[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11068-11079]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1913, LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HATE 
                     CRIMES PREVENTION ACT OF 2009

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 372 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 372

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     1913) to provide Federal assistance to States, local 
     jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, 
     and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary 
     now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions of the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour and 20 minutes of debate equally divided 
     and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on the Judiciary, who may yield control of 
     blocks of that time; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman, my 
friend from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx. All time yielded during 
consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

[[Page 11069]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 372 provides a closed rule for consideration of 
H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 
2009.
  This legislation is a vital step towards bringing the full protection 
of the law to those targeted for violent, bias-motivated crimes simply 
because of who they are. This bill expands the Federal hate crimes law 
to include protections for crimes directed at individuals because of 
their gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.
  These crimes are designed to intimidate entire communities on the 
basis of personal and immutable characteristics. All of us in this 
Chamber know that hate crimes tear the fabric of our society and 
fragment communities because they target an entire community or group 
of people, not just the individual victim.
  This legislation makes important new changes to Federal civil rights 
law by providing new Federal authority for investigating and 
prosecuting criminal civil rights violations. It authorizes the 
Attorney General to provide assistance in the criminal investigation or 
prosecution of violent crimes motivated by prejudice based on the 
actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, 
sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of the victim.
  This bill spans interstate lines by establishing uniform Federal 
protections against hate crimes as a backdrop to existing laws in every 
State. It directs the Attorney General to give priority for assistance 
to cases in which offenders have committed crimes in more than one 
State and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the 
extraordinary expenses associated with investigations and prosecutions.
  This bill makes it a Federal criminal offense to cause or attempt to 
cause bodily harm through the use of fire, firearms, or explosive 
devices against a person due to bias-driven violence.
  These provisions enhance our country's 233-year tradition of 
protecting liberty, freedom, and acceptance by protecting and 
recognizing the human dignity of every person. No person should live in 
fear of violence because of who they are.
  Some have criticized this legislation by claiming that the hate 
crimes bill will infringe upon free speech, somehow turning Federal 
authorities into ``thought police.'' In my view, this is simply not 
true. The hate crime bill adds no new classes of crime. This 
legislation is not about thinking or believing, but acting and harming.
  This legislation strengthens, not weakens, the First Amendment 
freedom of speech protections. It prohibits for use as evidence a 
defendant's speech or association unless specifically related to the 
crime, and this legislation does not disturb constitutionally protected 
speech or associations.
  It is preposterous to argue that this bill criminalizes thoughts and 
beliefs. The bill does not criminalize those who hate or disagree with 
other people or groups of people. It criminalizes acts of violence 
against people based on the victim's characteristics.
  Under current law, the Federal Government's involvement is only 
authorized in those cases in which the victim was targeted because of 
race, color, religion, or national origin. The current protection is 
neither uniform nor comprehensive, and this has important practical and 
symbolic consequences.
  It is vital that the Federal Government send a message to the 
American people that hate crimes committed because of one's sexual 
orientation, gender identity, gender, or disability are as intolerable 
as those motivated by race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion.
  Some also argue that we're federalizing crimes already illegal under 
State laws, providing limited jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute 
bias-motivated crimes. However, Congress has rejected this argument 
repeatedly by passing hundreds of bills that give the Federal 
Government jurisdiction over crimes that States already consider 
illegal.
  From 1995 to 2006, my friends on the other side controlled Congress 
and enacted nearly 100 public laws imposing new Federal criminal 
penalties for conduct that was already under State law and creating 
over 600 new Federal crimes.
  Hate crimes are destructive and divisive. A random act of violence 
resulting in injury or even death is a tragic event that devastates the 
lives of the victim and their family. But the intentional selection and 
beating or murder of an individual because of who they are terrorizes 
an entire community--and sometimes, the Nation.
  It is easy to recognize the difference between the arson of an office 
building versus the intentional torching of a church or synagogue. The 
church or synagogue or mosque burning has a profound impact on the 
congregation, the faith community, the local community, and the Nation. 
We're all affected by violent acts of hatred, and there is ample 
evidence that violent, bias-motivated crimes continue to be a 
widespread and serious problem in our Nation.

                              {time}  1215

  In my home State, the most recent Florida Hate Crimes Report 
published by the Florida Attorney General reported a total of 193 hate 
crimes, 14.5 percent of which were motivated by sexual orientation. 
Additionally, poll after poll continues to show that the American 
public supports hate crimes legislation inclusive of sexual 
orientation. FBI data show 1,265 hate crime incidents directed at gays 
and lesbians in the year 2007 alone, the third most frequent victims 
and over 16 percent of all hate crimes reported that year. And 79 hate 
crime incidents directed at disabled victims were also reported that 
year. And, unfortunately, we know it is widely accepted that hate 
crimes specifically against those with disabilities remain vastly 
underreported. Mr. Speaker, this is clearly a problem that merits the 
passage of an expanded hate crimes law.
  Furthermore, this legislation is endorsed by over 300 law 
enforcement, civil rights, civic and religious organizations including 
the National Sheriffs Association, the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police, National District Attorneys Association, the American 
Civil Liberties Union, the Human Rights Campaign, the Presbyterian 
Church, the Episcopal Church, the NAACP, and the National Disability 
Rights Network.
  Mr. Speaker, this measure would give local law enforcement officials 
important tools to combat violent, bias-motivated crime. Federal 
support, through training and direct assistance, will help ensure that 
bias-motivated violence is effectively investigated and prosecuted. The 
legislation would also facilitate Federal investigations and 
prosecutions when local authorities are unwilling or unable to achieve 
a just result.
  As we consider H.R. 1913 today, let us remember that this hate crimes 
bill is also known as the Matthew Shepard Act, in memory of the 21-
year-old University of Wyoming student who was brutally tortured and 
murdered in 1998 just because he was gay. At the time of his murder 
just a few years ago, no criminal statute existed in Wyoming to charge 
his killers with a hate crime nor was there Federal financial 
assistance available to aid the local authorities in Laramie, Wyoming, 
with investigating and prosecuting his murder.
  The fact of the matter is hate crimes happen every day and we should 
not wait for another Matthew Shepard to ensure justice.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee 
for yielding time to us to be able to discuss this bill, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  The discussion surrounding this bill today will no doubt center on 
the idea of crimes committed out of hate. There will be talk about the 
scourge of violent hate crime, which begs the question: Is there such a 
thing as nonhateful violent crime?

