On the recordSeptember 28, 2004
I deplore violence for any reason against any person; and I believe, without hesitation, that that is the view of the good and decent men and women who serve on the floor of this Congress. But I oppose the motion to instruct and hope our conferees will remove the so-referenced hate crimes language because in addition to questioning whether this issue has a place in the defense bill, I consider it, as many have argued more eloquently than me, unnecessary, repetitive of State jurisdiction, and it is constitutionally suspect, claiming as its constitutional basis the 13th amendment, which would likely be rejected in the courts, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) has argued. But I rise today, Madam Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary and a civil libertarian deeply concerned over the issue of creating a crime for thought. It is difficult for me to understand how the governing of thought in any way, Madam Speaker, is consistent with the principles underlying a free society.
Source
govinfo.gov




