[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 91 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6517-S6533]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Grams, Mr.
Abraham, Mr. Helms, and Mr. McConnell):
S. 1885. A bill to limit the liability of certain nonprofit
organizations that are providers of prosthetic devices, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
the prosthetic limb access act of 1996
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, a few years ago I became exposed to a
problem that exists in the lives of thousands of Americans. It happened
when one of my closet friends in Oklahoma, Buddy Martin; lost both of
his legs.
He was one of the fortunate ones who had the resources to purchase
artificial limbs, and is able to live today a much more normal life
than one could imagine.
It is because of this exposure that I rise today to introduce a bill
to provide relief to thousands of Americans. Everyday far too many
Americans are unable to live full and productive lives like Buddy
Martin because they cannot afford adequate prosthetic care. There are
over 250,000 Americans who cannot afford adequate prosthetic care.
While the government provides assistance through Medicare and other
programs they can not meet all of the needs, and they don't have to.
The private sector
[[Page S6518]]
stands ready to help, through nonprofit foundations, but they cannot
because of our country's product liability laws. That is why I am
introducing the Prosthetic Limb Access Act of 1996, I am joined by my
colleagues Senators Faircloth, Grams, Abraham, and Helms.
In Oklahoma, a nonprofit foundation called Limbs for Life takes used
artificial limbs, reconditions them, and provides them to needy people
in third world countries, they do not give them to Americans. It is not
because there is not the need, they do not provide them because of our
country's laws regarding product liability. They would be unable to
afford the necessary insurance to provide the limbs to needy Americans.
One doctor in Oklahoma, Dr. John Sabolich, the Nation's foremost
prosthesis expert, currently saws used devices in half before throwing
them away, because of liability. He showed me a $50,000 prosthetic arm
that was about to be destroyed; to make it reusable would only have
required about 20 minutes of work. It is a disgrace that perfectly good
artificial limbs have to be destroyed when there are thousands of
Americans who could use them.
My bill would provide the necessary product liability relief, while
still protecting the patients by providing relief for intentional
wrongdoing. This would allow hundreds of Americans to care for
themselves, work, and better enjoy a more full life.
There are over 3,000 new amputations each week, which amounts to
160,000 amputations each year, for a grand total of 3.8 million
amputees in the United States. The number of new amputees has increased
over the years because of the early detection of cancer, doctors are
able to detect cancer earlier and it is better to sacrifice a limb to
save a person. Therefore the demand for more limbs by needy people will
only increase. I have been told that if this bill is enacted that at
least 2,000 limbs per year could be made available for needy Americans.
These are 2,000 people who otherwise would not have access to an
artificial arm or leg. These are 2,000 people who are currently not
living full and productive lives, who need assistance to care for
themselves, sometimes to just accomplish tasks that we all take for
granted such as eating, moving around, or even working.
I have met many of these people who would benefit from this
legislation and have listened to their heartbreaking stories. And for
everyone I've heard of there are hundreds more who go daily without a
prosthetic device, depending on others.
There is Nestor, a man who is missing both arms. He states:
My prosthesis is broken and I am unable to eat or do any
activities of daily living such as personal care or cooking.
I live alone and have no friends to help, so I must do things
for myself.
There is Pearl, a 46-year-old woman with one leg missing, who lives
in a nursing home. She said:
I slip and fall so often when my crutches slip away from
me--and it hurts a lot when my wrist or neck or other body
parts are throbbing with pain for weeks due to my falls--and
although I try to be careful and watchful, the crutches still
can slip away from me when encountering the mopped floors or
wet spots that are in a nursing home.
There is Dalia, she was fitted with her current prosthesis in 1983,
but since then her body has changed and it no longer fits properly. She
says:
When I changed prosthesis, my whole body changed, my
balance is off especially effecting my back. I have fallen
down, have worsening osteoporosis and am very frustrated
because I can't do the things I used to do.
Mr. President, I know these are sad stories, and I know we as Members
run across sad stories every day. But here we can do something positive
for them, which will solve their problems, at no cost to the taxpayers.
We can provide them the same medical services we are now giving poor
people in third world countries, and we can do this through the
nonprofit sector. We have needy people and a willing organization ready
to help. Mr. President, we should at least treat our own citizens as
well as we treat those in other countries.
