National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2010

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I come to the floor to express my disappointment that the Senate failed to take advantage of an opportunity to debunk a false argument against the Matthew Shephard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. If it were up to me, the debate never would have gone in this direction, but since it has I have tried to do my best to address the concern--though I believe it to be unfounded--that this legislation protects ``pedophiles.''

Some, including some constituents of mine in Nebraska, are concerned that a term used in this legislation, ``sexual orientation,'' could be interpreted as including ``pedophiles.'' This is obviously not the intent of the bill, nor is it possible that any of the categories protected by the bill could be read to include pedophiles. In short, nothing in this legislation is intended, nor can it be construed, to protect pedophiles.

The Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer in the United States, has rejected the argument that this bill covers pedophiles. In fact, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Sessions, explicitly asked Attorney General Eric E. Holder a question for the record of the Judiciary Committee's hearing on this bill, which makes clear that the bill, as written, could not possibly be read to include pedophiles. As the Attorney General stated:

Proposed U.S.C. 249(a)(2) would cover violent crimes motivated by bias against the ``actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person.'' This legislation would only cover groups falling under these categories. The Department [of Justice] does not believe that any group falling under these categories should be excluded. The Department does not believe that any of the listed categories could possibly be read to include pedophiles, and therefore we do not believe an amendment to exclude pedophiles is necessary.

Despite this assurance, my colleague from South Carolina offered just such an amendment, and I signed on as a cosponsor to express sensitivity to the concern he raises, even though I do not believe this legislation protects pedophiles in any way.

Existing Federal law, codified at 28 U.S.C  534 defines sexual orientation as consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality. A similar definition can be found in any dictionary of the English language. That and nothing more is what we are addressing in this bill.

I might add that in my view to claim that this law could somehow be used to protect pedophiles shows a lack of confidence in and respect for local law enforcement, and the groups, such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs Association, and the National District Attorneys Association, which are strongly supporting this bill and asking us to pass this legislation to help them do their jobs in investigating and prosecuting these heinous crimes.

In order for the hate crimes law to be used in the manner some groups claim it could, a chief of police or local sheriff would have to decide, in conjunction with the county attorney or district attorney, that it was in their best interest and the best interest of the community to bring such a prosecution, in contravention of existing Federal laws that protect children from predators. Federal law enforcement, which serves as a backstop to local efforts under this bill, would also not use the law in this way because the Department of Justice has already stated their policy that this legislation does not protect pedophiles. As I quoted above, the Attorney General, the Nation's top law enforcement official, made the Department's policy crystal clear in Congressional testimony: ``the Department does not believe that any of the listed categories could possibly be read to include pedophiles.''

We can have an honest debate about this bill. I have heard several arguments of reasons why this bill should be opposed, and I appreciate and respect the concerns which underlie those arguments. However, I feel the need to reaffirm that in no way is this bill intended to, or can be construed as, protecting pedophiles.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source