[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 116 (Thursday, September 15, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1873-E1874]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3132, CHILDREN'S SAFETY ACT OF 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 14, 2005

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, as an OB-GYN who has had the privilege of 
bringing over 3,000 children into the world, I share the desire to 
punish severely those who sexually abuse children. In fact, it is hard 
to imagine someone more deserving of life in prison than one who preys 
on children. This is why I have supported legislation that increases 
penalties for sexual assaults on children occurring on Federal land.
  However, Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this bill because it 
infringes on the States' constitutional authority over the prevention 
and punishment of sex crimes. The late Chief Justice William H. 
Rehnquist and former United States Attorney General Ed Meese, two men 
who no one has ever accused of being ``soft on crime,'' have both 
warned that, although creating more Federal crimes may make politicians 
feel good, it is neither constitutionally sound nor prudent. Rehnquist 
has stated that, ``[t]he trend to federalize crimes that traditionally 
have been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely 
the nature of our federal system.'' Meese stated that Congress's 
tendency in recent decades to make Federal crimes out of offenses that 
have historically

[[Page E1874]]

been State matters has dangerous implications both for the fair 
administration of justice and for the principle that States are 
something more than mere administrative districts of a nation governed 
mainly from Washington.
  H.R. 3132 not only creates new Federal programs and crimes, it 
instructs the States to change their laws to conform with Federal 
dictates. This violates the Constitution, and can weaken law 
enforcement. For example, one of the provisions of the new law requires 
States include those convicted of misdemeanors in their sex offender 
registries. By definition, misdemeanors are nonserious crimes, yet 
under this legislation State officials must waste valuable resources 
tracking non-serious sex offenders--resources that should be going to 
tracking those who are more likely to represent a real threat to 
children.
  Thus, once again we see how increasing the role of the Federal 
Government in fighting these crimes--even when it is well intended--
only hamstrings local and State law enforcement officers and courts and 
prevents them from effectively dealing with such criminals as the 
locals would have them dealt with--harshly and finally.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress could both honor the Constitution and help 
States and local governments protect children by using our power to 
limit Federal jurisdiction to stop Federal judges from preventing 
States and local governments from keeping these criminals off the 
streets. My colleagues should remember that it was a Federal judge in a 
Federal court who ruled that the death penalty is inappropriate for sex 
offenders. Instead of endorsing a bill to let people know when a 
convicted child molester or rapist is in their neighborhood after being 
released, perhaps we should respect the authority of State courts and 
legislators to give child molesters and rapists the life or even death 
sentences, depending on the will of the people of those States.

  Just as the Founders never intended the Congress to create a national 
police force, they never intended the Federal courts to dictate 
criminal procedures to the States. The Founding Fathers knew quite well 
that it would be impossible for a central government to successfully 
manage crime prevention programs for as large and diverse a country as 
America. That is one reason why they reserved to the States the 
exclusive authority and jurisdiction to deal with crime. Our children 
would likely be safe today if the police powers and budgets were under 
the direct and total control of the States as called for in the 
Constitution.
  Finally Mr. Chairman, this legislation poses a threat to 
constitutional liberty by taking another step toward creating even more 
Federal ``hate crimes'' laws. So called ``hate crimes'' add an extra 
level of punishment for the thoughts motivating a crime--as if murder 
or robbery motivated by ``hate'' is somehow more offensive than murder 
or robbery motivated by greed or jealously. Laws criminalizing thought, 
instead of simply criminalizing acts of aggression against persons and 
property, have no place in a free society.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, since H.R. 3132 further burdens State 
and local law enforcement with unconstitutional Federal mandates that 
may make it tougher to monitor true threats to children, I encourage my 
colleagues to reject this bill. Instead, I hope my colleagues will work 
to end Federal interference in State laws that prevent States from 
effectively protecting children from sexual predators.

                          ____________________