Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I want to say that I know that the motivation behind this bill is good, but we know not how many jobs are going to be created. We know not how many people are going to be assisted by this bill, because there is nothing in the bill that directs that. It's only after 8 years that there will be any accountability for the money being spent in this bill. I was encouraged yesterday when my colleagues acknowledged the fact that we've had no accountability by the Small Business Administration for how they spend the money. And I thought, Well, we're going to have some great accountability in this bill. But when I read the bill very carefully, I saw that it's only after 8 years that performance standards are going to be established for the projects to get this money. We have no idea how much money is going to be spent in administration. We don't know how many people are actually going to be served. But, as my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Roskam, said, we know how much would be accomplished by eliminating the estate tax. And let me talk a little bit more about that. We know that if the owner of a small business with assets of $3 million passed away this year, the heirs of the estate would have to pay Federal estate taxes of about $460,000. Why? They've have already paid taxes on that money twice--and they're going to be paying again. Why? Just because the Federal Government says so. Now the May, 2006, Joint Economic Committee Study has told us that a primary reason why small businesses fail to survive beyond one generation is the estate tax. Close to two-thirds of respondents--64 percent--in one survey reported that the estate tax makes survival of the business more difficult. Eighty-seven percent of black-owned firms and 93 percent of manufacturing firms responded that the estate tax was an impediment to survival. A survey of family business owners by Prince and Associates found that 98 percent of heirs cited a need to raise funds to pay estate taxes, when asked why family businesses fail. If only a small percentage of the 550,000 small businesses that fail annually are attributable to the estate taxes, the cumulative number affected over time could be substantial. In the context of the survey and tax data described here, it's easy to see how the estate tax has contributed to the failure of thousands of small and family-run businesses. A 2004 survey of Hispanic business owners by the Impacto Group, 66 percent of respondents said the estate tax affects their ability to meet company goals by distracting their attention and wasting resources. Half of all respondents in that survey report knowing of a Hispanic small business that has experienced hardship because of the estate tax liability, including selling off equipment or the business. One-quarter of respondents said they themselves would sell part of the business to pay the tax, and 10 percent would delay expansion of the business. So we know, again, that by getting rid of the estate tax, we would be saving thousands of small businesses, creating millions of jobs. And it is germane to this bill. Another issue that is of great concern to small businesses--and I talked to a lady this week about it. She had read about the required paid sick leave bill that is before the Congress right now. And she said, I'm struggling. She said, I have been paying my salaries of my employees out of my savings. If this bill goes through, we will have to shut down because we can't afford this--we already give some sick leave. And we're certainly very good to our employees. They can use their vacation for sick leave. But if we're mandated to do 7 days of paid sick leave, and we know that, in many cases, people will simply take those days whether they're sick or not, then we will shut down our business. So this Congress is acting over and over and over again to kill small businesses, and they offer us a very small bill here, as my colleague again said, that sounds wonderful. However, what it's going to do is be out there as an idea that will help small businesses, but they're going to ignore all of the things that prove they will help small businesses. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to just mention one more issue that comes to me all the time, and I know it has to be coming to other Members of Congress as they talk to small business owners and even large business owners, and that has to do with the issue of regulations. There's a study entitled: ``Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State,'' which is issued by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. And just a few statistics about it because, again, we could be dealing with some issues that would reduce the role of regulations in the lives of small business owners. I want to bring that up because this is a third point I think that hurts our small businesses tremendously. Given that in 2007 government spending stood at $2.73 trillion, the hidden tax of regulation now approaches half the level of Federal spending itself. Regulatory costs rival estimated 2007 individual income taxes of $1.17 trillion. Of the 3,882 regulations now in the works, 757 affect small businesses. Regulatory costs of $1.16 trillion absorb 8.5 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. Regulations dwarf the $150 billion economic stimulus package passed in 2008, and rolling back these would constitute a deregulatory stimulus. So I would like to urge my colleagues on the other side to let us look at this issue of regulatory costs and look at ways that we can do this. I've introduced a bill that would require more transparency in the cost of regulations, both to government and to the private sector. If we really want to help small businesses, then I think that that's something that we should be doing. It's H.R. 2255, Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act. I'd like to work with my colleagues on this and other issues where we really could help small businesses. Again, I know the intent of the underlying bill to this rule today is well-intentioned, but I believe that we have many other ways that don't cost any money to help small businesses. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate my colleague for pointing out some of the good things that the majority has tried to do. But I have to tell you that not one single person has come to me to tell me that he or she has benefited from any of these things that have passed. To the contrary. They come to me and tell me how they try and try to get assistance--and can't get assistance. Of course, I think these small amounts of tax credits are being offset by the tremendous burden that we are putting on the people of this country by increased taxes, not the least of which is the cap-and- tax bill that is passing, which is going to put a minimum of $3,000 a year increased tax burden on every family in this country, as well as several other things that are coming down the pike. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to defeat not only the rule but also the previous question so that I might amend the rule to make in order the amendment offered by Representative Terry of Nebraska, which would amend the Small Business Act's loan program to allow qualified struggling car dealers to apply for Small Business Administration loans. Many American car dealers are small businessmen and women who have been left literally holding the bag by the corporate carmakers. If this bill is truly meant to assist small business owners, this amendment would prove extraordinarily timely. This amendment is about small business. This amendment is about jobs. So I will ask people to defeat the previous question. I also ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous materials printed in the Congressional Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The main point of the amendment is to give SBA loans to the dealers to help them buy their own inventory since they're on the hook for the cost of their inventory since the manufacturers are going under. It is short and sweet. It's a take it or leave it or build on it. It would waive PAYGO. They waived PAYGO to bail out the manufacturers, but they don't want to waive PAYGO to help out the dealers when the manufacturing plan fails. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and the nays.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the President has said we should find common ground on the issue of abortion, but his nomination of Dawn Johnsen to head up the Office of Legal Counsel is amongst the most controversial of his nominees. Johnsen, who formerly worked for NARAL and the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project has compared pregnancy to involuntary servitude. She has described pregnant women as ``losers in the contraceptive lottery.'' She criticized then Senator Clinton for claiming a need to keep abortions rare. Some of her positions encompass questionable legal arguments, including the assertion that abortion bans might undermine the 13th Amendment, which bans slavery. I quote her here: ``Statutes that curtail a woman's abortion choice are disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, prohibited by the 13th Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the State's asserted interest.'' A quote again: ``Our position is that there is no `father' and no `child'--just a fetus. Any move by the courts to force a woman to have a child amounts to involuntary servitude.'' I and millions of other women do not feel this way. We cherish the opportunity to have borne a child.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. With Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington this week, it's important that we refocus on the unique relationship the U.S. shares with the Nation of Israel. This year is the 61st anniversary of the State of Israel. But 61 years of existence does not mean that Israel no longer faces profound threats to its very survival. Chief among those is the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran and Iran's continuing aggressive stance towards Israel in the region. Making matters even more urgent, Iran announced today that it has successfully test-fired a missile that is capable of striking Israel in addition to U.S. military installations in the Middle East and parts of Southeastern Europe. With his typical rhetorical hammer and anvil, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that with today's missile launch, Iran is sending a strong message on the nuclear front: ``Today the Republic of Iran is running the show.'' While I doubt that this is the case, it is increasingly clear that Iran relishes its role as Middle East troublemaker and is nowhere near giving up its troubling belligerent stance toward our Israeli allies. Yet despite the threats and instability that proliferate in the Middle East, Israel has proven to be a steadfast ally to the U.S. and a model of a free and open democratic state in this troubled region. Since the time of its creation more than 60 years ago, Israel has served as an example of democracy and equal rights for her neighbors. Israel has also proved to be a steadfast ally to the United States in a variety of ways, particularly within our country's diplomatic efforts in the Middle East. Since its founding in 1948, the State of Israel has served as a democratic anchor in the Middle East. Like the United States, the Israeli Declaration of Independence protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, a free press, free elections and many other tenets of a free society. Israel established a democracy in the midst of a politically tumultuous region and by guaranteeing the basic rights of her citizens, sets herself apart from her authoritarian neighbors. Israel prides herself on women's rights and equal pay for women in the workforce. The first female Prime Minister, Golda Meir, was elected in 1969, just 21 years after the formation of modern Israel. Women now serve as the Foreign Minister, Speaker of the Knesset and Chief Justice of the Israeli Supreme Court. Furthermore, Israel has recognized the necessity of providing equal rights regardless of gender or race and deserves to be commended. Not only is Israel an example for her neighbor as a thriving democracy where citizens' rights are protected through the rule of law, she has also been an avid supporter in the global war on terror. The U.S. and Israel are continually working together to develop sophisticated military technology and improve Israel's defense systems and soldier protection. In the interest of global freedom, I hope and am confident that this friendship will continue in the future.