[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MANAGING ARSON THROUGH CRIMINAL HISTORY (MATCH) ACT OF 2007
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
AND HOMELAND SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 1759
__________
NOVEMBER 6, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-125
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
38-763 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
MAXINE WATERS, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida RIC KELLER, Florida
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California DARRELL ISSA, California
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MIKE PENCE, Indiana
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio STEVE KING, Iowa
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TOM FEENEY, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York JIM JORDAN, Ohio
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Joseph Gibson, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman
MAXINE WATERS, California J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
JERROLD NADLER, New York F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia Wisconsin
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
Bobby Vassar, Chief Counsel
Michael Volkov, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
NOVEMBER 6, 2007
Page
TEXT OF THE BILL
H.R. 1759, the ``Managing Arson Through Criminal History (MATCH)
Act of 2007''.................................................. 1
OPENING STATEMENT
The Honorable Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee
on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security..................... 1
The Honorable J. Randy Forbes, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security........................ 17
WITNESSES
The Honorable Mary Bono, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California
Oral Testimony................................................. 18
Prepared Statement............................................. 20
The Honorable Adam B. Schiff, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California
Oral Testimony................................................. 21
Prepared Statement............................................. 23
Mr. Tracy Pansini, Burbank Fire Department, Burbank, CA
Oral Testimony................................................. 24
Prepared Statement............................................. 26
Mr. William Soqui, Fire Chief, Cathedral City Fire Department,
Cathedral City, CA
Oral Testimony................................................. 27
Prepared Statement............................................. 29
MANAGING ARSON THROUGH CRIMINAL HISTORY (MATCH) ACT OF 2007
----------
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
and Homeland Security
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:06 p.m., in
room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert
C. ``Bobby'' Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Scott, Johnson, Jackson Lee,
Davis, Baldwin, Forbes, Gohmert, Coble, and Lungren.
Staff present: Bobby Vassar, Subcommittee Chief Counsel;
Ameer Gopalani, Majority Counsel; Jesselyn McCurdy, Majority
Counsel; Mario Dispenza, (Fellow) BATFE Detailee; Veronica
Eligan, Majority Professional Staff Member; Caroline Lynch,
Minority Counsel; and Kelsey Whitlock, Minority Staff
Assistant.
Mr. Scott. The Subcommittee will come to order.
I am pleased to welcome you today to the hearing before the
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on H.R.
1759, the ``Managing Arson Through Criminal History Act,'' or
the ``MATCH Act of 2007.''
[The text of the bill, H.R. 1759, follows:]
HR 1759 IH ___________________________________________________
deg.
I
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1759
To establish guidelines and incentives for States to establish arsonist
registries and to require the Attorney General to establish a
national arsonist registry and notification program, and for other
purposes.
__________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 29, 2007
Mrs. Bono (for herself and Mr. Schiff) introduced the following bill;
which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
__________
A BILL
To establish guidelines and incentives for States to establish arsonist
registries and to require the Attorney General to establish a
national arsonist registry and notification program, and for other
purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Managing Arson Through Criminal
History (MATCH) Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. ARSONIST REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION PROGRAM.
(a) Registry Requirements for Jurisdictions.--
(1) Jurisdiction to maintain a registry.--Each jurisdiction
shall establish and maintain a jurisdiction-wide arsonist
registry conforming to the requirements of this section.
(2) Guidelines and regulations.--The Attorney General shall
issue guidelines and regulations to interpret and implement
this section.
(b) Registry Requirements for Criminal Arsonists.--
(1) In general.--A criminal arsonist shall register, and
shall keep the registration current, in each jurisdiction where
the arsonist resides, where the arsonist is an employee, and
where the arsonist is a student. For initial registration
purposes only, a criminal arsonist shall also register in the
jurisdiction in which convicted if such jurisdiction is
different from the jurisdiction of residence.
(2) Initial registration.--The criminal arsonist shall
initially register--
(A) before completing a sentence of imprisonment
with respect to the offense giving rise to the
registration requirement; or
(B) not later than three business days after being
sentenced for that offense, if the criminal arsonist is
not sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
(3) Keeping the registration current.--A criminal arsonist
shall, not later than three business days after each change of
name, residence, employment, or student status, appear in
person in at least one jurisdiction involved pursuant to
paragraph (1) and inform that jurisdiction of all changes in
the information required for that arsonist in the arsonist
registry involved. That jurisdiction shall immediately provide
the revised information to all other jurisdictions in which the
arsonist is required to register.
(4) Initial registration of criminal arsonists unable to
comply with paragraph (2).--The Attorney General shall have the
authority to specify the applicability of the requirements of
this section to criminal arsonists convicted before the date of
the enactment of this Act or its implementation in a particular
jurisdiction, and to prescribe rules for the registration of
any such criminal arsonists and other categories of criminal
arsonists who are unable to comply with paragraph (2).
(5) State penalty for failure to comply.--Each
jurisdiction, other than a Federally recognized Indian tribe,
shall provide a criminal penalty that includes a maximum term
of imprisonment that is greater than one year for the failure
of a criminal arsonist to comply with the requirements of this
section.
(6) Limited authority to exempt certain criminal arsonists
from registry requirements.--A jurisdiction shall have the
authority to exempt a criminal arsonist who has been convicted
of the offense of arson in violation of the laws of the
jurisdiction in which the offense was committed or the United
States for the first time from the registration requirements
under this section in exchange for such arsonist's substantial
assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another
person who has committed an offense. The jurisdiction shall
revoke any such exemption and order the arsonist to comply with
the registration requirements of this section immediately upon
cessation of active cooperation with the jurisdiction relating
to such investigation or prosecution. The Attorney General
shall assure that any regulations promulgated under this
section include guidelines that reflect the general
appropriateness of exempting such an arsonist from the
registration requirements under this section.
(c) Information Required in Registration.--
(1) Provided by the arsonist.--A criminal arsonist shall
provide the following information to the appropriate official
for inclusion in the arsonist registry of a jurisdiction in
which such arsonist is required to register:
(A) The name of the arsonist (including any alias
used by the arsonist).
(B) The Social Security number of the arsonist.
(C) The address of each residence at which the
arsonist resides or will reside.
(D) The name and address of any place where the
arsonist is an employee or will be an employee.
(E) The name and address of any place where the
arsonist is a student or will be a student.
(F) The license plate number and a description of
any vehicle owned or operated by the arsonist.
(G) Any other information required by the Attorney
General.
(2) Provided by the jurisdiction.--The jurisdiction in
which a criminal arsonist registers shall ensure that the
following information is included in the registry for such
arsonist:
(A) A physical description of the arsonist.
(B) The text of the provision of law defining the
criminal offense for which the arsonist is registered.
(C) The criminal history of the arsonist, including
the date of all arrests and convictions; the status of
parole, probation, or supervised release; registration
status; and the existence of any outstanding arrest
warrants for the arsonist.
(D) A current photograph of the arsonist.
(E) A set of fingerprints and palm prints of the
arsonist.
(F) A photocopy of a valid driver's license or
identification card issued to the arsonist by a
jurisdiction.
(G) Any other information required by the Attorney
General.
(d) Duration of Registration Requirement.--A criminal arsonist
shall keep the registration information provided under subsection (c)
current for the full registration period (excluding any time the
arsonist is in custody or civilly committed). For purposes of this
subsection, the full registration period--
(1) shall commence on the later of the date on which the
arsonist is convicted of an offense of arson in violation of
the laws of the jurisdiction in which the offense was committed
or the United States, the date on which the arsonist is
released from prison for such conviction, or the date on which
such arsonist is placed on parole, supervised release, or
probation for such conviction; and
(2) shall be--
(A) five years for an arsonist who has been
convicted of such an offense for the first time;
(B) ten years for an arsonist who has been
convicted of such an offense for the second time; and
(C) for the life of the arsonist for an arsonist
who has been convicted of such an offense more than
twice.
(e) Annual Verification.--Not less than once in each calendar year
during the full registration period, a criminal arsonist required to
register under this section shall--
(1) appear in person at not less than one jurisdiction in
which such arsonist is required to register;
(2) allow such jurisdiction to take a current photograph of
the arsonist; and
(3) while present at such jurisdiction, verify the
information in each registry in which that arsonist is required
to be registered.
(f) Duty To Notify Criminal Arsonists of Registration Requirements
and To Register.--
(1) In general.--An appropriate official shall, shortly
before release of a criminal arsonist from custody, or, if the
arsonist is not in custody, immediately after the sentencing of
the arsonist for the offense giving rise to the duty to
register--
(A) inform the arsonist of the duties of the
arsonist under this section and explain those duties;
(B) require the arsonist to read and sign a form
stating that the duty to register has been explained
and that the arsonist understands the registration
requirement; and
(C) ensure that the arsonist is registered.
(2) Notification of criminal arsonists who cannot comply
with paragraph (1).--The Attorney General shall prescribe rules
for the notification of criminal arsonists who cannot be
notified and registered in accordance with paragraph (1).
(g) Access to Criminal Arsonist Information Through the Internet.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in this subsection,
each jurisdiction shall make available on the Internet, in a
manner that is readily accessible to all jurisdictions, law
enforcement officers, and fire safety officers, all information
about each criminal arsonist in the registry. The jurisdiction
shall also include in the design of its Internet site all field
search capabilities needed for full participation in the
National criminal arsonist Internet site established under
subsection (i) and shall participate in that Internet site as
provided by the Attorney General.
(2) Optional exemptions.--A jurisdiction may exempt from
disclosure, with respect to information about a criminal
arsonist--
(A) any information about the arsonist involving
conviction for an offense other than the offense or
offenses for which the arsonist is registered;
(B) the name of an employer of the arsonist;
(C) the name of an educational institution where
the arsonist is a student;
(D) any information about the arsonist if the
arsonist is participating in a witness protection
program and the release of such information could
jeopardize the safety of the arsonist or any other
individual; and
(E) any other information identified as an optional
exemption from disclosure by the Attorney General.
(3) Links.--An Internet site established by a jurisdiction
pursuant to paragraph (1) shall include, to the extent
practicable, links to substance abuse education resources.
(4) Correction of errors.--An Internet site established by
a jurisdiction pursuant to paragraph (1) shall include
instructions on how to seek correction of information that an
individual contends is erroneous.
(5) Warning.--An Internet site established by a
jurisdiction pursuant to paragraph (1) shall include a warning
that information on the site should not be used to unlawfully
injure, harass, or commit a crime against any individual named
in the registry or residing or working at any reported address.
The warning shall note that any such action could result in
civil or criminal penalties.
(h) National Criminal Arsonist Registry.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall maintain a
national database at the Federal Bureau of Investigation for
each criminal arsonist and any other person required to
register in a jurisdiction's arsonist registry under subsection
(a). The database shall be known as the National Arsonist
Registry.
(2) Electronic forwarding.--The Attorney General shall
ensure (through the National Arsonist Registry or otherwise)
that updated information about a criminal arsonist is
immediately transmitted by electronic forwarding to all
relevant jurisdictions.