Mr. President, my legislation is supported not only by the Limbs for
Life Foundation, but also: Goodwill Industries, National Amputee Fund,
National Association for the Advancement of Orthotics and Prosthetics,
American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, and the
American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine.
Mr. President, this is a simple bill which would create major relief
for a number of needy people. It is not a broad product liability bill,
so therefore it should not draw the opposition that other bills have
received this Congress. It corrects a small problem that literally
means the world for a large group of disabled Americans. I hope we can
move this bill forward this year.
______
By Mr. FRIST:
S. 1886. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify
the treatment of educational grants by private foundations, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
educational grants legislation
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I introduce a bill which is
essential in building a higher educated and more productive labor force
as we move toward the next century. My bill would encourage private
foundations to increase the amounts they currently provide for
educational assistance to students in their communities.
Currently, guidelines developed by the Internal Revenue Service can
have the effect of prohibiting certain foundations from being able to
provide the maximum amount of educational assistance to local students.
As the Federal Government faces greater and greater fiscal constraints,
we must look for ways to encourage the private sector to fill unmet
educational needs.
Essentially, under current law, a private foundation will not suffer
tax penalties if it meets certain tests when providing scholarships or
educational loans to employees, or children of employees, of a
particular employer. While there is a facts and circumstances test
which can be met, uncertainty surrounding application of this test to
an employer-related grant program results in much greater usage of a
safe-harbor percentage test which has been developed by the Internal
Revenue Service. This safe-harbor percentage test basically limits the
amount of scholarships and loans that a foundation may provide to one
out of four applicable children of employees of a particular company.
This 25-percent test can cause hardship, especially in cases where a
substantial percentage of the community at large works for a single
employer.
My proposal eliminates this rigid 25-percent test.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this essential
education bill. By providing these private foundations relief from the
IRS' rigid 25-percent test, we will be granting valuable and badly
needed educational support to America's hard-working families.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Heflin):
S. 1887. A bill to make improvements in the operation and
administration of the Federal courts, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
the federal courts improvements act of 1996
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am introducing for myself,
Senator Hatch, and Senator Heflin, a bill entitled ``The Federal Courts
Improvements Act of 1996.'' A first version of the bill, S. 1101, was
introduced in August 1995, at the request of the Judicial Conference.
In October of last year, we held a comprehensive hearing on that bill
in the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the
Courts, which I chair, at which both judges and lawyers testified at
length on the substance of many of S. 1101's provisions. The present
bill was crafted after many months of detailed discussions and intense
collaboration between myself, Senators Hatch and Heflin, and the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. More importantly, we have
worked closely with the other members of the subcommittee to address
their concerns and include their suggestions, making this truly a
bipartisan bill.
At the onset, I would like to elaborate on the spirit in which this
bill was crafted. I am sure my colleagues are well aware, many of my
efforts have focused on saving the Federal Government's sparse
resources and making the most of taxpayer dollars. As chairman of the
Judiciary Subcommittee with jurisdiction over the courts, I am also
concerned that the Federal judicial system be administered in the
[[Page S6519]]
most efficient and cost-effective manner possible, while maintaining a
high level of quality in the administration of justice. In fact, I sent
out a judicial questionnaire earlier this year requesting assistance
from individual judges on their ideas and views of the needs of the
Federal judiciary. I hope some of you have had the opportunity to
review my subcommittee's report on the courts of appeal, which I
released recently. The report on the District courts will be completed
shortly. I found it enlightening to communicate with the individual
judges, and hope that these lines of candid and constructive
communication with the individual judges and the Administrative Office
remain open and continue to produce beneficial results in terms of
efficiency, cost savings, and other improvements within the Federal
judiciary.
In drafting the Federal Courts Improvement bill, we worked closely
with the Administrative Office to assess and address the needs of the
Federal judiciary. As a result, the bill contains both technical and
substantive changes in the law, many of which were carried over from
previous Congresses and-or originally proposed in S. 1101. During our
working sessions on the bill, some of the provisions in S. 1101, such
as the sections dealing with Federal Defender Services matters, were
determined to warrant further inquiry or additional hearings. On the
whole, the bill is broad-reaching, and contains provisions concerning
judicial process improvements; judiciary personnel administration,
benefits and protections; judicial financial administration; Federal
Courts Study Committee recommendations; and other miscellaneous issues.
Almost all of the provisions have been formally endorsed by the
Judicial Conference, the governing body of the Federal courts. I would
now like to mention some of the more salient provisions of the bill.
Many provisions contained in this bill streamline the operation of
the Federal court system. A good example of our attempt to render the
judiciary more efficient is section 605, which abolishes a special
tribunal with narrow jurisdiction, the Special Court, the Regional
Rail Reorganization Act of 1973, established in the early 1970's to
oversee the reorganization of insolvent railroads. The work of this
court is basically concluded, with the court's docket containing 10
largely inactive cases. This section transfers the Special Court's
jurisdiction over those cases and any future rail reorganization
proceedings to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,
where the court's records and a majority of its judges are currently
located, and makes other technical and conforming changes incidental to
the court's abolition. The elimination of this court will produce
budgetary and administrative economies and, according to the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, result in an annual cost
savings of approximately $175,000.
Section 209 simplifies the appeal route in civil cases decided by
magistrate judges with consent by confining appeals of judgments in
such cases to the court of appeals and eliminating an alternative route
of appeal to the district judge. A single forum of appeal in civil
consent cases simplifies court procedures and recognizes the existing
practice in most districts. The Judicial Conference recommended such
action in the long range plan for the Federal courts. Also, this
section would not alter the role of magistrate judges as adjuncts to
article III courts since district judges would still control the
referral of consent cases to magistrate judges.
Section 304 changes the reappointment procedure for incumbent
bankruptcy judges. Rather than requiring the judicial council for a
circuit or a merit selection panel to undergo a lengthy and time-
consuming screening process, this section streamlines the reappointment
process for judges whose performance has previously been reviewed. In
this manner, the section eliminates unnecessary expenditures of time
and money.
Another example is section 202, which authorizes magistrate judges to
try all petty offense cases. Traditionally, safeguards applicable to
criminal defendants charged with more serious crimes have not been
applicable to petty offense cases because the burdens were deemed
undesirable and impractical in dealing with such minor misconduct.
Section 202 also authorizes magistrate judges to try misdemeanor cases
upon either written consent or oral consent of the defendant on the
record. This amendment enhances the efficiency of the courts, since
most defendants routinely consent to proceeding before the Federal
magistrate judge system. Presently, consent to trial of misdemeanor
cases by magistrate judges is required to be in writing, although there
is no legal significance between written consent and consent made
orally on the record, provided that the defendant's consent is made
with full knowledge of the consequences of such consent, is
intelligently given, and is voluntary. Elimination of the written-
consent requirement saves time and eases burdensome paperwork for court
personnel, while preserving knowing and voluntary consent in such
cases.
Additional sections that facilitate judicial operations are sections
201 and 205. Section 201 authorizes magistrate judges temporarily
assigned to another judicial district because of an emergency to
dispose of civil cases with the consent of the parties. Section 205
clarifies that deputy clerks may act whenever the clerk is unable to
perform official duties for any reason, and permits the court to
designate an acting clerk of the court, when it is expected that the
clerk will be unavailable or the office of clerk will be vacant for a
prolonged period.
Provisions in this bill also clarify existing law to better fulfill
Congress' original intent. For example, section 208 enables the United
States to obtain a Federal forum in which to defend suits against
Federal officers and agencies when those suits involve Federal
defenses. This section would legislatively reverse the Supreme Court's
decision in International Primate Protection League, et al. v.
Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund, et al., 111 S.Ct. 1700
(1991), which held that only Federal officers, and not Federal
agencies, may remove State court actions to Federal court pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1). The section would also reverse at least three
other Federal district court decisions which held that Federal officers
sued exclusively in their official capacities cannot remove State court
actions to Federal court. The result of these decisions has been that
Federal agencies have had to defend themselves in State court, despite
important and complex Federal issues such as preemption and sovereign
immunity. Section 208 fulfills Congress' intent that questions
concerning the exercise of Federal authority, as well as the scope of
Federal immunity and Federal-State conflicts, be adjudicated in Federal
court. It also clarifies that suits against Federal agencies, as well
as those against Federal officers sued in either an individual or
official capacity, may be removed to Federal district court. More
importantly, this section does not alter the requirement that a Federal
law defense be alleged for a suit to be removable pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1442(a)(1).
Another example is section 503, which repeals a provision in a 1981
continuing appropriation resolution barring annual cost-of-living
adjustments in pay for Federal judges except as specifically authorized
by Congress. Repeal of section 140 restores the operation of 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 461 as to article III judges and parity with the other two
branches of Government, as enacted by the Federal Salary Cost-of-Living
Adjustment Act of 1975 and amended by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989.
Several sections improve the judicial court system in other ways.
Section 206 amends section 1332 of title 28 relating to diversity
jurisdiction to raise the jurisdictional amount in diversity cases from
$50,000 to $75,000. The purpose of this amendment is to supplement the
increase of the jurisdictional amount from $10,000 to $50,000 in the
100th Congress by a modest upward adjustment to $75,000. Section 210
requires each Judicial Council to submit an annual report to the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts on the number and
nature of orders relating to judicial misconduct or disability under
section 332 of title 28 of the United States Code. This reporting
requirement was recommended by the Report of the National Commission on
Judicial Discipline and Removal of August 1993, which found that
reliable information concerning council orders was difficult to obtain.
[[Page S6520]]
In addition, section 608 extends by 6 months the due date of the
Civil Justice Reform Act reports on the demonstration and pilot
programs. The bill at section 609 also extends the authorization of
appropriations by 1 year of the use of arbitration by district courts
under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 651. This will give us more time, if needed, to
consider how we will implement permanently alternative dispute
resolution in the courts.
In conclusion, this bill is the result of careful consideration by
members of the subcommittee and their staff, in close collaboration
with the Administrative Office, who have all worked long and hard in
attempting to produce a strong, bipartisan piece of legislation. I am
pleased to say that the legislation we are introducing today not only
enhances and improves the operation of the Federal judiciary, but also
takes into consideration any potential increase in costs to the Federal
budget.
______
By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
S. 1889. A bill to authorize the exchange of certain lands conveyed
to the Kenai Native Association pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act, to make adjustments to the National Wilderness System,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
THE KENAI NATIVE ASSOCIATION EQUITY ACT
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce the Kenai
Native Association Equity Act. This legislation will correct a
significant inequity in Federal law with respect to lands conveyed to
the Kenai Natives Association [KNA] under the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act [ANCSA]. This legislation, which will mark the final
outcome of a process begun nearly 14 years ago.
The legislation directs the completion of a land exchange and
acquisition package between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]
and KNA. The legislation will allow KNA, for the first time, to make
economic use of lands conveyed them under ANSCA. The final stage of
this process began by directing in Public Law 102-458, a land exchange
and acquisition package between the USFWS and KNA. Over the past year,
negotiations were completed, resulting in the legislation I am
introducing today.
Mr. President, unlike other corporations in ANCSA, KNA, as an urban
corporation, was not entitled to receive monetary settlement or
additional lands than those granted under ANCSA. KNA ultimately
selected 19,000 of its 23,040 entitlement within what later became the
Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. KNA lands are located between operating
oilfields within the refuge to the North and urban and suburban
developments to the South.
At the request of the USFWS, KNA officials chose lands along the
boundaries of the refuge so that development would be allowed.
Notwithstanding the representation that development would be allowed,
the USFWS advised KNA after selections were made that use of the
property would be severely restricted by the application of section
22(g) of ANCSA.
Section 22(g) requires that all uses of private inholdings within the
refuge comply with the laws and regulations applicable to the public
lands within a refuge and that those lands be managed consistent with
the purpose for which the refuge was established. Section 22(g) has
been an ongoing problem in Alaska as it has significantly limited the
economic use of private lands within refuges.
Pursuant to agreements between USFWS and KNA, this legislation will
allow USFWS to acquire three small parcels of land and KNA's remaining
ANCSA entitlement at appraised value. These parcels include: Stephanka
Tract, 803 acres on the Kenai River; Moose River Patented Tract, 1,243
acres; Moose River Selected Tract, 753 acres; and Remaining
Entitlement, 454 acres.
The total habitat acquisition of 2,253 acres will be purchased with
Exxon Valdez oilspill funds at a cost of $4,443,000. Therefore, there
would be no cost to the Federal Government for the purchase of these
lands. Refuge boundaries would be adjusted to remove 15,500 acres of
KNA lands from the refuge, thus resolving the 22(g) conflict. This can
be done because, although the property is within the refuge--it does
not belong to the Federal Government. KNA would also receive the refuge
headquarters site in downtown Kenai which consists of a building and a
5-acre parcel.
