Replies

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.

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

"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.