(i) National Arsonist Internet Site.--The Attorney General shall
establish and maintain a national arsonist Internet site. The Internet
site shall include relevant information for each criminal arsonist and
other person listed on a jurisdiction's Internet site under subsection
(g). The Internet site shall allow law enforcement officers and fire
safety officers to obtain relevant information for each such arsonist
by a single query for any given zip code or geographical radius set by
the user in a form and with such limitations as may be established by
the Attorney General and shall have such other field search
capabilities as the Attorney General may provide.
(j) Notification Procedures.--Under an arsonist registration
program established by a jurisdiction pursuant to subsection (a),
immediately after a criminal arsonist registers or updates a
registration, an appropriate official in the jurisdiction shall provide
the information in the registry (other than information exempted from
disclosure by the Attorney General) about that offender to the
following:
(1) The Attorney General, who shall include that
information in the National Arsonist Registry or other
appropriate databases.
(2) Appropriate law enforcement agencies (including
probation agencies, if appropriate), and each school and public
housing agency, in each area in which the offender resides, is
an employee, or is a student.
(3) Each jurisdiction where the offender resides, is an
employee, or is a student, and each jurisdiction from or to
which a change of residence, employment, or student status
occurs.
(4) Any organization, company, or individual who requests
such notification pursuant to procedures established by the
jurisdiction.
(k) Actions To Be Taken When Criminal Arsonist Fails To Comply.--
Under an arsonist registration program established by a jurisdiction
pursuant to subsection (a), an appropriate official of the jurisdiction
shall notify the Attorney General and appropriate law enforcement
agencies of any failure by a criminal arsonist to comply with the
requirements of the arsonist registry for such jurisdiction, and shall
revise the registry to reflect the nature of such failure. The
appropriate official, the Attorney General, and each such law
enforcement agency shall take any appropriate action to ensure
compliance.
(l) Development and Availability of Registry Management and Website
Software.--
(1) Duty to develop and support.--The Attorney General
shall, in consultation with the jurisdictions, develop and
support software to enable jurisdictions to establish and
operate uniform arsonist registries and Internet sites.
(2) Criteria.--The software described in paragraph (1)
should facilitate--
(A) immediate exchange of information among
jurisdictions;
(B) access over the Internet to appropriate
information, including the number of registered
criminal arsonists in each jurisdiction on a current
basis;
(C) full compliance with the requirements of this
section; and
(D) communication of information as required under
subsection (j).
(3) Deadline.--The Attorney General shall make the first
complete edition of this software available to jurisdictions
not later than two years after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(m) Period for Implementation by Jurisdictions.--
(1) Deadline.--To be in compliance with this section, a
jurisdiction shall implement this section before the later of--
(A) three years after the date of the enactment of
this Act; or
(B) one year after the date on which the software
described in subsection (l) is made available to such
jurisdiction.
(2) Extensions.--The Attorney General may authorize not
more than two one-year extensions of the deadline under
paragraph (1).
(n) Failure of Jurisdiction To Comply.--
(1) In general.--For any fiscal year after the deadline
described in subsection (m), a jurisdiction that fails, as
determined by the Attorney General, to substantially implement
this section shall not receive 10 percent of the funds that
would otherwise be allocated for that fiscal year to the
jurisdiction under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3750 et seq.).
(2) State constitutionality.--
(A) In general.--When evaluating whether a
jurisdiction has substantially implemented this
section, the Attorney General shall consider whether
the jurisdiction is unable to substantially implement
this section because of a demonstrated inability to
implement certain provisions that would place the
jurisdiction in violation of its constitution, as
determined by a ruling of the jurisdiction's highest
court.
(B) Efforts.--If the circumstances arise under
subparagraph (A), then the Attorney General and the
jurisdiction involved shall make good faith efforts to
accomplish substantial implementation of this section
and to reconcile any conflicts between this section and
the jurisdiction's constitution. In considering whether
compliance with the requirements of this section would
likely violate the jurisdiction's constitution or an
interpretation thereof by the jurisdiction's highest
court, the Attorney General shall consult with the
chief executive and chief legal officer of the
jurisdiction concerning the jurisdiction's
interpretation of the jurisdiction's constitution and
rulings thereon by the jurisdiction's highest court.
(C) Alternative procedures.--If a jurisdiction is
unable to substantially implement this section because
of a limitation imposed by the jurisdiction's
constitution, the Attorney General may determine that
the jurisdiction is in compliance with this section if
the jurisdiction has made, or is in the process of
implementing, reasonable alternative procedures or
accommodations, which are consistent with the purposes
of this section.
(D) Funding reduction.--If a jurisdiction
determined to be in compliance under subparagraph (C)
does not comply with the alternative procedures or
accommodations described in such subparagraph, then the
jurisdiction shall be subject to a funding reduction as
specified in paragraph (1).
(3) Reallocation.--Amounts not allocated under a program
referred to in this subsection to a jurisdiction for failure to
substantially implement this section shall be reallocated under
that program to jurisdictions that have not failed to
substantially implement this section or may be reallocated to a
jurisdiction from which they were withheld to be used solely
for the purpose of implementing this section.
(4) Rule of construction.--The provisions of this section
that are cast as directions to jurisdictions or their officials
constitute, in relation to States, only conditions required to
avoid the reduction of Federal funding under this subsection.
(o) Election by Indian Tribes.--
(1) Election.--
(A) In general.--A federally recognized Indian
tribe may, by resolution or other enactment of the
tribal council or comparable governmental body, elect
to carry out this subtitle as a jurisdiction subject to
its provisions.
(B) Implementation.--If a tribe does not, within
one year of enactment of this Act, make an election to
take on these duties, it shall, by resolution or other
enactment of the tribal council or comparable
governmental body, enter into a cooperative agreement
to arrange for a jurisdiction to carry out any function
of the tribe under this Act until such time as the
tribe elects to carry out this Act.
(2) Cooperation between tribal authorities and other
jurisdictions.--
(A) Nonduplication.--A tribe subject to this
subtitle is not required to duplicate functions under
this subtitle which are fully carried out by another
jurisdiction or jurisdictions within which the
territory of the tribe is located.
(B) Cooperative agreements.--A tribe may, through
cooperative agreements with such a jurisdiction or
jurisdictions--
(i) arrange for the tribe to carry out any
function of such a jurisdiction under this
subtitle with respect to arsonists subject to
the tribe's jurisdiction; and
(ii) arrange for such a jurisdiction to
carry out any function of the tribe under this
subtitle with respect to arsonists subject to
the tribe's jurisdiction.
(3) Law enforcement authority in indian country.--
Enforcement of this Act in Indian country, as defined in
section 1151 of title 18, United States Code, shall be carried
out by Federal, Tribal, and State governments under existing
jurisdictional authorities.
(p) Immunity for Good Faith Conduct.--The Federal Government,
jurisdictions, political subdivisions of jurisdictions, and their
agencies, officers, employees, and agents shall be immune from
liability for good faith conduct under this section.
(q) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to any amounts
otherwise authorized to be appropriated, there are authorized to be
appropriated to the Attorney General, to carry out subsections (h) and
(i) of this section, such sums as may be necessary for each of the
fiscal years 2008 through 2013.
SEC. 3. CRIMINAL ARSONIST MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall establish and implement
a Criminal Arsonist Management Assistance program (in this section
referred to as the ``Assistance Program''), under which the Attorney
General may award a grant to a jurisdiction to offset the costs of
implementing section 2.
(b) Application.--The chief executive of a jurisdiction desiring a
grant under this section shall, on an annual basis, submit to the
Attorney General an application in such form and containing such
information as the Attorney General may require.
(c) Bonus Payments for Prompt Compliance.--A jurisdiction that, as
determined by the Attorney General, has substantially implemented
section 2 not later than two years after the date of the enactment of
this Act is eligible for a bonus payment. The Attorney General may make
such a payment under the Assistance Program for the first fiscal year
beginning after that determination. The amount of the bonus payment
shall be as follows:
(1) In the case of a determination that the jurisdiction
has substantially implemented such section by a date that is
not later than the date that is one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, 10 percent of the total received by the
jurisdiction under the Assistance Program for the preceding
fiscal year.
(2) In the case of a determination that the jurisdiction
has substantilly implemented such section by a date that is
later than one year after the date of the enactment of this
Act, but not later than the date that is two years after such
date of enactment, 5 percent of such total.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to any amounts
otherwise authorized to be appropriated, there are authorized to be
appropriated to the Attorney General, to be available only for the
Assistance Program, such sums as may be necessary for each of the
fiscal years 2008 through 2013.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act:
(1) Criminal arsonist.--The term ``criminal arsonist''
means an individual who is convicted of any criminal offense
for committing arson in violation of the laws of the
jurisdiction in which such offense was committed or the United
States.
(2) Arsonist registry.--The term ``arsonist registry''
means a registry of criminal arsonists, and a notification
program, maintained by a jurisdiction.
(3) Criminal offense.--The term ``criminal offense'' means
a State, local, tribal, foreign, or military offense (to the
extent specified by the Secretary of Defense under section
115(a)(8)(C)(i) of Public Law 105-119 (10 U.S.C. 951 note)) or
other criminal offense.
(4) Employee.--The term ``employee'' includes an individual
who is self-employed or works for any other entity, whether
compensated or not.
(5) Fire safety officer.--The term ``fire safety officer''
means--
(A) a firefighter, as such term is defined in
section 1204 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Street Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796b)); or
(B) an individual serving in an official capacity
as a firefighter, fire investigator, or other arson
investigator, as defined by the jurisdiction for the
purposes of this Act.
(6) Jurisdiction.--The term ``jurisdiction'' means any of
the following:
(A) A State.
(B) The District of Columbia.
(C) The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
(D) Guam.
(E) American Samoa.
(F) The Northern Mariana Islands.
(G) The United States Virgin Islands.
(H) To the extent provided and subject to the
requirements of section 2(o), a Federally recognized
Indian tribe.
(7) Law enforcement officer.--The term ``law enforcement
officer'' has the meaning given such term in section 1204 of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Street Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3796b)).
(8) Resides.--The term ``resides'' means, with respect to
an individual, the location of the individual's home or other
place where the individual habitually lives.
(9) Student.--The term ``student'' means an individual who
enrolls in or attends an educational institution (whether
public or private), including a secondary school, trade or
professional school, and institution of higher education.
Mr. Scott. According to the United States Fire
Administration, arson is the leading cause of fire in the
United States, causing over 2,000 injuries and 400 deaths
annually. This also results in an annual $1.4 billion in
property damage.
It is one of the most difficult crimes to prosecute, with
only 16 percent of the cases resulting in arrest and only 2
percent resulting in a conviction.
Although arson places a tremendous cost in property and
lives every year, there is no national registry requiring
convicted arsonists to notify law enforcement of their
residence, place of employment or other information that would
aid law enforcement in identifying offenders with a
demonstrated proclivity to committing arson offenses.