Under the terms of this agreement, the USFWS has proposed, in order
to maintain equivalent natural resource protection for Federal
resources, that Congress designate the Lake Todatonten area,
approximately 37,000 acres, as a BLM Special Management Area [SMA]. The
lake is adjacent to the Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge. The SMA would
be subject to subsistence preferences under ANILCA and to valid
existing rights. While I support the intent of this provision I do
intend on exploring its implications on land use closely during Senate
hearings before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. President, I believe the Kenai Native Association has waited long
enough to resolve these issues. It is my intention to move this
legislation quickly and get it behind us.
By Mr. FAIRCLOTH (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Hatch, Mr.
Biden, Mr. Lott, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Byrd, Mr.
Warner, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Heflin, Mr. D'Amato, Mr.
Johnston, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Frist, Ms. Moseley-
Braun, Mr. Levin, Mr. Simon, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Reid, Mr.
Dodd, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Harkin, Mr.
Bradley, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Boxer, Mr.
Wyden, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Coverdell and Mr. Pryor):
S. 1890. A bill to increase Federal protection against arson and
other destruction of places of religious worship.
THE CHURCH ARSON PROTECTION ACT OF 1996
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Senator Kennedy and I stand here today united in our
belief that the rash of church arson must end and now. If we in
Congress cannot agree that church burning is a despicable crime, what
can we agree upon? It is not a matter of liberals, conservatives,
blacks, or whites. It is about justice, faith, and right and wrong.
Five of these churches--sadly, including a recent one on last Sunday
night--were located in my home State of North Carolina.
I have every confidence that local law enforcement in my State can
solve these crimes, but there is a real possibility that persons from
outside of my State and other States may have set the fires, and that
is the need for this bill and for Federal law enforcement assistance
and a Federal statute. We have taken too long as a nation to react to
this tragedy.
I do not know why the response has been so slow, nor do I fully
understand if these crimes were the acts of conspirators or copycats.
What I do know is that we are sending a clear message today to anyone
who is thinking about burning a church, that the wrath of the Federal
Government will fall upon them. Scoundrels who burn churches have no
refuge in our America on this day or any other day. They should and
will be prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent of the law.
To that end, Senator Kennedy and I have introduced this bill, full of
both symbol and substance, to protect houses of worship.
Growing up and living in the rural South, I understand better than a
lot of people that the church serves as a center of family life, of the
community life, and in so many of these areas life is built around the
church. Consequently, they hold in more ways than one a sacred place in
the hearts of the people within that community. There is far more
potential in these churches to cure what ails us as a nation than the
Federal Government will ever possess. Let us renew our commitment with
energy and conscience to protect the rights of all Americans without
regard to race or religion.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, recently, the entire Nation has watched
in horror and disbelief as an epidemic of terror has gripped the South.
Events we all hoped were a relic of the past are now almost a daily
occurrence. The wave of arsons primarily directed at African American
churches is a reminder of some of the darkest moments in our history--
when African-Americans were mired in a quicksand of racial injustice.
We have come a long way from the era of Jim Crow, the Klan, and nightly
lynchings. But these arsons are a chilling reminder of how far we have
to go as a nation in rooting out racism.
[[Page S6521]]
In the 1960's, at a time when acts of violence against African-
Americans were commonplace, when white freedom workers were being
murdered by cowardly racists, Congress first began to speak vigorously
and in a bipartisan fashion to condemn this violence and address the
many faces of bigotry. Today, we again speak with a united voice in
introducing bipartisan legislation to address this alarming recent
epidemic of church burnings.
I commend my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Faircloth, for
his leadership on the legislation we are introducing today. It is
vitally important for the American people to recognize that all
Americans--Democrats and Republicans, whites and nonwhites, Catholics,
Protestants, Jews, and Muslims--must speak with a united voice in
condemning and combating these outrageous acts. We must send the
strongest possible signal that Congress intends to act swiftly and
effectively to address this festering crisis.
President Clinton has also spoken eloquently on this issue, and has
provided strong leadership. I applaud his efforts to commit substantial
additional Federal resources to the investigations. Just as it was
appropriate in the 1960's for the Federal Government to play an
important role in reducing racial unrest, it is vitally important today
for the Federal Government to take an active role in combating these
racist arsons.
