Appointment of Conferees on H.R. 4200, National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2005
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4200, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 -- (House of Representatives - September 28, 2004)
Mr. SAXTON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4200) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise in the midst of, I think, a very important debate on the floor of this Congress, although I am sure many of my constituents in Indiana wonder why we are debating such a contentious social issue in the midst of a critical National Defense Authorization Act. Nevertheless, we are here, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak.
I deplore violence for any reason against any person; and I believe, without hesitation, that that is the view of the good and decent men and women who serve on the floor of this Congress. But I oppose the motion to instruct and hope our conferees will remove the so-referenced hate crimes language because in addition to questioning whether this issue has a place in the defense bill, I consider it, as many have argued more eloquently than me, unnecessary, repetitive of State jurisdiction, and it is constitutionally suspect, claiming as its constitutional basis the 13th amendment, which would likely be rejected in the courts, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) has argued.
But I rise today, Madam Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary and a civil libertarian deeply concerned over the issue of creating a crime for thought. It is difficult for me to understand how the governing of thought in any way, Madam Speaker, is consistent with the principles underlying a free society. That the Kennedy bill serves to punish thought per se is nowhere more obvious than in how, if passed, it will discredit the public mores of tens of millions of Americans on matters of sex and sexuality.
Specifically, the Kennedy language in the bill that we are considering includes a prohibition against gender-based and sexual-orientation-based crimes. As the 2001 committee report of the Senate committee on the bill made clear, the use of the term "gender," instead of the proper term "sex," is a deliberate effort to extend the law's protections to individuals in the categories of transvestites and those who have undergone sex change operations.
Obviously, Madam Speaker, it goes without saying that a great many Americans have deeply felt, sincerely held moral beliefs about homosexuality and about the various derivatives thereof. And make no mistake about it, the language in this legislation condemns implicitly those thoughts.
We all condemn actions that take the form of crimes, whatever their motivation. Crimes of violence are to be deplored, and they have been eloquently deplored by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle today. But legislation that focuses on the thoughts of Americans who have moral reservations about certain behavioral choices ought not to be a crime.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT