice. The 
action, not the thought or the motivation.
  I fear that H.R. 1913 is a step in the wrong direction. When I think 
about justice, I think about justice for all no matter who you are in 
the United States of America. And I would urge all my colleagues 
tomorrow to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1913 because I certainly will be.
  I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding. I thank him for 
weighing in on this fight.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for 
coming to the floor tonight and for addressing this subject matter.
  Mr. Speaker, this so-called Hate Crimes legislation that proposes to 
understand and punish what's in the minds of people who may be 
committing crimes against victims or property, victims or property, Mr. 
Speaker. I don't know how somebody hates somebody else's property 
enough that if they would paint some graffiti on their garage door that 
what goes on in the mind of the person that has committed this act of 
vandalism can be punished with 10 years in the penitentiary but the act 
itself might be, well, let's say, a minimal fine for a misdemeanor of 
vandalism.
  Mr. Speaker, I will lay out some scenarios here so that you and 
everyone else that is listening in can understand, I think, more 
clearly what's ahead of us. I have asked that we put together some 
definitions and these definitions that aren't in the bill, the 
definition that I described a little bit earlier of gender identity, 
when I asked the authors of the bill what is gender identity, they tell 
me, well, it's defined in the bill, don't you know. Defined in the 
bill, don't you know. And it's on page 14, line 24 and 25. Gender 
identity is the ``actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.'' 
And I described it, Mr. Speaker, as describing that, well, what is the 
definition of a fence post? Well, that's an item that has the 
characteristics of a fence post. What's the definition of gender 
identity? Well, that's ``actual or perceived gender-related 
characteristics.''
  This is a lawyer's dream. This is a judge's dream. This is a full-
blown open license to do whatever one will when you get into a criminal 
court of law and argue whatever one will. This is almost intentional 
ambiguity written into legislation, legislation that we tried mightily 
to refine and perfect with definitions and clarity in the Judiciary 
Committee. Each effort was rebutted without a logical, and I repeat 
that, Mr. Speaker, without a logical rebuttal. Just simply: This is our 
bill, it's going to come out of committee the way it came in because we 
have determined that's what it's going to be. And we have exposed so 
many vulnerabilities, so many weaknesses, so many built-in biases, so 
many unjust scenarios in the debate in the committee that lasted 2 days 
that the Speaker of the House and the Chair of the Judiciary Committee 
and whoever else who has something to say about this decided we dare 
not allow one single amendment on the floor of the House of 
Representatives because if we do, it will expose these ambiguities, it 
will expose the bias, it will expose the departure from the hundreds of 
years old tradition and knowledge of what law is.
  Natural rights that come from God, Mr. Speaker. They are reflected 
also in English common law, and they flow through our Declaration, and 
they show up in our Constitution. And they are billed here in this 
Congress for more than 200 years. And we've punished always the overt 
act, not the thought, Mr. Speaker. And this is thought crimes; it's not 
hate crimes. We can't know if someone hates. Someone could commit a 
crime and not know what someone else's gender identity is, for example.
  I will ask again how does one know? Could I go on the streets of 
Madison,

[[Page 10956]]

Wisconsin, and go identify someone that fits this category of sexual 
orientation and discriminate against them? How do I know, Mr. Speaker?
  And here are some of the protected qualifications that exist within 
the language of this bill. Never mind the verbal response was, well, 
no, sexual orientation only includes heterosexuality or homosexuality. 
Nothing else? No, nothing else. The expert from Madison, Wisconsin, 
where they should have some experts, I would think. Heterosexuality or 
homosexuality. It doesn't include bisexuality.