I also commend Congressmen Henry Hyde and John Conyers, who developed
the bipartisan House bill that was passed swiftly and unanimously
yesterday, and I urge the Senate to act with similar swiftness.
There are four basic components to the Faircloth-Kennedy bill. First,
it provides needed additional tools for Federal prosecutors to address
violence against places of worship. The bill amends the primary Federal
statute dealing with destruction of places of worship to make it easier
to prosecute these cases. Current law contains onerous and unnecessary
jurisdictional obstacles that have made this provision largely
ineffective. In fact, despite the large number of incidents of
destruction or desecration of places of religious worship in recent
years, only one prosecution has been brought under this statute since
its passage in 1988. Our bill will breathe life into this statute by
removing these unnecessary obstacles.
In addition, our bill strengthens the penalty for church arson by
conforming it with the penalties under the general Federal arson
statute. By conforming the penalty provisions of these two statutes,
the maximum potential penalty for church arson will double, from 10
years to 20 years. Our bill also extends the statute of limitations
from 5 to 7 years, giving investigators needed additional time to solve
these difficult crimes.
Giving prosecutors additional tools will enable them to address the
current crisis more effectively. However, we must also deal with the
aftermath of the arsons that have left so many needy communities
without a place of worship. The bill contains an important provision
granting the Department of Housing and Urban Development the authority
to make loan guarantees to lenders who provide loans to places of
worship that have been victimized by arson.
This provision does not require an additional appropriation of funds
to HUD. It simply gives HUD authority to use funds it already has.
These loan guarantees will serve an indispensable function to help
expedite the rebuilding process and the healing process.
These arsons have placed an enormous burden on State and local law
enforcement, who also must investigate the crimes and address the tense
aftermath within their communities. Our bill contains two measures to
assist State and local law enforcement and local communities in
responding to these vicious crimes. The Department of the Treasury is
authorized to hire additional ATF agents to assist in these
investigations, and to train State and local law enforcement officers
in arson investigations. ATF already trains 85 to 90 percent of local
law enforcement in how to investigate arson. This authorization will
facilitate needed additional training.
The bill also authorizes the Department of Justice to provide
additional funds to the Community Relations Service, a small but vital
mediation arm established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The mission
of the Community Relations Service is to go into a community and reduce
racial unrest through mediation and conciliation. The Community
Relations Service has worked effectively to calm communities during
some of the Nation's most difficult moments in the battle for racial
justice, and it has earned the respect of law enforcement officials and
community leaders nationwide.
In 1996, its budget was cut in half--from 10 million to $5 million.
As a result, at a time when its services are in enormous demand, the
Community Relations Service is about to be forced to lay off half of
its already slim staff. This bill authorizes the restoration of funds
to the Community Relations. We must act now, because its services are
urgently needed.
Finally, the bill reauthorizes the Hate Crimes Statistics Act. This
rash of arsons demonstrates the need to document all hate crimes
nationwide. Reauthorizing the Hate Crimes Statistics Act is essential,
and law enforcement groups, religious leaders, and civil rights leaders
throughout the Nation strongly support it.
Taken together, this bill represents a sensible and practical
response to the church arson crisis. We have a constitutional
obligation to preserve the separation of church and state, but we also
have a Federal obligation to protect the right of all Americans to
worship freely without fear of violence. We believe this legislation is
a timely and constructive step to stem the tide of violence in the
South. If more can be done, we will do it.
In a larger sense, this tragic violence provides an opportunity for
all Americans to examine our consciences on the issue of prejudice. We
must work to root out racism and bigotry in every form. If we create a
climate of intolerance, we encourage racist acts of destruction. While
I respect and indeed cherish the first amendment right of free
expression, we must be mindful that words have consequences. It is
distressing that hate crimes are on the rise--whether arson of a church
or assaults and murders because of bigotry. At other times in our
history, we have been able to act together to heal a sudden or
lingering sickness in our society, and we will do so now. The
fundamental challenge is to re-commit ourselves as a Nation to the
basic values of tolerance and mutual respect that are the Nation's
greatest strengths.
The courage and faith demonstrated by the parishioners and clergy of
the burned churches is an inspiration to the entire country. Their
churches may have burned, but their spirit endures, and it is stronger
than ever.