[[Page 11070]]

  But in all the debate over criminal acts, a larger and forgotten 
debate is often left unspoken, and that is the debate over the role of 
free expression in our society. If this bill becomes law, it will have 
a chilling effect on many law-abiding Americans' freedom of expression.
  The robust and healthy exchange of ideas is an American distinction. 
Because we are a land where free expression is one of our cherished 
foundational ideals, we have a long tradition of protecting the speech 
of everyone, from those with the most mainstream ideas to those on the 
fringe. Why do we do this? Because we know that in the end, in a 
healthy marketplace of ideas where the public square allows for an 
airing of all ideas, the best ideas and principles come out on top. In 
a strong marketplace of ideas, an American marketplace, bankrupt ideas 
are destined to fail. We should not live and legislate in fear of 
bankrupt ideas.
  Marginal concepts, bad ideas, and flawed philosophies will always be 
buried beneath the tide of free and democratic expression, where free 
speech protects the individual's right to hold and express an opinion, 
even if such an opinion may be wrong. Holding this ideal is one reason 
why we on the minority side are so distressed that this is a closed 
rule and we are not going to be allowed to offer amendments today 
because we know yesterday from the Rules Committee that some of our 
amendments would garner majority support, and we are very distressed 
about that.
  Ultimately, a healthy public square always has a chilling effect on 
the forces of hatred. But today we are considering a bill that will 
start us down the road towards a public square that is less robust, 
more restrictive, and that will squelch our cherished constitutional 
right to free speech. It will establish a new category of criminal 
activity, which is thought crimes. Today it is the politically correct 
thought crimes, those directed toward certain protected groups, but 
when we open the door creating this new criminal category of thought 
crimes, it is but a small step to add new types of thought crimes to 
the list, and suddenly we find ourselves back on the Orwellian 
threshold of Nineteen Eighty-Four and staring down the specter of the 
thought police.
  In George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, the government 
attempts to control not only the speech and actions but also the 
thoughts of its subjects, labeling disapproved thoughts with the term 
``thought crime.'' The Thought Police use psychology and omnipresent 
surveillance to find and eliminate members of society who are capable 
of the mere thought of challenging ruling authority.
  The way this bill is written, law enforcement will be called upon to 
unearth a criminal's motivation for committing a crime. The questions 
must then be asked: What thoughts caused the perpetrator to commit the 
so-called hate crime? And what caused this person to have these 
thoughts? Could it have been, for example, the sermon of a local 
religious leader, perhaps a respected local rabbi, who preached a 
message out of a religious conviction and belief in a sacred book? 
Under this law that rabbi may be guilty of inducing an act of violence 
simply because of his religious convictions. And it wouldn't take many 
arrests to put a choke hold on the free speech of religious leaders 
across our Nation.
  In closing, I would like to quote liberal commentator Glenn 
Greenwald, certainly no apologist for conservatives like myself. But he 
has some strong words for hate crime laws such as those which already 
exist in Europe and in our neighbor to the north, Canada. Writing on 
salon.com last year, he called hate crimes laws ``oppressive'' and 
``pernicious.'' Allow me to quote him at length because he summarizes 
the consequences of this type of legislation very well:
  ``Empowering the State to proscribe and punish speech is not only the 
most dangerous step a society can take, though it is that, it's also 
the most senseless. It never achieves its intended effect of 
suppressing or eliminating a particular view. If anything, it has the 
opposite effect, by driving it underground, thus preventing debate and 
exposure.''
  As I said earlier, the best antidote to hate, perceived or real, is 
the bright light of public debate and scrutiny, not the outright 
censorship contained in this so-called hate crimes legislation.
  My friends, this legislation starts us down a slippery slope. No 
longer are all Americans subject to equal justice under the law. No. A 
murderer of a police officer can be treated more leniently under this 
law than someone who is convicted of a so-called hate-motivated murder 
of a protected class of citizens. This is not equal justice. This is 
the codifying of a thought crimes law that weakens our first amendment 
and that dilutes our long tradition of equal justice under the law.
  I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on 
the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time 
to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado, my 
good friend and member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Polis.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule for 
H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, as 
well as the bill itself.
  Last July a young transgender Latina living in Greeley, Colorado, was 
brutally attacked and murdered. Her killer, who became outraged after 
he discovered that she was transgender and beat her to death, told 
authorities that he had ``killed it'' and that ``all gays must die.'' 
Just last week I am glad to announce that Angie's killer was convicted 
not only of first degree murder but also of a hate crime in the beating 
death of Angie under Colorado law. It was the first time in the Nation 
that a State hate crime statute resulted in the conviction of a 
transgender person's murder, and as a result, Angie's killer will serve 
life in prison without the possibility of parole.
  Thanks in large part to Colorado's hate crimes law, which included 
gender identity as a protected class, justice was served in this case. 
But, sadly, this has more often than not not been the case. Just a few 
years earlier, Fred Martinez, a Navajo Native American in Cortez, 
Colorado, openly gay youth, was killed. The perpetrator, who along with 
an accomplice had met Fred at a carnival that night, attacked and beat 
him to death with a large rock. Later he bragged to his friends that he 
had ``beat up a fag.'' In contrast to Angie Zapata, Fred's killer was 
not charged with a hate crime because no Colorado or Federal law 
protecting gender identity existed at that time. His assaulter received 
a 40-year sentence under a plea agreement but will be eligible for 
parole in 25 years. If he had been charged with a Federal hate crime, 
he would have received a life sentence without parole.
  Sadly, Angie and Fred are not alone. Since 1991 over 100,000 hate 
crime offenses have been reported to the FBI with over 7,000 reported 
in 2006. And although much is talked about violent attacks against the 
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community, this is not just an 
LGBT issue. Violent crimes based on race, religion, ethnicity and 
national origin are reported every year.
  What makes these crimes so odious is that they are not just crimes 
against an individual; they are crimes that terrorize entire 
communities and, indeed, are against the values and ideals upon which 
our country was founded. With each attack, these criminals are 
attempting to send a message of intimidation to the victim's entire 
community, a message that Americans do not belong and deserve to be 
victimized solely because of who they are.
  Far from creating a class for special protection, we are establishing 
equal protection under the law for people who do not enjoy it today in 
this country. The hate crimes bill that we are voting on today is 
sending a message that these crimes will no longer be tolerated. I 
strongly support efforts to punish hate crimes and am a proud cosponsor 
of the bill.

[[Page 11071]]

  The bill is especially important for police departments in smaller 
towns that don't always have the resources to deal with hate crimes. 
For example, the cost of the investigation and prosecution of Matthew 
Shepard's killers dealt a severe blow to the Laramie, Wyoming, law 
enforcement budget, resulting in the furlough of five officers, 
undermining public safety. This bill would prevent that.
  This bill also corrects two major deficiencies in current law: One, 
the excessive restrictions requiring proof that victims were attacked 
because they were engaged in certain ``federally protected 
activities''; and, two, the limited scope of the law.
  It's important to note this legislation will not take rights away 
from anyone. Our country was founded upon certain inalienable rights, 
including the freedom of religion and free speech. This bill does not 
interfere with either of those principles, and that's why it's backed 
not only by hundreds of law enforcement agencies but by mainstream 
faith-based organizations.
  It's time to pass this law. We must no longer turn a blind eye to 
hate crimes of any kind. Everyone, regardless of race, creed, color, 
and sexual orientation and gender identity, must stand equal in the 
eyes of the law. I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the 
bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, with all the challenges that we 
have in this Nation, we still hold these truths to be self-evident: 
that all men are created equal and that they are equal because they are 
all God's children. Therefore, the essence of America is that all 
people should be treated with the same respect and protected completely 
equally under the law. Whenever we begin to divide ourselves into 
groups and afford one group more protection than another, we 
necessarily diminish the protection and equality of all the remaining 
groups.
  Mr. Speaker, regardless of whether a person is white, black, 
handicapped, healthy, old, sick, young, homosexual, heterosexual, a 
veteran, a police officer, a senior, whatever the case is, they deserve 
equal protection under the law.

                              {time}  1230

  That is the foundational premise of this Nation, and this legislation 
moves us all directly away from that basic foundation in a profound and 
dangerous way.
  This legislation would prosecute individuals, not on the basis of 
their crime, but on their alleged motivation for committing it. It 
requires law enforcement officials and prosecutors to gather evidence 
of the offenders' thoughts, rather than their actual actions and their 
criminal intent.
  Furthermore, under this bill, such individuals who may not even have 
been aware of the crime could receive the same or similar penalties as 
the criminal himself. It would only take some arbitrary prosecutor to 
construe that the individual had influenced the beliefs or thoughts of 
a perpetrator of a crime and thereby somehow caused hateful or violent 
acts. One unscrupulous government entity, plus this hate crimes 
legislation, equals the perfect recipe for tearing away from American 
citizens some of the most basic constitutional rights in our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, the fundamental purpose of this body is to protect the 
lives and constitutional rights of the American people regardless of 
who they are or what they believe. Unfortunately, this legislation 
would do just the opposite by granting unequal protections based on 
personal beliefs and thoughts, and it would endanger the constitutional 
liberties of millions of Americans.
  I thank the gentlelady for the time and urge my colleagues to vote 
``no.''
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 
minutes to my good friend and former member of the Rules Committee, and 
my fellow Floridian, Ms. Castor.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank my colleague for yielding time and for 
his years of leadership in the fight against discrimination.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Local Law Enforcement Hate 
Crimes Prevention Act and this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, hate crimes are different from other types of crimes 
because the perpetrator targets a certain type of person based upon 
physical or other personal attributes. Hate crimes are a purposeful, 
violent and dangerous manifestation of prejudice.
  Now, to increase public safety and fight crime, we offer today 
additional tools for law enforcement to fight hate crimes.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation that will 
ensure that hate crimes based upon sexual orientation are covered along 
with other crimes committed with hatred based on race, religion and 
national origin.
  This bill provides important resources to State and local law 
enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute hate crimes, and it 
will also be a Federal criminal offense to cause or attempt to cause 
bodily harm.
  I am proud today to stand up for all of my neighbors. You see, hate 
crimes are not only a problem for victims, but also for our communities 
and neighborhoods.
  Unfortunately, my community in Florida has not been immune from hate 
crimes. Tampa leads the State of Florida in the number of reported hate 
crimes, according to an annual FBI report. It is likely that Tampa 
ranks high because the police there have a zero tolerance policy. All 
possible or borderline cases are reported.
  Last year in Florida we had cases like the KKK being scrawled on 
something and shoved into a family's mailbox. And a 25-year-old woman 
in Daytona Beach was intentionally hit by a car just because of the 
color of her skin. How do we know? Because the man driving the car 
yelled, ``Help me kill these (blanks). These (blanks) have to die.''
  In 2007, a Polk County person was stabbed to death for being gay. 
Police arrested and charged two Pinellas County teenagers after they 
spray-painted anti-Semitic and racial slurs on nine portable classrooms 
at a high school.
  The Islamic Education Center of Florida in Tampa was set on fire, and 
thousands of my neighbors were left without a place to hold services.
  Hate crimes have no place in my community or anyplace else, but they 
are an unfortunate reality that must be addressed. Mr. Speaker, this 
legislation has languished, and it's time that it be signed into law.
  I thank Chairman Conyers for his leadership. I urge a ``yes'' vote on 
this rule and the underlying bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill is a dangerous proposal which can 
transform the criminal justice system and in spite of all the 
protestations that now maybe we have safeguards, I think it threatens 
religious liberty.
  The hate crimes bill federalizes each and every State and local 
crime. There is no evidence that States and localities are failing to 
prosecute crimes under existing law.
  A person intentionally hit by a car is the victim of the same crime, 
regardless of why. The key there is ``intentionally.'' Whether you 
intentionally decide you are going to run over somebody with a car 
because they are there and you are mad, the penalties should be the 
same and to suggest that it is not is a Federal mistake at the level we 
are suggesting mistakes would be made.
  Hate crimes legislation invariably has threatened religious leaders 
and groups with criminal prosecution, an investigation into why that 
person's thoughts, beliefs or statements led to their actions.
  This can easily jeopardize constitutional rights of freedom of speech 
and religious expression. In fact, the very fact that the people who 
wrote this legislation have gone out of their way to come up with a new 
protection suggests that there is danger. There has been danger in 
every other country that has come up with this kind of legislation.

[[Page 11072]]