To aid law enforcement in identifying criminal activity
related to arson, the gentlelady from California, Ms. Bono,
introduced H.R. 1759, the ``MATCH Act of 2007,'' which would
establish a comprehensive nationwide network registry database
maintained by the attorney general that would track convicted
arsonists.
The bill has 52 co-sponsors with broad bipartisan support
and would mandate convicted arsonists to register in each
jurisdiction in which he or she resides, as an employee or as a
student at an educational institution.
Proponents of 1759 believe that with such information law
enforcement authorities would be able to identify those who
have a demonstrated proclivity toward arson and are residing,
working or studying in the area in which an arson fire occurs.
In turn, law enforcement authorities could solve more arson
crimes and possibly prevent them because potential arsonists
would know that they are registered with the local authorities
and would immediately fall under suspicion.
The result would presumably be a reduction of the toll on
property and on lives that arson takes on the United States.
On the other hand, opponents of H.R. 1759 object to the
bill on a number of constitutional and policy-based grounds.
First, opponents find that the bill violates separations of
power by impermissibly delegating legislative authority to the
attorney general.
Opponents also find that H.R. 1759 could lead to violations
of the ex post facto clause of the Constitution, and the bill
would exceed Congress' authority under the commerce clause.
Further, they believe that the bill would be an improper
exercise of Congress in spending power; and finally, that the
bill is broader than necessary to accomplish the valid law
enforcement purposes.
And without objection, I would like to introduce into the
record a letter written to the full Committee by Federal public
defender Thomas Hillier of the Western District of Washington,
that details the opposition concerns.
[The information referred to follows:]
Mr. Scott. It is my pleasure now to recognize my colleague
from Virginia, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr.
Forbes, for his statement.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Chairman Scott. And I thank you for
holding this hearing today on H.R. 1759, the ``Managing Arson
through Criminal History,'' or ``MATCH Act of 2007.''
I also want to commend our colleagues from California,
Congresswoman Bono and Congressman Schiff, for their hard work
on this legislation and thank them for taking time out of their
busy schedules to be with us today.
My colleagues from California know all too well the
devastation that arson causes. The California wildfires have
killed 14 people and injured as many as 70 others.
The fires have torched over 500,000 acres, from Los Angeles
to the Mexican border, and displaced 513,000 people from their
homes. Costs in San Diego County alone are projected to exceed
$1 billion.
Sadly, arson is to blame for at least two of the nearly two
dozen wildfires that spread across California last month and
continue to burn in some areas.
The Santiago fire, which was ignited by an arsonist on
October 21, was 90 percent contained on Sunday evening.
Fourteen hundred firefighters have been battling this blaze,
which has charred nearly 29,000 acres for over 2 weeks.
The national arson statistics are troubling. According to
the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program, 69,055 arson
offenses were reported in 2006, a 2.1 percent increase over
2005. The average value lost per arson offense was $13,325.
In recent years, arson has become an effective tool for
ecoterrorists who have destroyed homes in Arizona, Colorado,
and New York to protest urban sprawl. In my home state of
Virginia, roughly 1,400 forest fires have burned this year, and
20 percent of these fires were deliberately set.
In 1994, California established an arson database to track
arsons dating back to 1979. The database includes information
on the type of arson, the number of arson offenses, the number
of closed cases and the estimated dollar value of property
damage.
Similar to the California database, the MATCH Act creates a
national arson registry and requires criminal arsonists to
report where they live, work and go to school.
In addition, the act requires the national database to
include finger and palm prints and an up-to-date photograph.
The MATCH Act will assist law enforcement officials with
identifying and apprehending arsonists, particularly serial
arsonists, and ecoterrorists.
I look forward to hear from today's witnesses about this
proposal.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
We have a very distinguished--we are joined by the
gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson, and we will ask all other
Members to have their statements entered for the record.
We have a very distinguished panel of witnesses before us
to help us consider important issues that are currently before
us.
Our first witness is the bill's sponsor, the Honorable Mary
Bono, who represents California's 45th Congressional District.
She is the chief sponsor of the legislation.
She is a graduate of the University of Southern California
and earned a bachelor of fine arts degree in art history.
Our next witness will be Congressman Adam Schiff, who
represents California's 29th District. As a fellow Californian
of Ms. Bono, he also well knows the devastation arson fires can
cause as his congressional district has been heavily affected
by the recent fires.
He is a co-sponsor of H.R. 1759, a graduate of Stanford
University and Harvard Law School.
Next witness will be Fire Chief Tracy Pansini of Burbank,
California. He is the fire chief in Burbank, with almost 30
years of experience as a firefighter, engineer, paramedic, fire
captain, instructor, battalion chief and assistant chief.
He was appointed interim fire chief in May of 2005 and fire
chief in January 2006. In August 2007, he was appointed Area C
coordinator, which consists of 11 adjacent cities in Southern
California.
Our final witness will be Fire Chief William Soqui of the
Cathedral City Fire Department in Cathedral, California. He has
25 years of fire experience that includes being a firefighter
paramedic, a hazardous materials specialist and a fire
investigator.
In his leadership roles, he has been fire battalion chief
managing operations, also working in emergency, medical and
ambulance services, training, hazardous materials and as deputy
fire marshal before his appointment as fire chief in October of
last year.
He has an associate of science degree in fire technology
and emergency medical services from Crafton Hills College and a
bachelor of science degree in business administration and
management from the University of Redlands.
Each of our witnesses' written statements will be entered
into the record in its entirety.
I would ask each of our witnesses to summarize his or her
testimony in 5 minutes or less, and to help you stay within
that time, there is a timing device on your table.
When the light goes from green to yellow, you will have 1
minute to conclude your testimony. And when the light turns
red, we would appreciate it if you would come to a conclusion.
We will begin with Ms. Bono.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MARY BONO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Bono. Good afternoon, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member
Forbes, Members of the Subcommittee.
I want to thank you for convening this hearing today and
allowing me the opportunity to testify on the ``Managing Arson
Through Criminal History,'' or ``MATCH Act of 2007.''
I am very pleased to have been joined in this effort by my
good friend and colleague from California, Representative Adam
Schiff. And although Stanford completely dashed USC's hopes for
a championship game this year, I still like him anyway.
So I have appreciated his expertise and his willingness to
work with me to make improvements to this legislation.
Although we introduced the MATCH Act several months ago,
the devastation of the recent catastrophic fires in California
have called to the Nation's attention the damage and
destruction that fire can cause.
The cause of these fires, which burned over 500,000 acres,
are still under investigation, and some are suspected to be the
result of arson.
Through these recent events, we have all been reminded of
the bravery of the men and the women on the front lines of
these powerful and all but uncontrollable fires.
This issue is one that is near the heart of my community.
Just over a year ago, we lost five dedicated U.S. Forest
Service firefighters in the Esperanza fire, a blaze that has
been attributed to arson.
One of the fallen firefighters, Jason McKay, called his
girlfriend Stacy shortly before his death to tell her that he
loved her before going out and losing his life to save the
lives of others.
Jason was planning to propose to Stacy at Christmas. Now
they will not have that opportunity for a future together,
something that so many of us take for granted.
But Jason and Stacy's story is not the only tale of tragedy
due to arson. The devastation, pain and loss that result from
arson are felt by all of its victims.
The Peria family in Hawaii was forced to live in a tent on
the ashes of their family home, after their house and cars were
randomly lit on fire.
The Bernard family of Georgia relies on the community to
ensure that their basic needs are met, after their mobile home
burned to the ground. The young children escaped only after
their teenage daughter broke through and crawled through jagged
glass to help her family out.
I can share statistic after statistic about the damage
caused by arson, the millions of dollars lost and grand totals
of people affected.
But what these numbers fail to convey is the story of
individuals, the hundreds of families currently in Southern
California who will have nowhere to celebrate the holidays this
year, the veteran who lost his war medals and mementos before
he could share them with his grandchildren, the baby pictures,
the refrigerator art, the family rocking chair--the things and
the heirlooms that no insurance policy could possibly replace
and no one else will quite ever understand.
It is our duty as Members of Congress to provide what tools
and infrastructure we can to aid in both the prevention of this
crime and speedy apprehension of those who choose to commit it.
The MATCH Act, which I introduced earlier this year as H.R.
1759, creates a national arson registry. This registry combines
the efforts of Federal, local and State law enforcement
officials to track criminal arsonists.
We have worked to ensure that this registry does not
infringe on States' rights. The MATCH Act is not intended for
youth. It is expressly targeted at adults and repeat offenders.
States maintain their ability to treat juvenile offenders
in the manner best suited to the needs of their States and
localities.
Records kept in the database envisioned as a result of this
legislation have been an area of which I have paid particular
attention, giving law enforcement the information they need. I
have based some of this framework on the successful sex
offender registry law.
Additionally, our discussions with the Bureau of ATF and
Explosives have indicated that this registry will serve an
important function in tracking serial arsonists.
It is my sincere belief that the MATCH Act will make a
meaningful difference in the way we approach and deal with
arson.
I would like to thank the fire chiefs from California who
have joined us today. I know that each of us will benefit from
their insight and experience.
I would like to give a special thanks to Chief Soqui, who
was actually responsible for the concept of a national arson
registry. He is a resident of my district, and I am grateful
for his willingness to participate in today's hearing and to be
a part of crafting this legislation.
In closing, I would like to make clear my commitment to
work with Members from both sides of the aisle and staff to
ensure that we move forward a well-crafted, workable piece of
legislation.
I have been heartened by the support that I have received
from so many Members of this Committee for this legislation.
More than 15 Members of the Judiciary Committee are currently
co-sponsors of the MATCH Act.
I look forward to working with each of you as the
legislative process moves forward.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Forbes,
for holding this hearing today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bono follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Mary Bono, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Good afternoon Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Forbes and Members of
the Subcommittee. I want to thank you for convening this hearing and
allowing me the opportunity to testify today on the Managing Arson
Through Criminal History or MATCH Act.
I am pleased to have been joined in this effort by my good friend
and colleague from California, Representative Adam Schiff. I have
appreciated his expertise and willingness to work with me to make
improvements to the legislation.
Although we introduced the MATCH Act several months ago, the
devastation of the recent catastrophic fires in California have called
to the nation's attention the damage and destruction that fire can
cause. The cause of these fires, which burned over half a million
acres, are still under investigation and some are suspected to be the
result of arson.
Through these recent events, we have all been reminded of the
bravery of the men and women at the front lines of these powerful and
all but uncontrollable fires. This issue is one that is near to the
heart of my community. Just over a year ago, we lost five dedicated US
Forest Service firefighters in the Esperanza fire, a blaze that has
been attributed to arson.
One of the fallen fire fighters, Jason McKay called his girlfriend,
Staci, shortly before his death to tell her that he loved her before
going out and losing his life to save others.
Jason was planning to propose to Staci at Christmas. Now they will
not have the opportunity for a future together, something that so many
of us take for granted.
But Jason and Staci's story is not the only tale of tragedy due to
arson--the devastation, pain and loss that result from arson are felt
by all its victims. The Parilla family in Hawaii was forced to live in
a tent on the ashes of their family home after their house and cars
were randomly lit on fire. The Barnard family of Georgia relies on the
community to ensure that their basic needs are met after their mobile
home burned to the ground. The young children escaped only after a
teenage daughter broke and crawled through jagged glass to help her
family out.
I can share statistic after statistic about the damage caused by
arson, the millions of dollars lost and grand totals of people
affected.
But what these numbers fail to convey are the stories of
individuals. The hundreds of families in Southern California who will
have nowhere to celebrate the holidays this year, the veteran who lost
his war medals and mementos before he could share them with his
grandchildren, the baby pictures, the refrigerator art, the family
rocking chair--the things that no insurance policy could possibly
replace and that no one else will ever quite understand.
It is our duty as Members of Congress to provide what tools and
infrastructure we can to aid in both the prevention of this crime and
speedy apprehension of those who chose to commit it. The MATCH Act,
which I introduced earlier this year as H.R. 1759, creates a national
arson registry. This registry combines the efforts of federal, local
and state law enforcement officials to track criminal arsonists.
We have worked to ensure that this registry does not infringe on
states' rights. The MATCH Act is not intended for youth, it is
expressly targeted at adults and repeat offenders. States maintain
their ability to treat juvenile offenders in the manner best suited to
the needs of their states and localities.
Records kept in the proposed database have been an area in which I
have paid particular attention, giving law enforcement the information
they need. I have based some of this framework on the successful sex
offender registry law. Additionally, our discussions with the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives have indicated that this
registry will serve an important function in tracking serial arsonists.
It is my sincere belief that the MATCH Act will make a meaningful
difference in the way that we approach and deal with arson. I would
like to thank the Fire Chiefs from California that have joined us
today; I know that each of us will benefit from their insight and
experience. I would like to give a special thanks to Chief Soqui who is
actually responsible for the concept of a national arson registry. He
is a resident of my district, and I am grateful for his willingness to
participate in today's hearing and be a part of crafting this
legislation.
In closing, I would like to make clear my commitment to work with
Members from both sides of the aisle to ensure that we move forward a
well crafted, workable piece of legislation. I have been heartened by
the support that I have received from so many members of this Committee
for this legislation; more than 15 Members of the Judiciary Committee
are currently co-sponsors of the MATCH Act. I look forward to working
with each of you as the legislative process moves forward. Again, thank
you Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member for holding this hearing today.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Schiff?
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ADAM B. SCHIFF, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, thank you very
much for having the hearing today. This is, I think, my second
time to testify before you in the last couple months, and I
have come to realize how much easier it is sitting up there
than down here.
But I am grateful for the opportunity and appreciate this
hearing and markup as well, and I extend my thanks to my
colleague, Mary Bono, for her superb leadership on this issue
in crafting this legislation that I think will make a real
difference in the prevention of arson and the prosecution of
arson.
I am very grateful to work with my colleague, and it has
been a great pleasure.
I also want to extend my thanks to Chief Pansini, of
Burbank for the superb job that he does each and every day,
keeping my constituents safe from fire.
We live in a city that is bordered by some spectacularly
beautiful Verdugo Mountains that are very dry and wonderful
kindling, unfortunately, and his department does a superb job
in protecting the people of the city of Burbank and other
cities as well, so I am very grateful the chief was able to
come out and join us.
I would like to submit my testimony for the record and just
summarize it, if I can, and talk about, I think, what some of
the practical applications of this registry will be.
I was a prosecutor for a number of years and prosecuted
arson, among other things, and one case in particular that I
handled I think is a good indication of how this registry will
be of great benefit.
This was in the late 1980's, early 1990's, and someone was
setting a string of fires in the San Bernardino forest, and
investigators weren't able to find out who it was.
They kept starting fires by using a device that was a
cigarette with matches taped around it and the person would
smoke the cigarette, drive around, throw the cigarette into the
brush.
The cigarette would burn down to the matches, ignite the
matches, ignite the brush, and by that point he and his vehicle
were far away.
So there were these series of fires all started with the
same incendiary device. They couldn't find out who it was. They
couldn't catch him in the act. What they ended up doing was
installing video cameras at the entrances and exits of the
forest.
And the next time a fire started, they figured out the
point of origin of the fire, and the amount of time it would
take to go from the port of origin past one of the entrances or
exits, and they looked at the license plate numbers of the
vehicles that passed within that window.
They then tracked down some of those drivers. They found
one who smoked the same brand of cigarette, which was an
unusual brand, that was used in these fires and also compiled
other evidence which was enough for probable cause, but not
enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their suspect
had committed the crimes.
He was arrested, and he was interviewed. He admitted to
setting the fires in a taped interview. However, the tape
recording malfunctioned and the confession was lost and, with
it, most of the case.
And as we pursued the investigation to try to find other
evidence before we had to go to trial, we found a probation
officer of the suspect from many years earlier who had kept his
probation records in his basement and pulled the file on the
suspect and found that the suspect, many years ago, had set
fires using a cigarette with matches taped around it, the same
exact modus operandi.
And when the suspect was confronted with this evidence, he
ended up pleading guilty.
Now, if we would have had a registry like this in existence
at the time, we would have known of convicted arsonists who
lived in the region. We would have known what their modus
operandi was. We might have been able to stop him before he set
several of the later fires.
We might have been able to convict him without the fortuity
of having found this probation officer who kept records,
fortuitously also, in his basement.
Keeping records in your basement is not a sound
investigative law enforcement strategy. A registry like this, I
think, is. And when my colleague approached me with it, I was
very delighted to join her effort. I think this will make a
real difference in two respects.
It will make a real difference in the investigation of
arson that has occurred by knowing what convicted arsonists are
in the region.
But it will also make a difference, I think, in deterring
arson because someone who is contemplating arson who is a part
of the registry will know that they will be immediately on the
suspect list if they commit further arson.
So I think it is a very important bill. I am glad to be
associated with it. And I thank the Committee for this hearing.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schiff follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Adam B. Schiff, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to testify before the
Subcommittee. This hearing focuses on legislation that Congresswoman
Mary Bono and I introduced earlier this year. The Managing Arson
Through Criminal History Act--the MATCH Act--would create a national
arson registry, which would provide an important tool for law
enforcement officers to track arsonists and share information across
jurisdictions.
When I was a prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los
Angeles, I worked on cases related to arson, and I saw then the damage
that arson can cause.
Over recent weeks, the nation saw the destruction caused by the
fires in Southern California. Over 1,500 homes were destroyed and half
a million acres of land burned. 7 people died, and 85 more were
injured, including 61 firefighters. These brave heroes put their lives
on the line everyday for us to protect people, homes and wildlife, and
I thank them for their service.
In climate like California, with hot weather, drought and the Santa
Ana winds, a small fire can become particularly devastating. When I
first learned that some of fires last month were caused by arson, I was
sickened. Such incredible damage and destruction that was completely
unnecessary and malicious.
In California, arson ranks in the top 3 known causes of the state's
wildfires. Nationwide, each year, arsons cause serious damage to homes,
wilderness areas and too many deaths. In 2006, 31,000 arsons were
reported across the country, which resulted in 305 deaths and $755
million in property loss. It is for this reason that it is critical
that we give law enforcement and firefighters the tools to quickly and
efficiently investigate arsons and prevent future acts of arson from
occurring.
The MATCH Act would create a national arson registry and would
require convicted arsonists to report where they live, work and go to
school. The database would include finger and palm prints of the
arsonist, a recent photograph, vehicle information, criminal history
and other relevant information. The length of time that a convicted
arsonist would be required to register is based on how many acts of
arson they have committed--5 years for one offense, 10 years for two
offenses and lifetime for a serial arsonist who committed three or more
offenses,. The information would only be made available for law
enforcement agencies and other relevant personnel and not the general
public. Most important, when a convicted arsonist updates his or her
information with a change of residence, notification would be sent to
the appropriate law enforcement agencies.
When an arson has occurred, it is critical to quickly find the
individual involved to prevent future acts of arson and prosecute the
individual responsible. Frequently arsonists use the same trademark
tools--such as a unique incendiary device, a manner of starting a fire,
or similar targets, such as houses of worship, or auto dealerships. In
a case where the arsonist may have come from another jurisdiction or
state to commit the act of arson, the information in the database will
give law enforcement an important tool to identifying convicted
arsonists that may be connected to very similar acts of arson.
The national registry created by the MATCH Act will build on the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' (ATF) Bomb Arson
Tracking System--or BATS. In 2004, the Attorney General consolidated
all of the Justice Department's arson and explosives incident databases
into a single database, based on the BATS model. This has helped
jurisdictions collect and share information, which has also improved
the accuracy and detail of reporting.
The MATCH Act's national arsonist registry will improve the BATS
database by providing more extensive information about convicted
arsonists. This information will help law enforcement investigating
arsons by being able to quickly search a palm print, a trademark
arsonist feature such as an incendiary device, arsonists living in a
particular neighborhood, and other key information that could provide
clues in an investigation. Most importantly, the registry can also
prevent future acts of arson by requiring convicted arsonists to update
their information when they move or change schools or jobs. In addition
to putting law enforcement on notice, this also lets the convicted
arsonists know that they can't hide from law enforcement for the
purpose of committing another act of arson.
Our community came together to fight the fires we saw in
California. Firefighters from across the state were joined by the
National Guard, the Army, and firefighters from the Mexican cities of
Tijuana and Tecate. The quick and united response was immensely
important, and now it is ever more important for us to ensure that such
tragedy never strikes again. I believe that the national registry
created by the MATCH Act and its notification requirements are
important tools to prevent future acts of arson and assist in the
investigation of arsons that have occurred.
Thank you again Mr. Chairman for this opportunity to testify on
this legislation.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Pansini?
TESTIMONY OF TRACY PANSINI,
BURBANK FIRE DEPARTMENT, BURBANK, CA
Mr. Pansini. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to
provide testimony in support of H.R. 1759, the ``Managing Arson
Through Criminal History,'' the ``MATCH Act of 2007.''
As you know, my name is Tracy Pansini, and I am currently
the fire chief for the city of Burbank and hold some other
titles as well.
The MATCH Act could not have come at a better time, and I
thank Bill for actually introducing it to Congresswoman Bono.
The legislation is great. It couldn't have come at a better
time, when the ever-so-vibrant images of California burning
dominate the media landscape.
This apocalyptic portrait of mesmerizing flames dancing
from home to home has caused more than $1 billion in damage.
Much of Southern California is ablaze, similar to what we saw
in Texas and Oklahoma this year.
We have seen this before in Florida, Colorado, Arizona,
Montana, Utah, just to name a few States. Some of the largest
wildland fires have been related to arson.
As you have stated earlier, the Santiago fire continues to
burn in Orange County where 26 homes have been destroyed,
28,000 acres. More than $10 million has been spent just on
suppression costs alone.
Families have been displaced. Families live in a
supermarket parking lot with their children's pillows resting
on asphalt soaked--full puddles of motor oil; the Buckwheat
fire, Santa Clarita--35,000 acres, 26 homes. One individual
lost his life trying to protect his home and his life and his
valuables--both confirmed arson related.
The focus of an investigation for one of San Diego's fires
is a convicted arsonist from Missouri. We know that an
individual that committed an act of arson is likely to commit a
future act.
Maybe if we had this information about the Missourian
available in a national database similar to the MATCH Act, we
could have prevented the conflagration that has currently
consumed 2000 homes and displaced 500,000 people.
Many returned to a nuclear wasteland of entire streets
consumed, autos turned into balls of blackened metal, home
after home--30 on one street alone I counted as I toured the
area--reduced from places of love, mementos and family
heirlooms to blackened concrete, charred rubble, twisted metal,
blanketed with gray and white ash.
This legislation is an extremely important vehicle to help
us track arsonists nationally. Knowing that a convicted
arsonist moved into Burbank would help us in an investigation
of an arson fire.
The MATCH Act would also allow us to proactively screen
local movement of arsonists. It would link disparate dates and
events with the human element at the local, State and Federal
level.
It will be a tool to strengthen the relationships of
evidence with people, events and capabilities. It will help us
connect the dots in the investigative phase.
The increased need post-9/11 and other recent fires
nationwide make the passing of this bill critical. Generally,
when it gets too hot for arsonists, they move to other areas.
It is extremely important for investing agencies to know when
these arsonists relocate to other areas.
We had a rash of 40 carport fires that spanned numerous
jurisdictions, damaged many apartment buildings and displaced
families. The arsonist had relocated from the Flatbush area of
New York.
The local law enforcement had identified him as an
arsonist, so he relocated to the L.A. area to continue his
craft. Had we been able to use MATCH, we would have caught him
sooner, or maybe he would not have moved in the first place.
Arson is being used as a terrorist tool, as Mr. Forbes
stated, to negatively impact houses of worship, gang-related
fire bombings and environmental issues.
In 1996, Congress passed the Church Protection Act, which
expanded the options available to prosecutors but did not
provide any way of capturing the data and sharing the
information on the incidents to local enforcement agencies.
In October 2005 in Burbank, we experienced an arson fire in
our foothills that consumed structures as well as the serene
vegetation in Burbank, Glendale and Los Angeles.
One day prior, another arson fire across the valley was
started--Calabasas, California--that burned the community of
Los Angeles City, Los Angeles County and Ventura County.
Could the fires be related? As we are battling one fire, we
can look across the valley and see the smoke header from the
other fire.
As a young fire captain, I remember chasing numerous fires
set in trash cans littering the alleys of Burbank. The
arsonists always use the same device and perfect it under our
noses.
That arsonist was the infamous John Orr, who went on to
burn up 64 homes in Glendale, kill six in a South Pasadena
fire, destroy the Waltons set on Warner Brothers' backlot and
burned businesses in all the surrounding communities.
He went on to start hundreds of fires in the cities across
California. John had a 10-year run before being caught. Then
and now, there was nothing in place to track the information
across jurisdictions.
We need all of your support in passing this important
legislation. Disaster volunteers, arson patrols and vigilant
enforcement are not enough. We need the MATCH Act.
That concludes my testimony, and I would like to thank you,
Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to provide the testimony in
support of this important legislation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pansini follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tracy Pansini
Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to provide testimony in
support of H.R. 1759, the Managing Arson through Criminal History
(MATCH) Act of 2007.
My name is Tracy Pansini and I am a veteran firefighter with 28
years of experience. Currently, I am the Fire Chief for the City of
Burbank, California. Also, I am the vice president of Foothill Fire
Chiefs Association and the California, Office of Emergency Services
(OES) ``Area C'' coordinator. As coordinator, I represent 11
jurisdictions.
The MATCH Act could not have come at a better time when the ever so
vibrant images of California burning dominate the media landscape. In
an apocalyptic portrait of mesmerizing flames, dancing from home to
home, that has caused more than 1 billion dollars in damage. Much of
Southern California is ablaze, similar to what we saw in Texas and
Okalahoma this year, Florida, Colorado, Arizona, Montana, Utah and many
other states.
Some of the largest wildland fires have been related to arson. The
massive ``Santiago Canyon'' fire continues to burn in Orange County
where 26 homes have been destroyed and 28,000 acres scorched. More that
10 million dollars have been spent so far on just suppression. Families
living in a supermarket parking lot with their children's pillows
resting on asphalt soaked in puddles of motor oil. The ``Buckweed''
fire in Santa Clarita burned 35,000 acres and destroyed 26 homes and
took the life of one resident. All confirmed arson related.
Criminals and arsonists anticipate the wind and they want to come
out and do their thing. An out-of-state man is the focus on an
investigation for one of San Diego's fires. It is reported that a
resident arsonist from Missouri is the focus of the investigation. An
email was sent to local fire departments suggesting that a person of
interest was a convicted arsonist in Missouri. Maybe if we had this
information available in a national database similar to the MATCH Act
we could have prevented the conflagration that has currently consumed
2,000 homes.
What awaited many as they were allowed to return was what seemed to
be a nuclear wasteland of entire streets consumed, autos turned into
balls of blackened metal, the only thing left standing were the
concrete chimneys that looked like dominos lined up and unsupported.
Home after home--30 on one street alone--reduced from places of love,
pictures, mementos and family heirlooms to blackened concrete, charred
rubble and twisted metal blanketed with grey and white ash.
Currently, we don't have any vehicle to track arsonists on the
national level or state level for that matter. This is extremely
important legislation to help us track arsonists nationally. Knowing
that a convicted arsonist moved into Burbank would assist in an
investigation of an arson fire. The MATCH Act would allow us to
proactively screen local movement of arsonists. It has the unique
ability to link disparate dates and events with a human element at the
local, state and federal level. It will be a tool and part of a system
that can be used to strengthen the relationships of evidence with
people on events and capabilities. It is natural to look to enhance it
with other information of relevance to help us connect the dots in the
investigation phase. The increased need post 9/11 and our recent fires
nationwide make the passing of this bill critical.
An individual that committed an act of arson is likely to commit a
future act. If we had the MATCH type of data base in place, we would
have had the opportunity to find a prolific arsonist. He always used
the same device as most arsonists do and perfected it under our noses.
As a young fire captain, I remember chasing numerous fires set in trash
cans littering the alleys of Burbank. I gave the device to our
investigator, but, then as now, there was nothing in place to track the
information with a human component. That arsonist was the infamous John
Orr who went on to burn up 64 homes in Glendale, kill six in the Ole's
Home Improvement fire in South Pasadena, destroy the Walton set on the
Warner Brothers lot and burn business in all the surrounding
communities. He went on to start hundreds fires in cities from central
California to Southern California along the I-99 interstate. PBS did an
hour long television show ``Hunt for the Serial Arsonist'' tracking
Orr. HBO did an original movie ``Point of Origin'' based on the Joseph
Wambaugh book about John Orr. John probably had a ten year run before
being caught. It would help to have a data base. Then and now we use
our network skills, but that is limited at best.
Generally, when it gets too hot for arsonists, they move to other
areas. It is extremely important for investigating agencies to know
when arsonists relocate to another area. We had a rash of 40 carport
fires that spanned numerous jurisdictions and damaged many apartment
buildings and displaced families. The arsonist had relocated from the
Flatbush-area of New York. The local law enforcement had identified him
as an arsonist so he relocated to the Los Angeles-area to continue his
craft. Had we been able to use MATCH, we would have caught him sooner,
or maybe he would not have moved in the first place.
Arson is the leading cause of fire in the United States. Arson
fires are very costly in terms of human casualties and direct dollar
loss. According to the U.S. Fire Administration, ``Each year, an
estimated 267,000 fires are attributed to arson, which result in 1.4
billion in property loss and cause over 2,000 injuries and 475
deaths.'' Locally, our arson fires account for 30% to 40% of our fire
total. I Googled the term ``Arson Fire'' and received 420,000 sites.
In addition, arson is being used as a terrorist tool to negatively
impact houses of worship, gang related fire bombings, and environmental
terrorism. In 1996, Congress passed the ``Church Arson Prevention
Act,'' which expanded the options available to prosecutors, but did not
provide any way of capturing the data and sharing the information on
the incidents to local enforcement agencies.
Some acts of Arson are politically motivated. For example, here in
Southern California, an environmental group, known as the Earth
Liberation Front (ELF), committed arson to spread their message of
protecting the environment. The ELF group fire bombed auto dealerships
who sold poor gas mileage vehicles. Many dealerships were destroyed
causing economic disruption to local cities.
As a result here in Burbank, as in many other communities, we have
initiated an ``Arson Watch'' program. We have trained our community
disaster volunteers (CDV) in what to look for and where to patrol. In
October 2005, we experienced an arson fire in our foothills that
consumed structures and vegetation in Burbank, Glendale and Los
Angeles. One day prior, across the valley another arson wildland fire
was started in Calabasas, Calif. That burned in the communities of Los
Angeles City, Los Angeles County and Ventura County. Could the fires be
related?
We need all of your support in passing this important legislation.
Disaster volunteers, Arson Patrols and Vigilant enforcement are not
enough. We need the MATCH Act!!!
Mr. Chairman, thanks again for allowing me to provide testimony in
support of this important legislation.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM SOQUI, FIRE CHIEF, CATHEDRAL CITY FIRE
DEPARTMENT, CATHEDRAL CITY, CA
Mr. Soqui. Thank you, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member
Forbes, Members of the Subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to come before you, the
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security and
testify regarding H.R. 1759, ``Managing Arson Through Criminal
History Act of 2007,'' which was introduced on March 29, 2007
by Congresswoman Bono and Congressman Schiff.
I come to you today as a certified fire investigator in the
American fire service, a California fire chief of a municipal
fire department and a member and representative of the
Riverside County Fire Chiefs Association, whose members
represent one of seven counties in Southern California that was
recently ravaged by the wind event and firestorm and which is
currently under local, State and Federal disaster declarations.
The story of fire is older than man, and when harnessed and
used appropriately it has proved beneficial in providing
shelter, comfort and a source for preparing food for
consumption.
My testimony today is not about the beneficial uses of fire
but the misuse in the criminal act of arson which can kill and
terrorize people, threaten and destroy property, and damage or
destroy ecosystems and the environment.
Currently, two fires--the Santiago fire in Orange County
and the Buckweed fire in Los Angeles County--have been
determined to be the result of arson. Although some of the
causes of the recent fires have been determined, others are
still being investigated.
Last year, on October 26, 2006, a vegetation fire was
reported near the streets of Esperanza and San Gorgonio in the
southeast section of an unincorporated community of Cabazon in
Riverside County.
This arson fire quickly grew to several hundreds of acres
in the following hours, overtaking and killing five United
States Forest Service firefighters.
For a long time the perception of much of the general
public is that arson is a victimless crime amounting to paper
losses to be covered by an insurance companies.
