H.R.3132 TITLE X--LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HATE CRIMES PREVENTION

Thomas ^ | 09.15.2005 | Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr., et al

[Anthem]

Bill Summary & Status for the 109th Congress

---

NEW SEARCH | HOME | HELP | ABOUT COSPONSORS

---

H.R.3132
Title: To make improvements to the national sex offender registration program, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [WI-5] (introduced 6/30/2005)      Cosponsors (88)

Related Bills: H.RES.436, H.R.3133
Latest Major Action: 9/15/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
House Reports: 109-218 Part 1, 109-218 Part 2

---

COSPONSORS(88), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:     (Sort: by date)

Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] - 7/27/2005	Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] - 7/14/2005
Rep Baker, Richard H. [LA-6] - 7/14/2005	Rep Barrow, John [GA-12] - 9/6/2005
Rep Boehlert, Sherwood [NY-24] - 9/6/2005	Rep Boozman, John [AR-3] - 9/6/2005
Rep Boswell, Leonard L. [IA-3] - 7/14/2005	Rep Boustany, Charles W., Jr. [LA-7] - 7/20/2005
Rep Brown-Waite, Ginny [FL-5] - 6/30/2005	Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] - 7/14/2005
Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] - 9/8/2005	Rep Cannon, Chris [UT-3] - 7/27/2005
Rep Cantor, Eric [VA-7] - 7/27/2005	Rep Capito, Shelley Moore [WV-2] - 7/26/2005
Rep Chabot, Steve [OH-1] - 6/30/2005	Rep Chandler, Ben [KY-6] - 7/28/2005
Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6] - 7/28/2005	Rep Cramer, Robert E. (Bud), Jr. [AL-5] - 6/30/2005
Rep DeLay, Tom [TX-22] - 6/30/2005	Rep Feeney, Tom [FL-24] - 7/14/2005
Rep Foley, Mark [FL-16] - 6/30/2005	Rep Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4] - 7/14/2005
Rep Fossella, Vito [NY-13] - 9/6/2005	Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] - 7/14/2005
Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] - 7/19/2005	Rep Gibbons, Jim [NV-2] - 9/6/2005
Rep Gillmor, Paul E. [OH-5] - 6/30/2005	Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] - 7/25/2005
Rep Granger, Kay [TX-12] - 7/20/2005	Rep Graves, Sam [MO-6] - 6/30/2005
Rep Green, Gene [TX-29] - 7/25/2005	Rep Green, Mark [WI-8] - 6/30/2005
Rep Harris, Katherine [FL-13] - 7/28/2005	Rep Hart, Melissa A. [PA-4] - 7/25/2005
Rep Hastings, Doc [WA-4] - 9/8/2005	Rep Herseth, Stephanie [SD] - 7/19/2005
Rep Jenkins, William L. [TN-1] - 7/19/2005	Rep Jindal, Bobby [LA-1] - 7/14/2005
Rep Keller, Ric [FL-8] - 7/19/2005	Rep Kennedy, Mark R. [MN-6] - 7/19/2005
Rep King, Peter T. [NY-3] - 7/27/2005	Rep King, Steve [IA-5] - 7/27/2005
Rep Kline, John [MN-2] - 7/27/2005	Rep Kuhl, John R. "Randy", Jr. [NY-29] - 7/20/2005
Rep Latham, Tom [IA-4] - 7/25/2005	Rep LoBiondo, Frank A. [NJ-2] - 7/28/2005
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 9/8/2005	Rep Lungren, Daniel E. [CA-3] - 9/6/2005
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] - 9/6/2005	Rep McHugh, John M. [NY-23] - 9/6/2005
Rep McIntyre, Mike [NC-7] - 9/6/2005	Rep McMorris, Cathy [WA-5] - 7/19/2005
Rep Miller, Candice S. [MI-10] - 9/6/2005	Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] - 7/25/2005
Rep Moore, Dennis [KS-3] - 9/6/2005	Rep Norwood, Charlie [GA-9] - 9/6/2005
Rep Osborne, Tom [NE-3] - 7/25/2005	Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 7/14/2005
Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] - 7/19/2005	Rep Pickering, Charles W. (Chip) [MS-3] - 7/28/2005
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] - 6/30/2005	Rep Pomeroy, Earl [ND] - 6/30/2005
Rep Porter, Jon C. [NV-3] - 7/19/2005	Rep Price, Tom [GA-6] - 7/28/2005
Rep Pryce, Deborah [OH-15] - 7/25/2005	Rep Putnam, Adam H. [FL-12] - 9/6/2005
Rep Rehberg, Dennis R. [MT] - 7/26/2005	Rep Reichert, David G. [WA-8] - 7/25/2005
Rep Reynolds, Thomas M. [NY-26] - 7/26/2005	Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] - 7/28/2005
Rep Ross, Mike [AR-4] - 7/27/2005	Rep Royce, Edward R. [CA-40] - 7/14/2005
Rep Ryan, Paul [WI-1] - 9/6/2005	Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 9/6/2005
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] - 7/28/2005	Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] - 9/8/2005
Rep Shaw, E. Clay, Jr. [FL-22] - 7/25/2005	Rep Smith, Adam [WA-9] - 9/8/2005
Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] - 7/27/2005	Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] - 7/19/2005
Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] - 7/28/2005	Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] - 7/20/2005
Rep Walden, Greg [OR-2] - 9/6/2005	Rep Weldon, Curt [PA-7] - 7/28/2005
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-8] - 7/28/2005	Rep Whitfield, Ed [KY-1] - 7/28/2005
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] - 7/20/2005	Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] - 7/25/2005