  This requires criminal investigations to probe if a crime occurred 
because of bias toward a protected group and opens the door to criminal 
investigations of a suspect's philosophical beliefs, politics, biases, 
religion, activities and past statements.
  Due to the subjectivity of these kinds of feelings and motives, there 
is enormous potential here, Mr. Speaker, for error. This creates 
unequal treatment of victims by treating crimes against protected 
groups more seriously than nonprotected groups. Murder of a victim will 
be treated more seriously than murder of another victim.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that's wrong. I think this is a constitutional 
problem. Again, in every State, in every country that has had similar 
legislation, this has created a problem of speech.
  Hate crimes become hate speech, become thought crimes too easily, and 
I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time 
to yield 2 minutes to my good friend the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support the Local Law Enforcement and Hate 
Crimes Prevention Act.
  This is a commonsense bill with broad bipartisan support. Our law 
enforcement agencies, the vast majority of whom support this 
legislation, deserve the tools to battle hate-filled violence.
  Bias-motivated crimes based on sexual orientation have more than 
tripled since the FBI began collecting hate crimes statistics about 20 
years ago. But our law enforcement agencies still have no authority to 
assist communities dealing with even the most brutal crimes committed 
against our gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender neighbors and 
friends.
  This is a travesty. H.R. 1913 is a commonsense step to fix this 
injustice. The bill allows the Justice Department to aid State and 
local jurisdictions, either by lending assistance or by taking the lead 
in investigations and prosecutions of violent crimes which are 
motivated by bias.
  Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. Nothing in H.R. 1913 could or would 
change First Amendment protections, but violence is not free speech.
  Like many of my colleagues, I live in a community that was tragically 
altered by a senseless hate crime. Early last year, Lawrence King, an 
eighth grader in my district in a junior high school, was shot and 
killed by another student in his computer class, again, at a middle 
school. Lawrence was a young man who identified himself as a gay 
person, and this was the cause of the violence that took his life.
  The police correctly identified the murder and classified it as a 
hate crime.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very honored to stand here today and support H.R. 
1913 in memory of Lawrence King and so many others who have been 
victims of hate crimes and acts of violence.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) a member of the Judiciary 
Committee, who offered several excellent amendments that were rejected 
by the committee.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for 
yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this issue was debated for 2 days before the Judiciary 
Committee. There were many, many amendments that were offered before 
the committee. Every one of them was rejected and shot down out of, I 
think, a desire to preserve the bill to be whatever it was that was 
presented to the committee.
  And now here we are with a rule that results in a closed rule, Mr. 
Speaker, a closed rule because, as the gentlelady from North Carolina 
said, there is a fear that there could be amendments that would succeed 
that would be offered here.
  One of those that I happened to have offered before the Judiciary 
Committee was to exempt pedophiles as a special protected status that 
is under this bill. Now, the rational thought on the other side I 
couldn't follow, Mr. Speaker, but I think it would be rational for this 
full body as a House of Representatives to make a decision on this. And 
I think that there was a fear on the part of the Rules Committee that 
that would also be a decision that would be made.
  Well, I have before me a list from the American Psychological 
Association of the paraphilias, paraphilias being, I will call them 
proclivities in my vernacular, Mr. Speaker, and among them are 
pedophiles and a whole list of other kinds of activities. There are 547 
of them altogether. We can't even exempt pedophiles, let alone the 
other proclivities that are there, from special protected status.
  We can't define the language that's in the bill, the language in the 
bill that says ``gender'' versus ``sex.'' Gender isn't the same thing 
as using the word ``sex.'' Sex is what an individual can determine 
someone else to be. Gender is what a person thinks they are in their 
head. So the blurry language of gender replaces the clear language of 
sex that has been in our law for a long time in history.
  Sexual orientation is another one of these. There are three different 
categories. We are figuring out what's in people's heads, the 
perpetrator and the victim. So under sexual orientation you have a 
mental definition, the head of, perhaps, the victim what's going on 
there. You have the plumbing of the victim, that's a different kind of 
a definition. And then you have the act that might be carried out by 
someone of a specific sexual orientation. No definition exists in law.
  Gender identity is another broad category that can be whatever any 
individual wants it to be. So how does someone discriminate against 
someone else? How do they determine what these particular proclivities 
are, Mr. Speaker?
  These are the broad, mushy areas of law that lead us down a path that 
ends up with any combination of liberal activist judges who will turn 
this into a mass of special protected status people, sacred cows 
walking through our society, self-alleged.
  The gentleman from Florida mentioned the immutable characteristics. 
No, that's not in the bill. We tried to put it in the bill, but that 
amendment was shot down. I wish we could protect immutable 
characteristics. I think they should be. And those characteristics are 
those characteristics that are independently verified and can't be 
willfully changed.
  That's the subject matter, 1984, George Orwell. I brought this up the 
last time we debated this. And I think it's important that we look at 
the book that was written in 1949 and predicted by George Orwell that 
by 1984 we would be where we are today in 2009.
  He was writing about the new totalitarians who learned from the Nazis 
and the Russian Communists. And they said, ``The Party is not 
interested in any overt act: the thought is all we care about. We do 
not merely destroy our enemies, we change them. We are not content with 
negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When 
finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. It is 
intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in 
the world.'' This is George Orwell, 1984, anticipating we would be 
having this debate in 1984, and today it's 2009, Mr. Speaker.
  We should punish all perpetrators. There should be no special 
victims, and all perpetrators should be punished the same. And I think 
25 years for assault on anyone is enough. But to the gentleman from 
Colorado that called for a life sentence for assault, what does he do 
to a murderer?
  I oppose the rule and the bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee and 
the author of this legislation, my good friend, Mr. Conyers.
  Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Judge Hastings.
  I want to thank everybody on the Committee on Rules about the careful 
consideration they have given me and the legislation. We had a great 
discussion yesterday that will no doubt continue on.

[[Page 11073]]



                              {time}  1245

  I wanted to assure Dr. Foxx that there can be nonhate crime. There is 
plenty of it. As a matter of fact, most of the crime that is committed 
is not hate-based. Robbery is not hate-based. Breaking and entry is not 
hate-based.
  And I wanted to tell my distinguished colleague on the committee, Mr. 
Franks, that it is too late not to decide to create a special category 
for hate crime, because had he been on the committee in 1968, he would 
have been invited to the White House when President Johnson invited in 
the Southern governors to explain to them that cross-burning had gotten 
so out of hand that it could no longer be classified as a State crime, 
that it had to be federalized with an attempt to contain it. As a 
matter of fact, they did contain it.
  To our distinguished Member, Mr. Blunt, I want him to be very relaxed 
in his getting of rest every night. There is no religious infringement 
whatsoever. As a matter of fact, we kept saying it so much that we 
finally put it into the bill itself. If you look at the last section in 
the bill, Section 8, it says in as clear a language as we could 
construct that anything protected by the Constitution cannot be 
eviscerated or modified by this hate crimes act, which has been going 
on now for 31 years.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin).
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina for the time.
  I just want to say I am as appalled as any Member of Congress by 
crimes committed as an act of hate. Criminals who commit acts like 
murder, rape and assault do belong behind bars. But I oppose this bill 
because it lays the groundwork for the prosecution and the potential 
persecution of citizens whose crimes are not actions, but rather crimes 
of thought and speech.
  The end result of this bill and the hate crimes agenda will be the 
suppression of both the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. 
By establishing crimes of speech and thought, this law places pundits, 
journalists, preachers and religious men and women at risk.
  Other nations have gone down this path before and seen their 
liberties curtailed. In nations like Canada and Great Britain, where 
hate crimes legislation has been expanded to include speech, now 
columnists must avoid certain subjects, and cartoonists worry that 
their caricatures could become a crime.
  Even in this country, hate crimes legislation has already been used 
as a political tool to suppress religious speech. In Pennsylvania, we 
saw a State hate crimes law used to file felony charges against 11 
Christians speaking their minds and preaching their beliefs concerning 
a gay pride parade. Because sexual orientation had been added to the 
Pennsylvania hate crimes statute, the Christian demonstrators faced the 
following charges: Criminal conspiracy; possession of instruments of a 
crime--and the instruments of the crime were bullhorns; reckless 
endangerment of another person; ethnic intimidation; riot; failure to 
disperse; disorderly conduct; and obstructing highways.
  I believe America is the greatest country in the world because we do 
have freedom of speech and we do have freedom of religion, and we must 
protect those ideals.
  Mr. Speaker, any acts of murder, rape, assault, harassment, theft or 
any other crime should be punished equally under the law. I cannot 
support legislation which establishes thought crimes or lays the 
foundation for a country in which religious and political speech can be 
deemed hateful and even criminal.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time 
to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, for my colleagues, I think you 
are aware that when we are on the floor debating this procedural 
concept called the rule, we usually try to go into the structure of the 
bill so that we can be clear as we move to general debate to offer our 
philosophical positions. So let me try to frame what this bill is 
actually about so that my colleagues can offer their opinions certainly 
during the general debate.
  This bill, though it is called the hate crimes bill, it is also a 
focus on local law enforcement, and the concept is that all we are 
doing here is providing assistance to those local and State law 
enforcement agencies to ensure they have the tools to prosecute a case 
of hate crime.
  Now, it is interesting that my friends on the other side have 
highlighted that we are separating out and enhancing the sentencing of 
those who engage in hate. Well, we have done that in years past. The 
1964 Civil Rights Act and our discrimination laws have indicated that 
we abhor discrimination against anyone.
  All this bill is doing is providing the resources on a State basis in 
the framework of Federal constitutional protection, so therefore if 
someone is in a church arguing or somewhere their political beliefs, 
their religious beliefs, it is not covered by this bill. We are not 
enforcing actions against that individual.
  If you look through the bill, you will find it talks about 
assistance, financial assistance, to ensure that a case can be 
investigated. What we need to understand is a case can be investigated 
and the person can be vindicated, can be found not guilty or will not 
be prosecuted because the facts are not there. To burden local law 
enforcement and State law enforcement with getting to the truth is 
something that we want to help with, because the truth is in fact a 
part of ensuring the Constitution is in place.
  Let me also make note of the fact that this is acts of violence. So 
free speech, as colorful as it can be, as we have all heard in our 
elementary school, words can hurt us, but it is only sticks and stones 
that hurt us.
  I ask Members to support this legislation because it is fair on its 
face.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for us to respond to some of the 
comments that have been made here this afternoon by our friends on the 
other side, and I appreciate the gentlewoman from Texas bringing up an 
issue that I think needs to be responded to.
  As she pointed out, these crimes are being taken care of in the 
States. Forty-five States already have hate crime laws. What we are 
doing with this bill, as one of my colleagues has said earlier, is 
going in and preempting what the States are doing. This is abrogating 
the 10th Amendment again. The Constitution has clearly left to the 
States and localities and the people things that are not spelled out in 
the Constitution.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. FOXX. As soon as I am finished, I will do that.
  However, nobody has said that the States aren't doing an adequate job 
of administering the laws that they have already. We don't need the 
Federal Government going in and working with them.
  The issue of giving them assistance is another issue. If nothing 
else, that is a good reason to vote against this bill, because the bill 
states ``such sums as are needed.'' We are creating another entitlement 
program. Now, the grants say $100,000, but we are going to have people 
going after this money, putting ourselves more in debt, not included in 
the budget, not included in the appropriations but outside the budget. 
If you didn't vote against this bill and against this rule for any 
other reason, you could vote against it because we are spending 
additional money.
  I also would like to point out that there was a bill, the hate crimes 
bill called the Matthew Shepard Act, named after a very unfortunate 
incident that happened where a young man was killed. But we know that 
that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn't 
because he was gay. The bill was named for him, the hate crimes bill 
was named for him, but it is really a hoax that that