The reality is that arson is a crime that affects everyone,
by increasing insurance premiums, blighting our neighborhoods,
killing hundreds annually, and physically and emotionally
scarring the victims of fire.
Nationally, arson is the leading cause of fires in the
United States and the second leading cause of death from fire.
An estimated 31,000 intentionally set structure fires occurred
in 2006.
Twenty percent of arson fires involve vehicles, 30 percent
involve structures and 50 percent occur outdoors.
Intentionally set fires in structures resulted in 305
civilian deaths. Intentionally set structure fires resulted in
over $755 million in property loss and 20,500 intentionally set
vehicle fires occurred.
Arson fires accounted for 24 percent of residential fires
in metropolitan areas and were the leading cause of residential
fires.
In 1972 a study was commissioned to study the reasons that
the richest and most technologically advanced nation in the
world would lead all the major industrialized countries in per
capita deaths and property losses from fires.
It was written in 1974 and titled ``America Burning.'' The
study led to the establishment of the United States Fire
Administration and the National Fire Academy and a lot of
technological advances in firefighting equipment and data
collection.
Unfortunately, many of the issues identified and presented
in the document still persist some 33 years afterwards.
There are many and varied reasons for fire-setting--
vandalism, spite, revenge, intimidation, concealment of another
crime, economic motives, civil disorder, gang initiation,
excitement, suicide and murder.
Spite and revenge have been ranked the leading motive
behind incendiary fires. Because they are targeted at people
and not just buildings or physical objects, these fires tend to
be the most dangerous in terms of casualties.
They are premeditated acts committed by both adult and
adolescent fire-setters. Juveniles account for 50 percent to 55
percent of the arrests nationally of intentionally set fires.
Fires are set for sport, for vandalizing property. They are
ranked high as a motive, and juveniles are responsible for a
majority of these.
Additionally, juveniles participating in criminal gang
activity have often resorted to violence to accomplish their
goals. The violence stems from their objective to obtain power,
control and respect.
Fire does not respect geographic boundaries and neither do
arsonists. Modern life allows us to travel across
jurisdictional boundaries between States in a matter of
minutes.
Southern California is served by seven major airports,
allowing easy access and convenience. The states of Arizona,
Nevada, Oregon, New Mexico, Washington and Utah are accessible
to Southern California in less than 90 minutes by airplane.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting
in 2004 indicates a conviction rate of only 17.1 percent
nationwide.
Across the United States, the U.S. Department of Justice,
in their sourcebook of 2003, collected recidivism rates from 15
States. Within 3 years of their release, 57.7 percent of
convicted arsonists were rearrested, 41 percent were
reconvicted, and 38.7 percent returned to prison with or
without a new prison sentence.
Currently, only three States maintain arson registries.
They are California, Illinois and Montana. Unfortunately, in
2007, America is still burning.
The MATCH Act registry will provide stronger links among
public safety agencies, links that are needed to reduce the
incidence of arson, thus saving lives, property and the
environment.
The MATCH Act will serve as a valuable tool to aid the men
and women who serve in our fire and law enforcement agencies
and are engaged in the process of identifying, locating,
apprehending, convicting and tracking these modern-day criminal
terrorists attempting to escape justice and who seek sanctuary
across State lines.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Soqui follows:]
Prepared Statement of William M. Soqui
Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Forbes and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to come before you, the subcommittee
on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security and testify regarding H.R.
1759, Managing Arson Through Criminal History Act (MATCH) of 2007
introduced on March 29, 2007 by Congresswoman Mary Bono and Congressman
Adam Schiff.
I come to you today as a Certified Fire Investigator in the
American fire service, a California Fire Chief of a municipal Fire
Department and a member and representative of the Riverside County Fire
Chiefs Association whose members represent one of the seven counties in
Southern California that was recently ravaged by the wind event and
firestorm and which is currently under local, state and federal
disaster declarations.
The story of fire is older than man and when harnessed and used
appropriately it has proved beneficial in providing shelter, comfort
and a source for preparing food for consumption.
What I will testify to today is not the beneficial uses of fire but
the misuse in the criminal act of arson which can kill, and terrorize
people, threaten and destroy property and damage or destroy ecosystems
and the environment.
Currently, two fires (the Santiago Fire in Orange County and the
Buckweed Fire in Los Angeles County) have been determined to be the
result of arson. Although some of the causes of recent fires have been
determined, others are still being investigated.
Last year, on October 26, 2006, a vegetation fire was reported near
the streets of Esperanza and San Gorgonio in the southeast section of
the unincorporated community of Cabazon (Riverside County). This arson-
caused fire quickly grew to several hundreds of acres in the following
hours overtaking and killing five US Forest Service firefighters.
For a long time the perception by much of the general public is
that arson is a victimless crime amounting to paper losses to be
covered by insurance companies. The reality is that arson is a crime
that affects everyone, by increasing insurance premiums, blighting our
neighborhoods, killing hundreds annually, and physically and
emotionally scarring the victims of fire.
Nationally,
Arson is the leading cause of fires in the United
States and the second leading cause of death from fire (the
first cause is careless smoking).
An estimated 31,000 intentionally set structure fires
occurred in 2006.
20% of arson fires involve vehicles, 30% involve
structures and 50% occur outdoors.
Intentionally set fires in structures resulted in 305
civilian deaths.
Intentionally set structure fires also resulted in
$755,000,000 in property loss.
20,500 intentionally set vehicle fires occurred, a
decrease of 2.4% from a year ago, and caused $134,000,000 in
property damage, an increase of 18.6% from a year ago.
Arson fires accounted for 24% of residential fires in
metropolitan areas and were the leading cause of residential
fires.
In 1972 a landmark study was commissioned to study the reasons that
the riches and most technologically advance nation in the world would
lead all the major industrialized countries in per capita deaths and
property loss from fire. It was written in 1974 and titled ``America
Burning.'' The study led to the establishment of the United States Fire
Administration (USFA) and the National Fire Academy (NFA) and too many
technological advances in firefighting equipment and data collection.
Unfortunately many of the issues identified and presented in the
document still persist 33 years after it was written. The National Fire
Protection Association in 1971 classified about twenty five percent of
fires as unknown or incendiary. Twenty six percent of large loss school
fires were classified as incendiary and forty four percent of large
loss church losses were classified as incendiary.
In 1994, according to the National Fire Incident Reporting System
(NFIRS), approximately 1/3 of all fires in the United States were
classified as arson (incendiary or suspicious) making it the leading
cause of fire. In comparison the second leading cause open flames only
made up 12 percent of all fires.
Motivations for Firesetting
People set fires for varied and complex reasons. For criminals
prosecuted for crimes where there is direct evidence, motive is often a
secondary consideration and is not necessarily crucial for conviction.
But because arson is a clandestine crime where witnesses are rare and
some or most of the direct evidence burns in the fire, motive becomes a
critical element in prosecuting firesetting cases.
The most common motives behind firesetting are:
1. Vandalism
2. Spite and revenge
3. Intimidation
4. Concealment of another crime
5. Economic motives, include insurance fraud, debt removal,
direct monetary gain, elimination of unwanted ownership, land
assembly for development, and removal of business competition
6. Civil disorder and hate related crime
7. Gang initiation
8. Excitement
9. Suicide
10. Murder
Spite and revenge has been ranked the leading motive behind
incendiary fires. Because they are targeted at people and not just
buildings or physical objects, these fires tend to be the most
dangerous in terms of casualties. They are premeditated acts, committed
by both adult and adolescent firesetters.
Juveniles account for 50-55% of arrests in intentionally set fires.
Fires set for the sport of vandalizing property was ranked high as a
motive, and juveniles are responsible for the majority of these.
Additionally, juveniles participating in criminal gang activity often
resort to violence to accomplish their goals. This violence stems from
their objective to obtain power, control and ``respect.''
Fire does not respect geographic boundaries and neither do
arsonists. Modern life allows us to travel across jurisdictional
boundaries between states in a matter of minutes. Southern California
is served by seven major airports allowing easy access and convenience.
The states of Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Utah are accessible
to California in less than ninety minutes by airplane.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting in
2004 indicates the conviction rate for arsonists is 17.1% nationwide.
According to the United States Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics Sourcebook of 2003 collected data regarding recidivism from
15 states. Within three years of their prison releases, 57.7% of
convicted arsonists were rearrested, 41.0% were reconvicted, and 38.7%
returned to prison with or without a new prison sentence.
Currently only three states maintain Arson Registries. They are
California, Illinois and Montana. Unfortunately in 2007, America is
still burning.
The MATCH Act registry will provide stronger links among public
safety agencies; links that are needed to reduce the incidence of
arson, thus saving lives, property and the environment. The MATCH Act,
will serve as a valuable tool to aid the men and women who serve in our
fire and law enforcement agencies, and are engaged in the process of
identifying, locating, apprehending, convicting and tracking these
modern day criminal terrorist attempting to escape justice and who seek
sanctuary across state lines.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today before the
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Chief.
I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions and
ask Ms. Bono, did I understand your testimony to say that you
did not intend to have youth in the database?
Mrs. Bono. That is correct.
Mr. Scott. And is it your testimony that it is your
intention that the access to the information only be law
enforcement personnel?
Mrs. Bono. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Scott. Okay.
Mr. Soqui, you indicated that California already has a
database.
Mr. Soqui. That is correct.
Mr. Scott. When there is an arson, how often does someone's
name appear on that database?
Mr. Soqui. I don't have a specific on the numbers of when
it occurs. One of the problems, again, is sharing that database
and being able to access it and, again, making sure that that
person is only from the state of California.
Mr. Scott. Have you had experience with the database in
California?
Mr. Soqui. Not specific to a conviction of somebody.
Mr. Scott. How long has the database been in existence in
California?
Mr. Soqui. I can't answer that question for you.
Mr. Scott. Chief Pansini?
Mr. Pansini. I can't tell you the time line, but it is in
our penal code system in California. But the problem is that
when you relocate, it is only a misdemeanor, and so there is no
teeth in the penal code itself to get arsonists to--when they
relocate, to reenter into the system.
And currently, mostly it is just used at the State level
and a little bit at the county level.
Mr. Scott. Can you access the entire California database?
Mr. Pansini. We have to do it through our police department
side.
Mr. Scott. Can they access the database?
Mr. Pansini. Yes, but the trouble here is that our police
departments--they are tasked with crimes against people prior
to crimes against property. So crimes against people take such
a huge workload for them that they rarely get a chance to go
after crimes against property.
Mr. Scott. If there is a national database, why would there
be any difference?
Mr. Pansini. Because currently this database in this bill
makes it--actually has teeth in it that has every agency that
has access to it--how it currently works now in the state of
California is our police department has to pull down that
information, and they pull it down whenever they get the whim
to do that.
And then they have to walk it across the hall to the fire
administration side to get somebody to look at it. That rarely
happens, because they get so caught up, again, with crimes
against people.