                              {time}  2130

  So anybody on the continuum between extreme heterosexuality and 
extreme homosexuality, anybody that might fit exactly in the middle or 
anyone in the continuum, they would not be part of this definition of 
``sexual orientation'' that is one of the subjects and one of the 
special protected classes of this bill.
  So I look around, and we come up with some definitions for sexual 
orientation. Here is one. This is from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 
and it is sexual orientation. ``One's attraction to and preference in 
sexual partners.''
  That is mental. It is up here. You can't know that. You can't see 
that. You can't tell that. It can't be independently verified. It is 
not an immutable characteristic. It may or may not be willfully changed 
by the person that has a particular sexual orientation, Mr. Speaker. 
That is a mental definition.
  Here is the other physical definition of sexual orientation, and this 
is from the American Heritage Stedman's Medical--medical--Dictionary. 
It says this: ``Sexual activity with people of the opposite sex, the 
same sex or both.'' That is sexual orientation. So it might be the 
thought, it might be the act. It is not a physical characteristic. But 
gender may be a physical characteristic.
  Now, I could go through this and confuse everyone more, and in the 
short period of time I have I will say this: We don't agree on what 
sexual orientation is, whether we are going to be defining it from the 
Merriam-Webster Dictionary or from the American Heritage Stedman's 
Medical Dictionary. They are two different things.
  But if you look at the paraphilias that are produced by the American 
Psychology Association, here is what they have. And ``paraphilia'' is a 
powerful and persistent sexual interest other than typical sexual 
behavior. They have 547 specific sexual orientation proclivities, all 
of which are specially protected in this legislation, Mr. Speaker.
  Here is another definition for sexual orientation. ``Refers to 
feelings and self-concept, not behavior.'' But it might be behavior, 
because we know that the American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary 
says it is a behavior.
  But here is a list of the particular paraphilias, you might call them 
proclivities, you might call them some other things, that are specially 
protected in this bill under the broad definition of sexual 
orientation. Some of these I just simply can't say here on this floor.
  Asphyxophlia. That would be a fixation with, a proclivity for 
strangulation, starvation for oxygen.
  Autogynephilia. That is someone who sees themselves as someone of the 
opposite sex, a man seeing himself as a woman or vice versa.
  Bisexuality, which was defined in the committee as not part of it, is 
part of sexual orientation.
  It goes on. I have a more concise list over here, Mr. Speaker, and 
that goes down the line of exhibitionism; incest; partialism, which is 
an obsession with a specific body part; masochism; sadism; scatalogia, 
that is obscene phone calls; toucherism, which is, you can imagine, 
someone who gropes; voyeurism; bestiality. The list of these things go 
on and on and on.
  I offered the amendment, Mr. Speaker, that would have at least 
eliminated and given us a start, eliminated pedophilia. But pedophiles 
are specifically protected under this hate crimes legislation. 
Everything you can imagine is under there, every proclivity, every 
paraphilia is specially protected under this hate crimes legislation.
  It makes a Federal crime out of something that has been a local 
crime, and they reach across the lines of logic in an unconstitutional 
fashion to define acts against these proclivities as Federal crimes.
  So imagine this. Let's just say you were in Chicago, the President's 
hometown, and there are folks all in there at a sports bar watching a 
White Sox game versus the Cubs, or an inter-league game perhaps, Mr. 
Speaker. And let's just understand that there is some friction involved 
between White Sox fans and Cubs fans, and they start to hurl some 
expletives and start to call each other some names and start to make 
some presumptions about the other side, the other fans, about what 
their particular proclivities might be. And someone throws a beer or an 
ashtray and pretty soon they get in a fight, and you have got 15 people 
on one side that are Cubs fans, 15 people on the other side who are 
White Sox fans, all of whom have been called some kind of name about 
their particular paraphilias or proclivities, and we have now a Federal 
hate crimes brawl on our hands that can enhance the penalties beyond 
that imagined by the aldermen of Chicago, the local jurisdiction that 
might be there.
  It brings the Feds in to deal with this, to sort this all out, 
because we are going to imagine what is in the minds of these people 
that are Cubs fans and White Sox fans, and I for one can't imagine what 
would be in the mind of a White Sox fan.

                          ____________________