[[Page 11074]]

continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. FOXX. In just a moment.
  I also want to point out that one of the concerns that we have and 
why we believe that free speech is being endangered by this bill is the 
fact that the word ``perceived'' is used so often in this bill. In 
fact, I have pulled each one of them out. It says ``is motivated by 
prejudice based on actual or perceived race.''
  Throughout the bill, there are five instances where the word 
``perceived'' is used, but the word ``perceived'' is never defined. We 
believe that that opens up a Pandora's box in terms of how people can 
use this bill to stifle free speech. Our colleagues on the other side 
have not been willing to define this word or, again, to take amendments 
that many of us believe would have made this bill much, much better.
  So I say to my colleagues, this is not the kind of legislation we 
should be passing in this country in this day.
  If the gentlewoman wants to ask me a question which I can answer 
quickly, since I am on my time, I will yield. If it is a matter to 
speak on, then I would ask her to ask for time on her side.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I agree. I would just ask the gentlelady if 
she has read section 3 that indicates the State would ask for the 
assistance, and then page 12 of the bill that indicates, it is part 
(d), I don't want to go back to the section, but page 12, line 9, 
indicates that no voice where someone is speaking or making expression 
will be in evidence to prove that that person is engaged in a hate 
crime.
  I would ask the gentlelady if she looked at that thoroughly?
  Ms. FOXX. I have read the bill and read it carefully, and I have 
great problems with the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time 
to yield 2 minutes to my good friend the distinguished Congressional 
Black Caucus Chair, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the gentleman 
for yielding and for your steady and very fair leadership as a member 
of the House Rules Committee. Also to Chairman Conyers, let me thank 
you for your leadership in making sure this important legislation gets 
to the floor today.
  I also want to acknowledge the indispensable contributions of the 
LGBT Caucus, on which I serve as a member, which is led so ably by our 
colleagues Chairman Barney Frank, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, and 
Congressman Jared Polis.
  This legislation is long overdue. In the long history of the United 
States, there is much to admire and to celebrate. But, regrettably, 
there have been episodes in our history that are tragic, violent and 
shameful. Among the most horrific are violent crimes motivated by hate.
  The notorious race riots in Greenwood, Oklahoma, and Rosewood, 
Florida, in the early years of this last century, to the church 
bombings and attacks on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered 
persons, are painful reminders that we still have not perfected our 
Union. Whether it has been the color of their skin, their religion, 
gender, disability, national origin, or their sexual orientation or 
identity, the sad fact is that too many persons have been the victims 
of violence, often ending in death, simply because of a characteristic 
of birth.
  Sadly, many of the recent attacks based on sexual orientation have 
been against gay black men, like Michael Sandy, who was beaten and 
robbed in New York by four men and lay in a coma for several days 
before he died. In court proceedings, it was revealed that his 
attackers viewed gay men as prey. Fortunately, New York's hate crimes 
law now includes sexual orientation as a protected class.
  And closer to my home, right outside of my district in Newark, 
California, a young high school student named Gwen Araujo was viciously 
beaten to death by four young men and buried simply because she was 
born a male. Gwen was comfortable as herself, a transgendered woman, 
and had lived her high school years as a girl with the love and support 
of her family, particularly her mother, Sylvia Guerrero.
  Gwen's story really resonates with me. Children are entitled to be 
free from hate-motivated violence in schools. That is why when I was in 
the California legislature, I authored and Pete Wilson signed into law 
the California Hate Crimes Reduction Act.
  Members of the clergy support this bill, the Congress of National 
Black Churches, the Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran 
Church of America.

