[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 15]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 20336-20337]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4200, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 
                        ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. CLIFF STEARNS

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 28, 2004

  Mr. STEARNS.  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Motion 
to Instruct Conferees on the FY05 National Defense Authorization Act.
  There are many reasons to oppose this Motion.
  First, the argument could certainly be made that ``hate crimes'' do 
not belong on a National Defense Authorization bill. This is incredibly 
important legislation, and it does not deserve to get bogged down over 
such a controversial and non-germane provision.
  I also oppose the notion of ``hate crimes'' in general, especially at 
the federal level. The fact of the matter is that a crime is a crime no 
matter what motivates it. If two men are brutally murdered, one for his 
race and the other

[[Page 20337]]

for his money, are we telling the latter's family that their father's 
death, or their husband's death, or their son's death, is somehow worth 
less in the eyes of the law?
  I would also contend that the very concept of ``hate crimes'' is 
divisive and tends to Balkanize America. During the Civil Rights 
movement, black Americans strove to be treated the same as white 
Americans. Theirs was a noble cause. Yet ``hate crimes'' betray the 
cause of those who fought against segregation by emphasizing our 
differences, rather than our common concerns.
  I am also concerned that if we have laws which punish more severely 
offenders who are motivated by certain beliefs, it increases the risk 
that we will try to criminalize the actual beliefs themselves.
  There is no need for ``hate crime'' legislation. Federal ``hate 
crimes'' prosecute property crimes, assault and battery and murder 
against the special victims. Yet all of these underlying offenses are 
already illegal in all 50 states and they are already prosecuted by the 
states with great effectiveness. I am not aware of any of these types 
of offenses being inadequately investigated or negligently prosecuted. 
And let's face it: few criminals are likely to be deterred by an 
additional penalty for a crime that is already unlawful.
  Another reason why I oppose federal hate crimes in general and this 
Motion specifically is because the prosecution of crimes has largely 
always been an issue left to the states. The continued federalization 
of criminal law requires a tremendous expansion in the size and scope 
of Federal law enforcement, Federal prosecutors, and frankly, Federal 
power. For too long, Congress has used the Constitution's Commerce 
Clause to expand the Federal government's reach in what was 
traditionally the jurisdiction of the states. However, the U.S. Supreme 
Court recently struck down two federal statutes in U.S. v. Lopez (1995) 
and U.S. v. Morrison (2000) because they violated our traditional 
constitutional divisions of authority. I would not be surprised if the 
Court one day declared unconstitutional other far-reaching Federal 
crime measures, including Federal ``hate crimes.''
  There is another constitutional problem with giving ``sexual 
orientation'' special treatment. Current characteristics which are 
classified as hate crimes under federal law include race, ethnicity, 
sex, national origin, religion, and disability. All of these 
characteristics--except religion--are what the Supreme Court has called 
``immutable.'' That is, if a person is black, or a woman, or from 
Pakistan, or paralyzed from the waist down, it is not of their choice. 
It is beyond their control, they cannot change. Therefore, if their 
characteristic is immutable it cannot, for lack of a better 
description, be held against them.
  Now, good people can disagree about this issue, but the fact remains 
that homosexuality is not necessarily a trait with which someone is 
born. In other words, this type of ``sexual orientation'' is not 
immutable, but to a large degree it is chosen. The Supreme Court has 
certainly never considered ``sexual orientation'' to be an immutable 
characteristic. Why should we?
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that violent crimes against any American are 
despicable. They should be punished swiftly and severely, to the 
fullest extent of the law. But we should not give special treatment to 
certain victims, we should not penalize citizens for their beliefs, and 
we should not federalize ``hate crimes.''
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this Motion.

                          ____________________