But we have nothing in place right now--there is the BATS,
the Bomb Arsonist Tracking System, but all it does is tracks
the device and the incident itself. There is nothing that ties
people in to product.
Whether it is an IID or an IED, an incendiary device or an
explosive device, there is not a human component to that.
Mr. Scott. Well, if we pass this bill, what I am trying to
get at is how will things be much better.
Mr. Pansini. Because we will all have the capability to
input information on personal arson that is in our
jurisdiction, and how they use their devices and what their
devices look like, and then that will be available to every
fire department and law enforcement agency nationwide.
Mr. Scott. You are not inputting that now in the California
database?
Mr. Pansini. We are not, no.
Mr. Scott. What do you input now in the California
database?
Mr. Pansini. We put in nothing except the incident
information itself into the National Fire Incident Reporting
System, and that is all.
Mr. Scott. Is that name----
Mr. Pansini. It is called NFIRS.
Mr. Scott. No, what do you put in, name, address and the
fact that they were charged or convicted with arson?
Mr. Pansini. No. None of that. Just the incident data
itself.
Mr. Scott. Not name?
Mr. Pansini. No, sir.
Mr. Scott. That is the California database.
Mr. Pansini. It is actually now a national database.
Mr. Scott. Okay. In California do you put the name in?
Mr. Pansini. No, we don't.
Mr. Scott. Not much of a database, is it?
Mr. Pansini. No, sir. I hope that is why we are here, to
get this in place.
Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, can I just clarify on one of the
questions you asked in terms of youth?
As I understand it--and we are working with your staff, I
think, and Mary's as well on this--the bill, as it is currently
drafted, refers to criminal arsonists, which is defined as
people convicted of arson.
I think what we found out from legal counsel is the way
that that would be interpreted--is we have been trying to find
out--does that mean a juvenile who is adjudicated in an arson
case would be considered, does that mean only a juvenile who is
treated as an adult would be considered, or does that mean only
an adult would be would be considered.
I think that the answer is that it depends on State law,
that depending on what State you are in, the State could treat
a juvenile who is adjudicated as a juvenile as a person
convicted of arson.
So the bill, as it is written, in some States I think
currently does apply to juveniles, and the question that we
would have to work with you on is should it, under what
circumstances should juveniles that go in be able to get out
or, you know, whatnot.
But I think, to clarify further, that--I would think that a
juvenile who is treated as an adult, who is waived into adult
court, would be within the bill currently, and even juveniles
who are adjudicated depending on whether that State considers
that a conviction may also be included.
Mr. Scott. I think you are right, and the question was
designed to find out what the legislative intent was, and then
we can go from there to make sure the language reflected the
legislative intent.
So the questions you have articulated we will be working
on.
The gentleman from Virginia?
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Scott. Excuse me. I would like to recognize the
gentleman from North Carolina has joined us. Thank you.
Excuse me.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And we want to, once again, thank all of you for being
here.
And Mary, you and Adam know we appreciate the work you have
done. It is our customary procedure that we don't ask you many
questions, so if you want to answer any of these other
questions, just chime in.
Chiefs, we appreciate what you do. I was amazed when I was
hearing Adam talk about how you found out who had committed one
of those crimes. It is amazing to me that you can trace that
back to a pack of matches, you know, and do that. So we
appreciate your work.
One of the things that I would like to ask you about is the
recidivism part of it, because obviously that is a key to a lot
of our databases. Is there a huge recidivism component?
And, Chief, I think you mentioned that 57.7 percent of
arsonists were rearrested.
Mr. Soqui. That is correct, and that is based on a study
that was done by the Department of Justice.
Mr. Forbes. Are they rearrested for arson or for just some
other crime?
Mr. Soqui. It is all of the above. Some are rearrested and
reconvicted for arson. Others have other issues that they
violate their parole or end up back in prison.
Mr. Forbes. And help me with this one, because I know one
of the things we look at is--certainly with sexual offenders,
we know there is a huge recidivism rate that takes place.
But I was listening to your testimony when you went down
the common motives, and you mentioned vandalism, spite and
revenge, intimidation, concealment of another crime, economic
motives, civil disorder, gang initiation, suicide and murder.
I left out excitement, because of all of those, the
excitement part is probably the one that would be most leaning
toward some sort of recidivism. The other things don't always
have that connectivity between there.
What has been your experience in terms of the recidivism
that you see with arsonists? What causes that recidivism and
how large is it?
Mr. Soqui. I don't have the information. I can only relate
it to you anecdotally. There was actually another study that
was done about people who are incarcerated and whether there
was a history of fire-setting, and there was a large
relationship between fire-setting and persons that were
incarcerated.
There is a whole dynamic on the psychology of fire-setting.
The one that we talk about, again, is spite, revenge. And that
is probably the most dangerous, because it actually targets a
person, whether it is in an occupied structure or in an open
area.
Mr. Forbes. But has it been your experience that they use
arson for spite and revenge on one individual, and if they do
it on one individual, they will do it on another individual at
another time? Has that been just your anecdotal experience?
Mr. Soqui. I think it depends on--you know, each person has
different motivation. And again, Chief talked about John Orr.
His was, again, hero worship and those kinds of things.
Mr. Forbes. One of the things that could help us that you
could submit just for the record at some point is any
information you have, even if it is anecdotal information,
about the recidivism component of it, because obviously that is
one of the things that drives us to these databases.
If having information on previous crimes gives us some sort
of predictability on future crimes, it makes it a lot more
helpful to have the database.
The other question I would ask--in your experience, how
many fires and what percentage of them are done by juveniles,
because that was a question that came up. Do you have a feeling
for that?
Mr. Pansini. About 58 percent of arson fires as expressed,
I believe, on Channel 7 recently, is juvenile fire-setters.
Mr. Forbes. So if we really want to make this accurate, you
are going to need to have a picture of the juveniles that are
involved.
Mr. Soqui. I think the one thing that is confusing is there
is a very low conviction rate, you know, down in the 15
percent, 16 percent. Now, again, when you clear on a UCR form,
the uniform crime reporting, you have to make an arrest.
And I think that the high percentage of arrests occur with
juveniles, that 50 percent to 55 percent, so it is not really a
metric that applies.
It has to do with sophistication, age, whether they are
talking to their peers. Those kinds of things tend to lead to
more arrests of juveniles. But again, the metric doesn't apply.
Again, a more sophisticated arsonist--again, Chief referred
to John Orr. It took 10 years to capture him. But again, he is
a much more sophisticated--and doing it for a different reason.
Mr. Forbes. The 17.1 percent conviction rate that I think
you used in your testimony--why is it so low? What causes the
conviction for arsonists' cases?
Is it detecting who they are? Is it getting evidence? What
have you found to be the difficulty?
Mr. Pansini. We just experienced a $12.5 million arson fire
with explosion as well, and a lot of the evidence is destroyed.
And it went so far that flammable liquids were used to do it in
multiple starts.
But when we went to court--and we never made it to court
because we didn't have enough, but we used a chainsaw overhead
to cut open the roof, and that is how we vent the hot gases and
stuff, and it allows us to go inside to do the firefight.
Well, because that chainsaw uses oil and uses gasoline to
fuel the chain, therefore they had to rule out the one hit down
into the drain on flammable liquid. So it is extremely
difficult to prosecute an arsonist because of that.
We also had a point in time where we had the arsonists and
they physically went out to a gas station that had a camera.
They were seen filling up gasoline cans on camera and then
driving away.
And then we caught them as they torched up a restaurant
that was on the hill, and we estimated there was probably 10
gallons of fuel, exactly what they filled up.
We couldn't prosecute them even though they smelled like
gasoline, they had empty cans, because they stated that they
went to the gas station--their car was empty.
So it is extremely difficult. But there is a propensity for
junior fire-setters to manifest to adulthood, and it is
different tendencies.
It starts sometimes with cruelty to animals. Then it
manifests into fires and things of excitement. And it goes on
through life, and they continue to burn.
Mr. Forbes. Well, my time is up, but basically that is what
we want to try to find out. You have seen a pattern from
juveniles in doing this and as they get to be adults--a pattern
that you need to be able to track.
Also, do you see a pattern from starting smaller fires and
then building up to larger fires if they continue down their
arsonist career, or is that----
Mr. Pansini. Absolutely, because their excitement gets
larger and bigger.
If you get juveniles young enough, and you get some
intervention programs going on, and you continue to work with
them, you can have a success to divert them from an adult arson
career.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you all.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
The gentleman from Georgia?
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
Many of my questions have been answered, and I hope I won't
be duplicitous. And I am having trouble understanding the
rationale for instituting a nationwide database.
I understand that if you do this database, then it would
perhaps deter convicted arsonists from engaging in future arson
because they know that they would be suspected of future arson,
is that fair to say?
Mr. Soqui. I think that is fair to say. I think the other
issue is, again, just the easy access between jurisdictions. It
is just easy to move from one area to another, and this would
allow us to have that information in a database and access it.
Mr. Johnson. Is there any empirical data that would suggest
that arsonists tend to move between jurisdictions?
Mr. Soqui. I would again take the example that Chief
Pansini had, which had to do----
Mr. Johnson. And I know that there will always----
Mr. Soqui. Right.
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Be examples, but have there been
any studies that would suggest that arsonists tend to move
between States?
Mr. Pansini. I don't believe so, but because we have
nowhere to track the data it would be hard to come up with a
conclusion.
Mr. Johnson. Let me ask this question. Have there been any
studies that suggest that arson, like, say, sexual offenders,
is an action that will definitely be repeated in the future by
an arsonist?
In other words, what is the--are there any studies that you
can show us which would prove or indicate that a convicted
arsonist is bound to be an arson recidivist?
Mr. Soqui. I think the information that I referred to in my
testimony--again, it is done from 2003 and covers 15 States--
again, showed that within 3 years of their prison release, 57.7
percent of convicted arsonists were rearrested.
Mr. Johnson. For some reason, not necessarily arson.
Mr. Soqui. Correct.
Mr. Johnson. But would there be anything that would show
that an arsonist who has been convicted of committing that
offense is predisposed and likely to commit that offense again,
just some kind of a psychological compulsion, much as child
molesters or sexual predators?
Is there any studies that can make that link that you know
of?
Mr. Soqui. I am not aware of any specifically. I think the
issue is specifically, you know, what is it that caused them to
commit the arson.
Again, whatever the reason was to do it--if there was a
gang initiation, it may have been a single event. If it is----
Mr. Johnson. Are there any studies that would break down
the motivations for committing arson and would state the
proportions of those who do it for some kind of compulsive
reason, or gang initiation, or some other reason?
Are there any studies that would tend to break down data
and be able to be helpful to us as we consider this
legislation?
Mr. Soqui. I think we would have to look--again, you have
to remember the numbers go backwards, which is there is a very
small conviction rate, so that gives you only a certain
percentage that you can study based on that information.
I am not familiar with a specific study. I will be happy to
look into it and see if we can't get something back to you.