                              {time}  1300

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to our 
colleague from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), who also offered several amendments 
that were not taken.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, there should have been amendments to this 
because there are all kinds of problems with it. When, in America, we 
start dividing this country into groups, we've got trouble; and that's 
what this bill does. It divides America into groups and says these over 
here are more important to protect than the rest of you guys. That is a 
problem.
  Now, I'd like to address the question that my friend from Texas 
raised about the rule of evidence I think is what she was talking 
about. It does say, ``In a prosecution for an offense under this 
section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may 
not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence 
specifically relates to that offense.''
  18 U.S.C. section 2(a) says if you aid, abet, counsel, induce someone 
to commit a crime, you are just as guilty as the one that committed it.
  So, for example, I have a Bible here that my uncle was given when he 
entered World War II. It has a flyleaf cover that says, ``As Commander-
in-Chief, I take pleasure in commending the reading of the Bible to all 
who serve in the Armed Forces of the United States. Throughout the 
centuries, men of many faiths and diverse origins have found in the 
Sacred Book words of wisdom, counsel and inspiration. It is a fountain 
of strength, and now, as always, an aid to attaining the highest 
aspiration of the human soul.''
  That's signed Franklin D. Roosevelt in this little Bible.
  But if you look over to Romans, it talks about, ``For this cause God 
gave them up to vile affections, for even their women did change the 
natural use into that which is against nature; and likewise, the men, 
leaving the natural use of women, burned in their lust one to another, 
men with men, working that which is unseemly and receiving in 
themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.''
  If somebody hears a preacher preaching that and goes out and commits 
an act of violence, I mean, I was a prosecutor 30 years ago. It doesn't 
take much imagination to say, we had to arrest the preacher; it was 
clear he's the one that planted the seeds in this nut's head that went 
out and committed an act of violence. Therefore, this evidence of what 
he read from the Bible, even though FDR signed it and encouraged people 
to read it, FDR's not around, we can't go after him, but we can go 
after this preacher that put that in the mind of the individual. They 
induced it. They're guilty as a principal. And even if they're not, 
just arresting pastors a few times and saying, we're going to let the 
jury decide what his intent was will be enough to have a chilling 
effect.
  There's no Federal nexus here. There is no epidemic. There's no 
evidence of an epidemic. There's no need. Every case that's been 
brought up, including Matthew Shepard, in that case they got life 
without parole. The other got two life sentences. James Byrd, the two 
defendants most culpable got what they deserved, they got the death 
penalty, and this case will not affect that. The other guy got life. 
Wouldn't affect him. There is no need. There is no epidemic. It divides 
America. Why don't we say ``no'' to this and let America be united 
again.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this 
time

[[Page 11075]]

to yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague and good friend from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and rise in support of 
this rule and the underlying legislation.
  Hate crimes are real. They spread fear and intimidation among entire 
communities. This bill would strengthen local law enforcement's ability 
to prosecute hate crimes based on race, color, religion, national 
origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability to 
the victim.
  It is patently false to say that we're criminalizing thought. We are 
criminalizing the brutality that results when these thoughts lead to 
death and serious injury of an innocent victim. This is no more about 
criminalizing thought than the antilynching laws were about 
criminalizing knot tying.
  And to say that pedophilia somehow belongs in here represents such 
uninformed, illogical and irrelevant thinking as to say kleptomania, 
drug abuse, school truancy, parking violation and road rage belongs 
here.
  This bill is about hate crimes. This bill has strong support from 
over 300 civil rights, religious, LGBT, law enforcement and civic 
organizations, and I'm particularly pleased to identify the support of 
the Garden State Equality, a group that has fought tirelessly to fight 
discrimination against all Americans, including discrimination based on 
gender identity.
  I urge support of the rule and the underlying bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for her 
hard work on the Rules Committee, on this rule fight, and I rise in 
strong opposition to the rule and the underlying bill.
  My goodness. How long are we going to debate this? 40 minutes or an 
hour? This very important piece of legislation under this rule?
  I can understand why we only have that amount of time because, after 
all, we're going to be working as late as 4 this afternoon here in the 
House. How could we possibly go just a little later than 4 to debate a 
very, very important piece of legislation?
  And then what amendments will we be debating? None. It's a closed 
rule.
  This is an atrocity. This is a very highly contentious piece of 
legislation. We held a 2-day markup on this bill with numerous 
amendments in the Judiciary Committee, and it is very clear that we 
need a rule that will allow for amendments to be considered on the 
floor of the House. But we certainly don't have that.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
  I would also point out that this underlying piece of legislation, 
which I will have the opportunity to speak more on in the general 
debate, is something that does, indeed, deal with thought. The only 
difference between beating up a senior citizen and beating up somebody 
who is in a protected class, under this piece of legislation, or 
beating up a pregnant woman, or beating up someone who's in a protected 
class, under this legislation, is the thought process that went into 
the motivation to assault that particular person. And that is 
legislation that is founded on criminalizing thought.
  It is very deeply concerning, because I, like most Americans, believe 
that every victim of every crime is entitled to be treated the same 
under the law. Why would a senior citizen not be deserving of these 
additional protections that are provided based upon sex or sexual 
orientation or race or religion?
  Why would pregnant women who suffer all kinds of violent crimes 
against them not be deserving of that same kind of protection?
  This legislation is bad. Vote down the rule. Vote down the bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to the newest Member of the House of Representatives, at least 
for another 6 hours, until one newer than him is sworn in, Mr. Quigley 
from Illinois.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. I rise in strong support of H.R. 1913. I am new here, 
but I am not new to this issue. And I am extraordinarily aware that in 
our country hatred has an extraordinary tenacity, a tenacity which we 
must be on arm against, especially when that hatred takes the form of 
action.
  In 2008, there were 72 reported hate crimes in the city of Chicago 
alone. When one of our neighbors is attacked, our entire community must 
feel the pain. Every American, regardless of who his parents are, where 
she worships, or who he chooses to love, deserves to be free from the 
fear of harm. This bill will go a long way towards ensuring all of our 
citizens have access, equal access to protection under the law.
  I thank the Chair and urge my colleagues to support this important 
legislation.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 90 seconds now to my 
colleague from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from North 
Carolina for yielding.
  I want to take it back to this question. We have these vague terms in 
this legislation that's before us, these vague terms that the Judiciary 
Committee majority refused to define and refused to allow a definition, 
and so I've looked up some definitions of this language, and here is 
one of them. Sexual orientation. We'll go to the Merriam Webster's 
Dictionary, under medical, and it says, sexual orientation: One's 
attraction to and preference in sexual partners. One definition.
  Here's another definition that comes from the American Heritage 
Stedman's Medical Dictionary. It says sexual orientation is sexual 
activity with people of the opposite sex, the same sex or both.
  So one is an attraction definition, and the other one is an activity 
definition.
  And now I go to the American Psychological Association, those people 
that have identified 547 different paraphilias, and they say sexual 
orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to 
feelings and self-concept. Individuals may or may not express that in 
their behaviors.
  So, here we have, again, these broad definitions in the so-called 
hate crimes legislation that truly are thought crimes, because without 
the thought, you're not going to have the hate, and it can only be 
defined by trying to look into the skull of the victim and the 
perpetrator. And there's never been legislation that's presented that's 
been this broad or that imagines that it can define something that is 
in the head of a victim and in the head of the perpetrator at the same 
time, let alone what might be in the head of the judge, Mr. Speaker. So 
I oppose this legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of 
the gentlelady if she has any remaining speakers. I am the last speaker 
for this side and am prepared to reserve.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Then I would reserve the balance of my 
time until the gentlelady has closed for her side and yielded back her 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 3 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues who have spoken here today have 
been extremely eloquent, and they've done a very, very good job of 
saying why this rule is bad and why the underlying bill is bad.
  I want to end with a summary and with a quote. I want to quote from a 
column by William Raspberry from The Washington Post, April 9, 1999. 
And I'm quoting from the end of that column. The title of it is Thought 
Crimes. ``What I'm asking is this: Isn't it enough that people be 
punished for what they do, rather than for the attitudes that drive 
them to do it? What is the advantage of prosecuting people for what 
amounts to crimes of wrong thinking? Surely we don't expect expanded 
legislation to change their thinking, and we've already got laws 
against the awful behavior their warped thinking may produce. But I 
can't see that Clinton's proposal can do any good whatever. But as I 
said, it's likely to do negligible harm, so I'll just shut up.''