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise today, May 19, to commemorate the 128th anniversary of the birth of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey. Ataturk was a unique and inspirational figure who laid the foundation for the Republic of Turkey. He was a post World War I revolutionary leader who understood that Islam and modernity are not inconsistent--an important factor to reinforce today with democratic leaders throughout the Muslim world. By any measure, Ataturk was an historic reformer. In the space of two decades, he built the nation of Turkey from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire--a nation that was based on secular principles and with a foundation that was fertile for democracy to take root and prosper. He held true to his fundamental vision for his overwhelmingly Muslim nation, namely that it be guided by two overarching concepts: secularism and progress. Just as is the case today, he understood that advances in science and technology would enhance the nation and the Turkish people. To enable Turkey to reap the benefits of such advances, he set about enacting major reforms in all aspects of Turkish life--political, cultural, legal, educational, and economic all with an eye toward creating the architecture of the new Turkish nation that would raise it to the level of what Ataturk referred to as ``contemporary civilization.'' These reforms touched on all aspects of Turkish society from abolishing the caliphate, recognizing equal rights for men and women, replacing the Arabic alphabet with Latin letters, and instituting secular law to reforming traditional styles of dress and mandating surnames. Ataturk was an impatient reformer. His handling of the reform of the alphabet is one example of his impatience. The language commission he appointed to review the reform recommended that the alphabet reforms be phased in over a fifteen year period. Ataturk had a much different timeframe in mind. He set about traveling throughout the country, personally instructing crowds in the new alphabet, and within six months he had accomplished his goal. With the acceptance of the Latin alphabet, millions of Turks would be poised to turn westward for their second languages and the learning to which those languages are the key. Ataturk championed women's rights, encouraging them to pursue careers as doctors, lawyers, scientists, writers and politicians. He did so because he wisely understood that by doing so he was unleashing the talents of all Turks and thereby making the nation stronger. Because of his vision and determination, Turkey is today a strong and vibrant democracy and a model for others in the Islamic world to emulate. Madam Speaker, it is my hope that Muslim leaders throughout the region will reacquaint themselves with Ataturk's revolutionary leadership and take inspiration in the courageous reforms he undertook more than seventy years ago so that they too can preside over nations that are secular, democratic and prosperous.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Wilkes County, North Carolina, VFW Honor Guard. This band of brothers has faithfully served the veterans and families of Wilkes County for the past 12 years by honoring the lives of deceased veterans in Wilkes County. Every member of the Honor Guard volunteers his time throughout the year to execute the Honor Guard's primary duty of performing military funeral rights for deceased veterans. Their commitment to those who have served our Nation demonstrates that they not only understand and revere the life of sacrifice chosen by those who serve in the Armed Forces, but they also know the toll military service takes on the family of veterans. In paying their respects to deceased veterans, the Wilkes VFW Honor Guard is offering a tangible thank you to veterans' families and also preserving an American tradition of marking the death of veterans with dignity and respect. I commend the Wilkes VFW Honor Guard members for their selfless service to their community and their Nation. They are true patriots.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. As the summer months quickly approach and families start to plan vacations, our country continues to struggle with high energy costs. That is why the Democrats' cap-and-trade, or better known as cap-and-tax, energy plan is an irresponsible proposal that will do more harm than good. The simple truth behind the Democrats' energy plan is that it raises taxes, kills jobs, and will lead to more government intrusion in our lives. The Democrats' energy plan is really a $624 billion national energy tax that will hit nearly every American family. This new national energy tax will be paid by anyone who turns on a light switch or plugs in an appliance. With Democrats still hiding many of the important details of their energy plan, a study that looked at a similar proposal estimated that the impact will be roughly $3,100 every American household will have to pay to the Federal Government. Also disappointing is the fact that the Democrats' national energy tax will hit the poor the hardest. Experts agree that lower-income individuals spend a greater share of their income on energy consumption. So while every American will be paying more for energy, low-income households already living on the edge of desperation will be hurt even more. The truth is President Obama is aware of the impact his energy plan will have on American families. While still a candidate for President, then-Senator Obama said that under his cap-and-tax plan, utility rates would necessarily skyrocket and said that those costs would be passed along to consumers. The impact of this national energy tax will not only be seen in home utility bills or at the pump, but various estimates suggest that anywhere from 1.8 million to 7 million Americans could lose their jobs as well. Though the President is promoting green jobs that may be created by his cap-and-tax plan, any new jobs created will not come close to compensating for those lost to this reckless energy policy. We have no greater example of the devastation the cap-and-tax system can have on an economy than Spain. After years of promoting green jobs, Spain has the highest unemployment rate in Europe, standing at a whopping 17.5 percent. Cap-and-tax has sought to be an environmentally friendly plan. The truth is that it will relocate manufacturing plants overseas to countries with far less stringent environmental regulations, in turn trading pollution to another part of the world. Republicans are for clean air, clean water and are committed to solving our energy crisis. Republicans believe there is a better way to achieve energy independence without destroying our economy and killing jobs.