H.R.3132

Children's Safety Act of 2005 (Referred to Senate Committee after being Received from House)

---

TITLE X--LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HATE CRIMES PREVENTION

SEC. 1001. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the `Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2005'.

SEC. 1002. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.

(2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive.

(3) State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance.

(4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.

(5) The prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.

(6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including--

(A) by impeding the movement of members of targeted groups and forcing such members to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence; and

(B) by preventing members of targeted groups from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.

(7) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.

(8) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.

(9) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce.

(10) For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, through widespread public and private violence directed at persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.

(11) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States were adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious and national origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct `races'. Thus, in order to eliminate, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

(12) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local authorities to work together as partners in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes.

(13) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant Federal assistance to States and local jurisdictions.

SEC. 1003. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.

In this title, the term `hate crime' has the same meaning as in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note).

SEC. 1004. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS BY STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.

(a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance-

(1) IN GENERAL- At the request of a law enforcement official of a State or Indian tribe, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that--

(A) constitutes a crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of title 18, United States Code);

(B) constitutes a felony under the laws of the State or Indian tribe; and

(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the hate crime laws of the State or Indian tribe.

(2) PRIORITY- In providing assistance under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than 1 State and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or prosecution of the crime.

(b) Grants-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General may award grants to assist State, local, and Indian law enforcement officials with the extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.

(2) OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS- In implementing the grant program, the Office of Justice Programs shall work closely with the funded jurisdictions to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties, including community groups and schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed through the local infrastructure developed under the grants.

(3) APPLICATION-

(A) IN GENERAL- Each State that desires a grant under this subsection shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by or containing such information as the Attorney General shall reasonably require.

(B) DATE FOR SUBMISSION- Applications submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be submitted during the 60-day period beginning on a date that the Attorney General shall prescribe.

(C) REQUIREMENTS- A State or political subdivision of a State or tribal official applying for assistance under this subsection shall--

(i) describe the extraordinary purposes for which the grant is needed;

(ii) certify that the State, political subdivision, or Indian tribe lacks the resources necessary to investigate or prosecute the hate crime;

(iii) demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement the grant, the State, political subdivision, or tribal official has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, nongovernmental victim services programs that have experience in providing services to victims of hate crimes; and

(iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this subsection will be used to supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded under this subsection.

(4) DEADLINE- An application for a grant under this subsection shall be approved or disapproved by the Attorney General not later than 30 business days after the date on which the Attorney General receives the application.

(5) GRANT AMOUNT- A grant under this subsection shall not exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction within a 1 year period.

(6) REPORT- Not later than December 31, 2006, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report describing the applications submitted for grants under this subsection, the award of such grants, and the purposes for which the grant amounts were expended.

(7) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007.

SEC. 1005. GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) Authority to Make Grants- The Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice shall award grants, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to State and local programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.

(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.

SEC. 1006. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Justice, including the Community Relations Service, for fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008 such sums as are necessary to increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations of section 249 of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 1007.