[[Page 11076]]

  Mr. Raspberry is certainly not a conservative speaker or writer. 
However, he shares the same view that I and my colleagues have shared 
today.
  And let me summarize, again, why we're opposed to this bill. Our 
criminal justice system has been built on the ideal of equal justice 
for all. This bill turns that fundamental principle on its head. 
Justice will no longer be equal but will depend on the race, gender, 
gender identity, sexual orientation, disability or other protected 
status of the victim. The bill is unconstitutional, we believe, and 
will likely be struck down by the courts.
  The hate crimes bill will restrict religious freedom and first 
amendment rights by raising the possibility that religious leaders or 
members of religious groups could be prosecuted criminally based on 
their speech or protected activities.
  We believe this bill itself will spread fear and intimidation. 
Religious organizations may be chilled from expressing their ideas 
regarding homosexuality out of fear from involvement in the criminal 
process.
  The bill also federalizes crimes that are being effectively 
prosecuted by our States and local governments.
  In 2007, of the approximately 17,000 homicides that occurred in the 
United States, only 9 of the murders were determined to be motivated by 
bias. Regarding crimes where there are actual victims, there's no 
evidence that States are not fully prosecuting violent crimes involving 
``hate.''
  We all agree that every violent crime is deplorable, regardless of 
its motivation. Every violent crime can be devastating, not only to the 
victim, but the larger community whose public safety has been violated.

                              {time}  1315

  That is why all violent crimes must be vigorously prosecuted. 
Individuals prosecuted under this legislation, though, are not going to 
be punished for just their actions, but for their thoughts.
  Mr. Speaker, this underlying bill is a bad bill and it is a bad rule, 
and I urge its defeat.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been on the Rules Committee a considerable amount 
of time, both in the minority and in the majority, and I have seen 
things come to the Rules Committee that I thought were trivializing the 
process, but yesterday took the cake for me.
  We had an amendment offered by one of our colleagues to this 
particular legislation. I guess it was done in a creative fashion, and 
certainly the author of it did spend some time looking in the 
dictionary or creating new terms. And I apologize to our transcriber, 
but I am going to put in the Record what we have to put up with in the 
Rules Committee.
  ``The term sexual orientation,'' this proposed amendment said, ``as 
used in this act, or any amendments made by this act, does not include 
apotemnophilia, asphyxophilia, autogynephilia, coprophilia, 
exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, gerontosexuality, incest, 
kleptophilia, klismaphilia, necrophilia, partialism, pedophilia, sexual 
masochism, sexual sadism, telephone scatalogia, toucherism, 
transgenderism, transsexual, transvestite, transvestic fetishism, 
urophilia, voyeurism, or zoophilia.''
  All I can say is the late-night comedians need to come up there with 
me sometime so that they can get into the spirit of spuriousness that 
comes there on certain occasions.
  This is serious business. Mr. Speaker, we can't legislate love, but 
we can legislate against hate. This legislation may not rid us of the 
intolerance and prejudices that continue to taint our society, but it 
will provide an added deterrent to those for whom these feelings 
manifest themselves into acts of violence. They will be fully aware 
that, should they commit a hate crime, there will be no lenience and 
they will not slip through the cracks of the American legal system.
  Further, passage of this Hate Crimes bill will increase public 
education and awareness and encourage Americans to report hate crimes 
that all too often are silent.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on 
prejudice, and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, 
color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender 
identity or disability--or all of these philias and fetishes and isms 
that were put forward--need not live in fear because of who they are.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule so that we 
continue to move this country toward fully achieving its promise of 
justice and liberty for all Americans.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of this rule and 
of the underlying legislation.
  H.R. 1913, the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes 
Prevention Act allows for the Justice Department to assist local 
authorities, who are either unable or unwilling, with the investigation 
and prosecution of bias motivated crimes.
  Hate crimes not only hurt victims and their families, but can impact 
a community or even an entire nation.
  Perpetrators of violent hate crimes choose their victims based on an 
actual or perceived bias. It is a crime based on the victim's actual or 
perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual 
orientation, gender identity, or disability.
  This bipartisan legislation empowers the Justice Department with the 
authority it needs to combat the prevalence of hate crimes in our 
communities. Since the FBI began collecting hate crimes data in 1991, 
bias motivated crimes against LGBT Americans has tripled; though the 
federal government has not provided the necessary resources to stem 
this uptick.
  The destructive nature of hate crimes permeates throughout our 
society, and if we refuse to address it, then we are refusing to 
provide for the public safety of all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, it's important to note that this legislation does not 
discriminate. All victims of hate crimes are protected by this bill: 
every race, every religion, every sexual orientation, every disability.
  I'd also like to commend Chairman Conyers and the Judiciary Committee 
for crafting a bill that provides both for the protection against hate 
crimes and for the protection of our constitutional right of free 
speech.
  Nothing in this legislation allows for speech, violent or otherwise, 
to be prosecuted.
  Hate crimes by de3finition must involve death or bodily injury. 
Speech alone cannot be prosecuted under this legislation.
  However, violent hate crimes are not constitutionally protected 
rights, and this legislation is needed to help reduce the divisive and 
sometimes deadly effects they have on communities across our country.
  This legislation boasts the diverse support of more than 300 law 
enforcement, civil rights, civic and religious organizations and 
individuals, including the American Civil Liberties Union.
  Mr. Speaker, I'd like to remind my colleagues that victims of hate 
crimes are targeted for violence and suffered attacks because of who 
they are.
  I'd like to tell you the story of Lisa Craig, a 35-year-old mother of 
two, from my own State of Massachusetts. In 2003, Craig was assaulted 
on the street by three teenage girls and kicked in the head multiple 
times, causing her brain to bleed and requiring 200 stitches in her 
head. Craig's partner and her two daughters witnessed the attack by 
these teenagers, who earlier in the evening had been shouting anti-gay 
epithets at the couple.
  This story is just one of thousands across our country, and to 
prevent more from occurring, I encourage my colleagues to support this 
rule and the underlying legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
of H. Res. 372 the Rule on H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate 
Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. I urge my colleagues to support this 
rule.
  The rule will provide assistance to state and local law enforcement 
and amend federal law to streamline the investigation and prosecution 
of hate crimes. The key element of the rule is its expansion of federal 
jurisdiction to cover crimes motivated by bias against a victim's 
perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability. 
This legislation would make tremendous strides in garnering the civil 
and human rights of all Americans. Its passage would secure the equal 
protection of all

[[Page 11077]]

Americans under the law. It is a landmark and long overdue piece of 
legislation.
  This is an important legislation and I have introduced similar 
legislation in this and prior Congresses. While I support this 
legislation and urge my colleagues to support it, I am disappointed 
that the rule did not include my amendment which I offered last 
Congress.