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, during the campaign, President Obama pledged 95 percent of taxpayers would not see their taxes increased one single dime. Unfortunately, the President has broken this promise. The President's budget included a cap-and-trade policy, otherwise known as cap-and-tax, that will hit every home utility bill and inflict more pain at the pump. Every American will be impacted by this dangerous policy. American households, on average, can expect to pay an additional $3,100 a year in energy costs. The American people still live with the memory of $4 a gallon for gas and the hardship it inflicted on their family budgets. Even our Democrat colleagues say this. Mr. Butterfield from North Carolina is quoted today in Roll Call as saying, ``The cost of everything is going to go up.'' The cost of everything is going to go up. This is the wrong direction for this country.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Americans are very concerned about our economy right now, and one of the things that gives them a lot of concern is where we are in terms of price for energy. The Republicans have a group called the American Energy Solutions Group that has been working on this issue, and I want to share some information that they have put together. Republicans, despite what our colleagues on the other side have said, have alternatives to the problems that we're facing in this country, but often these alternatives are not getting the attention from the majority party they deserve. Despite the President's campaign promise not to raise taxes on 95 percent of Americans, his energy plan is nothing more than a $646 billion national energy tax on every American family and small business. As families and businesses struggle in these difficult times, it's unconscionable to make the pain worse by forcing taxpayers to pay ever-higher energy bills. The President's energy plan will force family energy costs to rise by more than $3,100 per year and will pull $860 billion out of family budgets and put it into the Federal budget. And this is being optimistic. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the real cost to be as high as $3 trillion over the next 10 years. That means $1,000 in energy tax hikes for every man, woman and child. The President's own budget director, Peter Orszag, has testified that a tax on carbon emissions would ``impose costs on the economy,'' and that consumers will pay these costs through higher energy prices. The President himself has admitted that his plan will cause energy prices to skyrocket. The poor will be hit the hardest by this national energy tax. Experts agree that poor families spend a larger portion of their income on energy costs. Not even the President's modest Make Work Pay tax credit is enough to cover the high energy costs that will be forced on American families. Instead of providing solutions to keep energy costs low, the President and Democrats in Washington are proposing a national energy tax that will hit every worker, family and business across our country. Republicans support helping American families through these difficult times through immediate tax relief, not increased taxes. Since the current economic recession began in December of 2007 with the Democrats in charge of Congress, more than 5 million jobs have been lost. Yet the President proposes an energy plan that could result in anywhere between 1.8 and 7 million additional jobs being lost. The only jobs that are going to be created are for more government bureaucrats. Republicans support keeping energy prices low at home and at the pump through American energy by American workers. Instead of creating American energy made by American workers, the President's energy plan keeps us dependent on foreign oil. Republicans support more American-made energy through the creation of new and renewable energy sources, conservation and more domestic energy production. Giving American workers the resources to create American- made energy will keep the cost of energy low for American consumers. The President and the Democrat-controlled Congress are using this economic crisis as an opportunity to force dramatic change on the American people. As the President's own chief of staff has said, ``You never let a crisis go to waste.'' As Robert Samuelson noted in March, the President says he is focused on the economy, ``but he's also using the crisis to advance an ambitious long-term agenda.'' One thing is certain, it's an agenda that will lead to more taxes, fewer jobs and less energy. The Republicans have an alternative. It's called all of the above. We should develop all the resources that we have in the United States. We should conserve, we should look for alternatives, and we should use this opportunity to create more jobs and grow the economy, not kill jobs and slow the economy down even more. Mr. Speaker, we need the Republican plan to be paid attention to. The American people want it, and they deserve it.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to learn that the Republic of China (Taiwan) has now been invited to participate in this year's World Health Assembly meetings in Geneva. With the rapid spread of infectious diseases around the globe, Taiwan should have been included in the global health network a long time ago. Also, my best wishes to President Ma Ying-jeou on his first anniversary in office this May 20th. I hope that Taiwan will soon be able to participate meaningfully in the activities of all United Nations specialized agencies. Taiwan's international participation will most certainly encourage even faster cross-strait dialogue and permanent peace in the Asia-Pacific region. Madam Speaker, congratulations to the people of Taiwan and to their president Mr. Ma Ying-jeou on this important diplomatic breakthrough. This is Taiwan's first participation in a formal United Nations activity since 1971 when it withdrew from the United Nations.

Ms. FOXX

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? 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.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

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.'' 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. 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.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 90 seconds now to my colleague from Iowa (Mr. King).