SEC. 1007. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.

(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

`(a) In General-

`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--

`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

`(i) death results from the offense; or

`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--

`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

`(I) death results from the offense; or

`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that--

`(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim--

`(I) across a State line or national border; or

`(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;

`(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);

`(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or

`(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--

`(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or

`(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.

`(b) Certification Requirement- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General that--

`(1) he or she has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and

`(2) he or his designee or she or her designee has consulted with State or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution and determined that--

`(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction;

`(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;

`(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government assuming jurisdiction; or

`(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.

`(c) Definitions- In this section--

`(1) the term `explosive or incendiary device' has the meaning given the term in section 232 of this title;

`(2) the term `firearm' has the meaning given the term in section 921(a) of this title; and

`(3) the term `gender identity' for the purposes of this chapter means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.

`(d) Rule of Evidence- 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.'.

(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The analysis for chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`249. Hate crime acts.'.

SEC. 1008. STATISTICS.

Subsection (b)(1) of the first section of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting `gender and gender identity,' after `race,'.

SEC. 1009. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this title, an amendment made by this title, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

Passed the House of Representatives September 14, 2005.

Attest:

JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.

By Gerasimos C. Vans,

Deputy Clerk.

[Anthem]

There is a big difference between prejudice and racism. Big difference between a "hateful" act that causes physical harm, and one's prejudicial viewpoint.

It would be great if you could explain this a little further.

[Anthem]

I think some political activism from connected people at this web site is as good a chance as any.

[OXENinFLA]

I HATE THIS BILL, I HATE THIS BILL, I HATE THIS BILL!

`(b) Certification Requirement- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General that--

`(1) he or she has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and

`(2) he or his designee or she or her designee has consulted with State or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution and determined that--

`(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction;

`(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;

`(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government assuming jurisdiction; or

`(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.

[Anthem]

Something that may interest you.

[spunkets]

Some people are more equal than others and some are willing to bow down to there BS.

[Anthem]

Some people are more equal than others and some are willing to bow down to there BS

Bow down to where? ;)

[OpusatFR]

I will at a later date. This weekend, however, I am meeting my future daughter-in-law for the first time!

[spunkets]

The title is about sex offender database. The text refers to hate crimes. What's that about.

[Anthem]

This is an amedment that was tacked onto the end of that bill. You can go to Thomas on the link above and put the bill number into the search box and read the whole thing.

[spunkets]

I see. It's an amendment. Then the sponsor and cosponsor list doesn't really apply. The person that attached the amendment does. Who was that?

[Anthem]

You will notice that no sponsor withdrew (at the end of the sponsor list there is a section for listing withdrawn sponsors). I don't know who sponsored the amendment. One would have to go through the Congressional Record (also available at Thomas) to see first hand.

Why are you squirming? Are you trying to find someone else to blame? I blame the sponsor and co-sponsors, especially ones like Tom DeLay who allowed this to happen. If they want to say they were blindsided by a late amendment, then they should kill the amendment in the joint conference. A move that I think needs our help.

[spunkets]

" Why are you squirming? Are you trying to find someone else to blame?"

Your post was incomplete and misleading. There was no mention that this was an amendment to original bill, and since it is, list of sponsors, cosponsors is irrelevant. Only the one who attached it is at this point. You should have laid that all out initially.

[Anthem]

And what work are you doing? What is the relevance of your questions to the impact of this bill if passed as is. If you're just another forum junkie that doesn't do anything but nitpick, then go bother someone else.

[Anthem]

Please help to get this amenment removed in the joint conference. Here is an objection from the Congressional record from a Florida Republican.

IN OPPOSITION TO THE CONYERS AMENDMENT TO H.R. 3132 -- (Extensions of Remarks - September 14, 2005)

[Page: E1850]

---

SPEECH OF HON. JEFF MILLER OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2005

• Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, the House passed an amended version of H.R. 3132, The Children's Safety Act of 2005. The bill as sent to the floor by the Judiciary Committee represented a tough crackdown on pedophilia and other sex offenses. The bill modifies the national sex offender registration program, expands the use of DNA to identify and prosecute sex offenders, increases penalties for sexual offenses against America's children, and makes other much-needed modifications and expansions of federal law relating to child safety.