                   MY AMENDMENT LANGUAGE IN H.R. 1592

  Last Congress, I offered an amendment to H.R. 1592, the legislation 
that was introduced last term. My amendment was accepted by unanimous 
consent by the members of the Judiciary Committee. Specifically, my 
amendment required ``the United States Sentencing Commission shall 
study the issue of adult recruitment of juveniles to commit hate crimes 
and shall report such findings back to the Congress within 180 days.'' 
If this language was included in the present bill, it would only serve 
to strengthen it and make it better. The amendment language was 
intended to gather information on adults that solicit and use youth in 
the commission of hate crimes. This issue arises with respect to hate 
groups such as the Skinheads, Neo-Nazis, KKK, and other similar type 
groups.
  The Rule is aimed at combating hate crimes. Because the rule 
addresses hate crimes, it is necessary to define the criminal actions 
that constitute a hate crime in the first instance. The definition is 
straightforward. Hate crimes involve the purposeful selection of 
victims for violence and intimidation based upon their perceived 
attributes. Such targeting for violence removes these actions from the 
protected area of free expression of belief and speech as enshrined in 
the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The crimes are 
investigated and prosecuted at both the Federal and State and local 
level, depending upon the facts of the case and the needs of the 
investigation.
  Opponents will argue that this bill abrogates constitutional rights 
of Freedom of Speech or other First Amendment guarantees under the 
Constitution. These arguments have no merit.
  First, all speech is not protected speech. For example, one does not 
have the right to scream ``Fire!'' in a crowded movies theatre.
  Second, nothing in this bill prevents a person from exercising their 
fundamental rights or their First Amendment right to free speech. The 
actionable crime here is crimes that cause bodily injury.
  Third, the rule clarifies that neither this Act, nor the amendments 
made by it may be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct 
protected from legal prohibition, or any activities protected by the 
free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment of the 
United States Constitution. The legislation does not punish, nor 
prohibit in any way, name-calling, verbal abuse, or even expressions of 
hatred toward any group, even if such statements amount to hate speech. 
Because it covers only violent actions that result in death or bodily 
injury nothing in this legislation prohibits lawful expression of 
deeply held religious beliefs. Thus, clergy and other religious persons 
are not prohibited from decrying any acts, lifestyles, or 
characteristics that they deem repugnant or contrary to their beliefs. 
This speech is not actionable under this bill and is in no way 
proscribed.
  The rule specifically provides at Section 8, in its Rule of 
Construction, that ``Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by 
this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct 
protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the 
Constitution.'' Thus, the plain language of the rule makes clear that 
clergy or others exercising their First Amendment right to speech or 
expression will not be penalized by this law. Words or conduct that 
does not result in bodily injury is not actionable under this bill.
  The Rule will address two serious deficiencies in the Federal civil 
rights crimes, in which a limited set of hate crimes committed on the 
basis of race, color, religion, or national origin are prohibited. The 
principal federal hate crimes statutes are 18 U.S.C. sec. 245 and 42 
U.S.C. sec. 3631, this bill expands the application of hate crimes 
legislation.
  In the last forty years, limitations in section 245 have become 
apparent and needed to be addressed. For example, the existing statute 
requires the government not only to prove that the defendant committed 
an offense because of the victim's race, color, religion, or national 
origin, but also because of the victim's participation in one of sex 
narrowly defined protected activities. These activities related to 
enrolling/attending schools, participating in or enjoying a service, 
program, facility, or activity administered or provided by a state or 
local government, applying for or enjoying employment, serving in a 
state court as a juror, travelling in or using a facility of interstate 
commerce, and enjoying the goods or services of certain places of 
public accommodation. This bill extends the application of hate crimes 
beyond these narrow and limited situations.
  The Rule extends hate crimes in another important manner. The 
existing statute provides no coverage for violent hate crimes committed 
because of the victim's perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender 
identity or disability. The Rule covers these statuses.
  When federal jurisdiction has existed in the limited hate crime 
contexts authorized under 18 U.S.C. sec. 245(b), the federal 
government's resources, forensic expertise, and experience in the 
identification and proof of hate-based motivations has provided an 
invaluable investigative complement to the familiarity of investigators 
with the local community, people and customs. The limitations of 
section 245 have limited the opportunity for such collaboration in many 
incidents of violence.
  As I mentioned out the outset, I understand the urgency and 
importance of passing this bill. I would however like to address two 
issues that I would like considered, and that I would like to work with 
leadership to ensure is included, in conference.
  First, the rule adds a certification requirement that is not 
currently found in section. Specifically, it requires a written 
certification from the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, 
the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General that 
the person has reason to believe that a hate crime has occurred and the 
person has consulted with local and state law enforcement.
  This imposes yet another burden upon the Department of Justice and 
might infringe upon its right to bring and try hate crimes. I do not 
see any compelling reason for changing the existing law and adding this 
additional burden.
  Similarly, with respect to the Rule of Evidence in section 7(d) of 
this legislation, it provides the following:
  ``In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of 
expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as 
substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates 
to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of 
evidence governing impeachment of a witness.''
  Thus, this new rule of evidence alters the relevance standard that 
already exists under the Federal Rules of Evidence. It would seem 
appropriate to use evidence, albeit circumstantial insofar as it is 
relevant. For example, consider the following hypothetical that a hate 
crime is perpetrated but under the current construction of section 
7(d), it would be inadmissible to proffer evidence that the defendant 
collected racist magazine or paraphernalia unless such paraphernalia 
was directly used in the crime or is entered for purposes of 
impeachment. It defies reason that the existence of such paraphernalia 
is relevant and should be admissible to prove that a crime was racially 
motivated. Therefore, I would excise the language in section 7(d).
  Hate crimes are real. The bodily injury, loss of life, and havoc that 
their perpetration wreaks on an individual, a family, community, and 
the country is wholly unacceptable. I urge my colleagues to support an 
end to such hate crimes and support this rule. Its passage would make 
America a fuller, freer and more equal society that ensures that all 
accorded equal protection under the laws of the United States.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered, and 
suspending the rules and passing H.R. 46, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 234, 
noes 181, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 219]

                               AYES--234

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney

[[Page 11078]]


     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--181

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Becerra
     Boehner
     Boucher
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Ehlers
     Granger
     Gutierrez
     Inslee
     Kilroy
     Kosmas
     Larson (CT)
     McCarthy (CA)
     Perriello
     Stark
     Thompson (MS)
     Waxman

                              {time}  1348

  Mr. BACHUS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. BEAN changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. LARSON. Mr. Speaker, on April 29, 2009, I missed the vote on 
ordering the previous question on H. Res. 372 (rollcall vote 219), 
providing for consideration of H.R. 1913, to provide Federal assistance 
to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate 
crimes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' for H. Res. 372.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained earlier today 
and missed rollcall vote 219 on ordering the previous question on H. 
Res. 372, providing for consideration of H.R. 1913. If present, I would 
have voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 219, I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 234, 
noes 190, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 220]

                               AYES--234

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--190

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao

[[Page 11079]]


     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Boehner
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Granger
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Stark
     Waxman


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this 
vote.

                              {time}  1358

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________