Mr. Johnson. Well, okay. Well, let me ask, then, it seems
to me that--okay. If this database--I mean, are you saying that
it would predict--just due to the fact that a person is on the
database, would that be a predictor that they would engage in
arson again or they are about to engage in arson?
Mr. Soqui. I think what it does is it is another resource.
It is another tool. If you are in a situation where you know
that nobody knows what it is that you are doing, then you are
less likely to be convicted.
If there is a resource that is available to us that would
allow us to track a person based on a previous history of fire-
setting, it would, again, narrow the field as to the people
that we could look at for those crimes.
Mr. Johnson. So regardless of one's motivation in
committing an arson, if they commit an arson for any reason,
their name is going to go on the database, and it would be
regardless of whether or not the arson was just for fun, or
whether or not it was to try to kill somebody, or whether or
not it was committed by a teenager.
It is going to go on the database. That person is going to
go on the database.
Mr. Soqui. I think what we talked about, again--it was,
again, to exclude juveniles from it, so I don't know that a
teenager would apply. It would depend on the jurisdiction and
why they were convicted.
Again, I think it is--you have to remember the big picture,
which is, again, this is the leading cause of fire in the
United States, is people committing arson.
We are looking at the specifics of why the arson was
committed. And again, it is a very small number of people that
are ever even convicted of the crime because of the issues that
were mentioned, the difficulty in obtaining forensic evidence
and prosecuting somebody.
Mr. Johnson. And now the information that would be kept on
the data registry--it would be available to any organization,
company or individual who requests the information?
Mr. Pansini. No, it is only available to law enforcement
and fire agencies.
Mrs. Bono. If I might add to that, too, in the draft--the
legislation we introduced, we have already agreed that we would
make changes, that the language is too vague and we would
specify only law enforcement--fire investigators, law
enforcement would only have access to the database.
Mr. Johnson. So it would not be publicly accessible.
Mrs. Bono. That is correct.
Mr. Johnson. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mrs. Bono. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Can I just add one
thing, if I might, to that?
Mr. Scott. Yes, just go ahead. I am sorry.
Mrs. Bono. Thank you. Just when you asked about studies, I
just have one statistic on recidivism rates.
In 2000, the number of arsonists paroled in California was
173. Within 1 year of parole, 69 of those, or 39 percent, had
reoffended. And within 2 years, 93, or 58 percent, had
reoffended.
Mr. Johnson. By committing another arson?
Mrs. Bono. Yes. So I don't know about studies, but these
statistics are very clear on recidivism rates. They are quite
high.
And you know, there is also--has to be a difference between
the courts--between understanding, as in the recent fire in
California--one of the fires in Santa Clarita was started by a
boy who was playing with matches.
And certainly, I think the way the court would handle
that--I am not a lawyer, but the way the court would handle
that--not only that, the court of public opinion certainly
looks differently on that.
As to the Esperanza fire last year, which was committed,
ironically, the same--I guess the pack of cigarettes where the
match is inserted into the cigarettes or wrapped around seems
to be a frequent tool that they use.
And I think just those two differences, obviously, would be
looked at by the court and handled by the court, I would
assume, and make a difference in the database at the end.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I would be interested in seeing that
data that you just shared with us, so I will have my staffer to
get with your person, and we will see about that.
Mrs. Bono. Thank you very much.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
The gentleman from North Carolina?
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good to have you all with us.
Mr. Chairman, a year ago--almost a year ago to the day--the
building that housed one of the largest senior high schools in
my district was destroyed in a fire. Arson investigation
continues to this day. And I was invited to visit that campus
last week.
That incident almost destroyed that community emotionally.
They recovered and they are doing well. I know of--few persons,
if any, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, are any more insufferable
than those who intentionally set fires that result in property
damage and loss of life.
And I commend you all for your efforts in tracking them
down. And I hope we are able to get the one who did it back
home as well as the California fires as well.
Chief Soqui--how do you pronounce that?
Mr. Soqui. It is Soqui, sir.
Mr. Coble. I wasn't even close.
Mr. Soqui. You were close.
Mr. Coble. Chief Soqui, the fires in Southern California
are estimated to cost over $1 billion. Concerns are already
being raised about what, if any, insurance coverage victims
will receive.
In your experience, are the victims able to recover and
rebuild with their insurance, or do often times they face
substantial out-of-pocket costs as well?
Mr. Soqui. I think it is based, again, on the policy that
you have and how high their deductible is. Most people are able
to recover their costs through fire insurance.
But again, it is not a victimless crime in that you and I
end up paying for it in the end. Our insurance prices are going
to increase to cover those losses.
Mr. Coble. Yes.
Chief Pansini, how many arson fires in your area have you
identified as acts of ecoterrorism? And is this becoming a more
prevalent problem?
Mr. Pansini. We experienced the ELF with a series of fire-
bombings in auto dealerships that sold cars that were of poor
gas mileage. And they burned about five auto dealerships, which
had a direct impact to the sales tax of those local
communities.
Mr. Coble. Well, as you point out, Chief, all of us pay for
this, and these people often times are given a pass.
So again, I commend you all for what you do.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and Mr. Forbes for having called
this hearing and I yield back.
Mr. Scott. The gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren?
Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am not
sure I have any questions. I just want to say I think this is a
very worthy bill.
I don't know why there is any opposition to it. In
California, we have had a database for some period of time. We
toughened the law up in the 1990's while I was attorney general
such that we require people to continue to be registered for
their life.
Some of the complaints about establishing such a database
sort of remind me of when we were dealing with Megan's law.
People said there is some violation of privacy rights or
something.
The fact of the matter is if someone is convicted of an
arson, that is a record that is publicly available. The problem
is it is difficult to put it all together in order to have law
enforcement be able to utilize this at a time of threat or a
time of actual fire.
I happen to think this kind of database would actually be--
a registry would be helpful in our pursuit of preventing fires
and also attempting to find perpetrators where fires are
established.
So I happen to--I would like to commend the authors of the
bill for bringing this bill to our attention.
I thank the gentlemen who are here representing the
courageous firefighters around the country but particularly in
our home state of California where we, unfortunately, suffer
from the vagaries of natural disaster, including our Santa Ana
winds, but also exacerbated by those who, for various reasons,
commit criminal acts of arson.
It devastates entire communities, causes death and
destruction, and the damage lasts for years and years and years
and years.
And the threat of a fire coming down a canyon at 110 miles
an hour in areas where people live, where people find
themselves, or the firefighters themselves, is just such an
awesome act once it gets going that it is difficult to
describe, as much as you gentlemen have done on this and other
occasions.
And in face of such an overwhelming threat, it just seems
to me that this makes reasonable sense, and I appreciate the
gentlelady from California and the gentleman from California
talking about us amending it if there is any problems.
But the fact of the matter is the basis of the need is
there. I think this is a professional, reasonable approach that
will give us additional information.
And just think about it. If through this we deter a single
fire, given what we have seen in California recently, it would
well be worth it.
So I thank you for bringing this before us, and I thank the
Chairman for having this hearing and the subsequent markup and
hope we can move this along quickly.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
And the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert?
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I do also appreciate all of your being here and, of
course, those standing on the front lines between us and harm--
we appreciate you very much and appreciate you being here.
My friend from California indicated he didn't know why
anybody would oppose, and you know, I am one who is always
watching out for States' rights. Obviously, there are occasions
when it is necessary to bring the whole country together.
But I approach, you know, a bill like this--how does it
affect States' rights? And obviously, there was a great deal of
careful thought given to this bill, and not in--trying to avoid
any effort to intrude on what under our Constitution is the
State's right to pursue and investigate and prosecute criminal
laws.
And also, in noting the arson fire statistics from the
National Fire Incident Reporting System, the U.S. Fire
Administration, Department of Homeland Security, it looks like
the number of fires is down dramatically, the number of deaths
not down quite as dramatically, or the loss.
But it does seem like we are getting more sophisticated
arsonists. And of course, in this mobile society a lot more
folks happen to start a fire and then move on to another State.
So I can understand someone's hesitance because of my
approach to bills like this, but then in weighing the need for
it and the ability to actually enhance a State's capability of
investigating, and pursuing and prosecuting arsonists, I think
it is overall a very good thing.
I am curious. When we talk about who would have access, law
enforcement--and whoever knows--and, Congressman Schiff, you
may answer it right away, but would insurance companies have
access to that information initially, do you know?
Mr. Schiff. I think the answer is no.
Mr. Gohmert. Okay. And I would have mixed emotions about
that. On the one hand, you know, we are hoping that people
reform and don't start fires. And of course, everybody needs
fire insurance for a home, that kind of thing.
So apparently its availability would come into play if
there were any suspicion of wrongdoing--then could consult with
local law enforcement after an act on an insured dwelling or
building, and the law enforcement would then be able to get
that information? Is that basically the gist?
Mr. Schiff. I would think, Mr. Gohmert, that the insurance
company would be predominantly interested in whether the fire
was arson. And they would get that information from the fire
department and whatnot. That would determine whether the claim
was covered or not covered or whatnot.
They would, I am sure, have an interest in seeing that who
was responsible was prosecuted, but in terms of their need to
have access to the registry, they probably wouldn't have a
need.
And it might be hard to contain the information----
Mr. Gohmert. Well, unless there was evidence that it may
have been arson, if there was that suspicion, and law
enforcement started an investigation, then certainly they would
have access to the information at that point.
Mr. Schiff. Well, I mean, yes.
Mr. Gohmert. It is not something you go on fishing
expeditions in. And understand, I am very sensitive to--well,
there was a lawsuit not too many years ago, and all I did was
read the account in some of the legal journals.
But as I understood it, they had a memo from somebody
within the insurance company saying after the house fire, first
see if there isn't some way you can claim that it is arson so
we don't have to pay it.
We don't want to support those. But my understanding is if
there is actual evidence, enough to file a complaint, then law
enforcement would have that information, correct?
Mr. Schiff. Yes. I would think that if there is evidence of
arson, that that evidence, in some form, is shared with the
insurance company. My point is that I don't know that the
insurance company needs access to a registry----
Mr. Gohmert. I agree.
Mr. Schiff [continuing]. In order to find out whether it is
a legitimate claim or not.
Mr. Gohmert. Right.
Mr. Schiff. And if you do give them access to the registry,
you may not be able to contain who else gets access to the
registry.
Mr. Gohmert. Yes. And that is why I asked the question,
because if you start from the position where you are a former
arsonist, so therefore we are not going to ever pay a claim,
even though we have received all of your payments all these
months--and that is what prompted me to ask the question.
I am not sure that it is appropriate for them to have that
information, unless there is evidence of fire--that is what
prompted the question. I think we are concerned about the same
thing.
But I appreciate you all pushing this bill, and hopefully
it will result in fewer arsons in the future, even so. And
thank you again for your work.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
And do any other Members have questions? If not, we will
thank the witnesses for their testimony and ask unanimous
consent that Members have 5 legislative days to input any other
matters into the record.
Thank you very much for your testimony today.
[Whereupon, at 2:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]