• Before the bill passed, however, an amendment by Rep. JOHN CONYERS (D-MI) was added, drastically altering this bill. I voted against the Conyers amendment, and its passage forced me to vote against final passage of the bill.

• The Conyers amendment creates a Federal offense for hate crimes. I believe that the proponents of hate crimes legislation have good and honorable intentions. They would like to see less bigotry and more good will in American society. While I share that goal, I believe Congress should decline the invitation to enact hate crimes legislation for both constitutional and practical reasons.

• The U.S. Constitution created a federal government of limited powers. Most of the federal government's ``delegated powers'' are set forth in Article I, Section 8. The Tenth Amendment was added to make it clear that the powers not delegated to the federal government ``are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.''

• Crime is serious problem, but under the U.S. Constitution it is a matter to be handled by state and local government. In recent years, Congress has federalized the crimes of gun possession within a school zone, carjacking, and wife beating. All of that and more has been rationalized under the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause is not a blank check for Congress to enact whatever legislation it deems to be ``good and proper for America.'' The Conyers Amendment is simply beyond the powers that are delegated to Congress. Today, the House exacerbated the errors of past Congresses by federalizing more criminal offenses

• Not to mention the fact that the Conyers language isn't going to prevent anything. Any thug that is already inclined to hurt another human being is not going to lay down the gun or knife because of some new law passed by Congress; they've already made a conscious decision to disregard basic homicide statutes. The notion that any federal hate crime law will prevent brutal killings is preposterous.

• For the proponents of hate crime laws, the dilemma is this: if some groups (women, gays, vegans, runners, whatever) are left out of the ``hate crime'' definition, they will resent the selective depreciation of their victimization. On the other hand, if all victim groups are included, the hate crime category will be no different than ``ordinary'' criminal law.

• Federalizing hate crime law will not increase tolerance in our society or reduce intergroup conflict. I believe hate crime laws may well have the opposite effect. The men and women who will be administering the hate crime laws (e.g. police, prosecutors) will likely encounter a never-ending series of complaints with respect to their official decisions. When a U.S. Attorney declines to prosecute a certain offense as a hate crime, some will complain that he is favoring the groups to which the accused belongs (e.g. Hispanic males). And when a U.S. Attorney does prosecute an offense as a hate crime, some will complain that the decision was based upon politics and that the government is favoring the groups to which the victim belongs (e.g. Asian Americans).

• Perhaps the most dangerous element of federalized hate crime law is its approach to the notion of thought crimes. But once hate crime laws are on the books, the law enforcement apparatus will be delving into the accused's life and thoughts in order to show that he or she was motivated by bigotry. What kind of books and magazines were found in the home? What internet sites were bookmarked in the computer? Friends and co-workers will be interviewed to discern the accused's politics and worldview. The point here is that such chilling examples of state intrusion are avoidable because, as noted above, hate crime laws are unnecessary in the first place.

• But above all else, I cannot comprehend why anyone would believe that the Conyers hate crimes language makes our children any safer from sexual predators. Would it have prevented John Couey from assaulting and

  [Page: E1851]

  heinously murdering Jessica Lunsford? I don't believe it would have.

• Our children deserve strong anti-pedophilia laws that meet basic constitutional thresholds and it's our responsibility to deliver that to them. Therefore I implore my Senate colleagues to step up and give the presence of the Conyers language in H.R. 3132 the scrutiny that it warrants. Should they pass a clean Children's Safety Act, I look forward to removing the Conyers language in conference and supporting the clean Conference Report.

  END
  

[spunkets]

"And what work are you doing?"

Your post is almost straightened out now so it's accurate and understandable. It still doesn't have the name and party of the amendment attachment given. That would give the reader of this thread an idea on the motiuvations for this and what might happen to it.

[tacticalogic]

The Federal government would be a rational size (cost) had Ike's administration not explored how actions affect interstate commerce.

This started before Ike. See Wicakrd v Filburn.

[Anthem]

It still doesn't have the name and party of the amendment attachment given.

Then get to work.

[gondramB]

"I think he means that appropriate federal help is useful for catching the serial killers. Interstate flight is where the FBI can help."

That was just what I meant. Thank you.

[little jeremiah]

later pingout.

[Anthem]

Thank you for your help on this thread. I'm a little stunned at the relative lack of interest, but I haven't been around for a while, so I don't know what stirs the activism here anymore.