[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 15]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 20342-20343]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          IN OPPOSITION TO THE CONYERS AMENDMENT TO H.R. 3132

                                 ______
                                 

                            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

[[Page 20343]]

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 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.

                          ____________________