Date: 2007-05-03
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to this rule. Lets understand what this is. This is a closed rule suggesting that this is a perfect bill. This is anything but a perfect bill. People ought to understand that we are denied the opportunity to present a single amendment on this floor. and let me explain to my colleagues the single amendment I wish to bring to the floor. This bill defines hate crimes to include a number of different subjects. One of them is a crime committed against someone where the hate was motivated by hatred for their sexual orientation. "Sexual orientation" appears as an undefined term in the bill. I offered a simple amendment to define sexual orientation as it is noted in the U.S. Code. the only specific reference to a definition in the U.S. Code. which is a note that is a footnote in the statute which directs the Sentencing Commission to take into consideration hate motivation when they want to enhance penalties. There is no statutory definition of it. however. with respect to the crime itself. And that note refers to sexual orientation simply as consensual homosexual or heterosexual conduct. Now. why would they not allow us to have that simple amendment. which when we discussed it in committee. I was told that is what they meant the bill to be? The chairman of the committee said to me it sounded like a reasonable amendment becaise thats exactly what they intended it to be. So why dont w4 have the opportunity to offer this amendment on the floor? I do not know. And why would I be concerned about a failure for us to define this term? Because if you use *the term "sexual orientation" and use the definition found in the dictionary of those two words. it means any orientation of sexual conduct. Now. why would I be concerned. being aformer attorney general of the State of California and having served in this Congress now for seven terms representing my State? Because I recall some 20 years ago when a debate -ensued in my thenexisting district in Palos Verdes. California. where the local chapter of NAMBLA. which is the North American Man/Boy Love Association. NAMBLA. and the dispute was that they wanted to have their local chapter meetings at the local library. Some of you may have seen their banners in certain parades that take place in San Francisco. where NAMBLA. instead of hiding. proudly proclaims their position of "sexual orientation." They argue. for instance. that we are denying children their right to have sexual expression with adults and that somehow we are hampering their development. I am not making this up. my colleagues. This is a fact. And under a nondefined� term of "sexual orientation." that very well may be included. I could give you other examples. but that is a current example. And in order to make sure that that kind of activity is not enshrined in the law and given special protection. I asked for this simple amendment. And when I was in debate in the committee. I was told by the chairman that it made ample sense and we ought to work to do that. So then I go before the distinguished Committee on Rules. make this presentation. have no argument against it. and yet am denied the simple opportunity to offer that.. So the question is why? If you dont want to extend this definition. if you dont want to have this free play out there in the legal atmosphere. why do you deny me the opportunity to present this simple amendment? Is there a hidden agenda here? Is there something we dont know? Are we flying under false flags here? What are we doing? This is more. my colleagues. than just a dispute between the majority versus the minority on the Rules Committee. This is more than just hampering the minority. This is a question of simple definition which goes to a crucial question in our society today. So my concern. my colleagues. is not fanciful. It is not made up. It is not something that may happen in the future. This is based on an experience that I have seen for 20plus years in my home State. And yet when I asked to have this considered. I was told that it made eminent sense. we basically hear a great silence. A great silence. Now. we can have games here in the House of Representatives. majority versus minority. but when it affects the lives of our constituents. when it affects in a very real way a serious social question in our society. it seems to me we ought to rise above this kind of nonsense. and we ought to at least give the Members the opportunity to consider it. Maybe the Members dont agree with me. Maybe the Members think we ought to expand this definition. But at least we ought to have the chance to debate it. 0l 1045 Last time I checked. were not under a time clock here that requires us to leave. We could consider this. So I would ask my colleagues to please vote down this rule. Allow us to bring forward a rule that allows consideration of these and other amendments.