I also welcome the outpouring of generosity from numerous sources in
the private sector. I commend the many individuals, businesses,
congregations, and charitable organizations that have pledged financial
support to rebuild the churches. These generous acts, as Martin Luther
King once said, ``will enable us as a Nation to hew out of the mountain
of despair a stone of hope.''
I urge my colleagues to join in expediting action on this urgent
legislation. America is being tested, and the people are waiting for
our answer.
Mr. President, this Faircloth-Kennedy bill addresses the recent spate
of arsons that have gripped the South. The bill contains a number of
measures designed to assist prosecutors and investigators in pursuit of
the cowardly perpetrators of these crimes, and to assist victims and
communities in the rebuilding process. This statement pertains to
Congress' constitutional authority to amend the criminal provision
pertaining to destruction of religious property and violent
interference with right of free exercise of religious worship.
The bill amends title 18, United States Code, section 247 to make it
easier for prosecutors to establish Federal violations in instances of
destruction or desecration of places of religious worship. Although
section 247 was passed in 1988, there has been only one Federal
prosecution due to the onerous jurisdiction requirements contained in
section 247(b).
The interstate commerce requirement of section 247(b)(1) is much
greater than in other similar Federal statutes. For example, title 18,
United States Code, section 844(i) is the general Federal arson statute
and contains
[[Page S6522]]
a much lower interstate commerce threshold than is found in section
247(b)(1).
The $10,000 requirement of section 247(b)(2) is arbitrary and
unnecessary, and does not reflect the serious nature of many bias
motivated acts of violence against places of religious worship. For
example, there have been a number of incidents of bias-motivated
violence committed by skinheads against synagogues which involved
firing gunshots into these sacred places of worship, or the desecration
of solemn symbols or objects, such as a Torah.
The Justice Department is providing specific examples of the
limitations of section 247 which it will present at a hearing scheduled
for June 25, 1996 in the Judiciary Committee. The monetary damage
amount in these incidents described above is minimal. Yet, the
devastation caused by these crimes is enormous, and the Federal
Government can and should play a role in prosecuting these heinous acts
of desecration.
The Faircloth-Kennedy bill amends section 247 in a number of ways.
Most importantly, the onerous jurisdictional requirements of section
247(b) are discarded in favor of a more sensible structure that will
better enable prosecutors to pursue the cowardly perpetrators of these
crimes.
Section 2 of the bill contains congressional findings that set out in
explicit detail the constitutional authority of Congress to amend
section 247. A hearing was conducted in the House of Representatives on
May 21, 1996, and a hearing will be conducted in the Senate on June 25,
1996, in which substantial evidence has or will be presented to support
these congressional findings.
Congress has three separate bases of constitutional authority for
amending section 247. First, Congress has authority under section 2 of
the 13th amendment to enact legislation that remedies conditions which
amount to a badge or incident of slavery. The Supreme Court, in Jones
v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968), and Griffin v.
Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 (1971), held that Congress has broad power
under the 13th amendment to enact legislation that addresses societal
problems of discrimination. In Griffin, the Supreme Court held that
``there has never been any doubt of the power of Congress to impose
liability on private persons under section 2 of the th[e Thirteenth]
Amendment.
The arsons that have occurred have been directed primarily at
African-American churches. Although a number of the perpetrators have
not been apprehended, it is clear from the statement of the Justice
Department that a substantial number of the arsons were motivated by
animus against African-Americans. Indeed, these events are a tragic
reminder of a sad era in our Nation's history, when African-Americans
were mired in a quicksand of racial injustice. As such, Congress has
the authority under the 13th amendment to amend section 247, and to
eliminate the interstate commerce requirement altogether.
Congress also has authority under the commerce clause to enact this
legislation. As the record makes clear, the churches, synagogues, and
mosques that have been the targets of arson and vandalism, serve many
purposes. On Saturdays or Sundays, they are places of worship. During
the rest of the week, they are centers of activity. A wide array of
social services, such as inoculations, day care, aid to the homeless,
are performed at these places of worship. People often register to
vote, and vote at the neighborhood church or synagogue. Activities that
attract people from a regional, interstate area often take place at
these places of worship. There is ample evidence to establish that
Congress is regulating an activity that has a ``substantial effect''
upon interstate commerce.
Mr. President, I would like to include as cosponsors of this
legislation the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd]; the Senator from
Connecticut [Mr. Dodd]; and the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin].
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the upcoming hearing on church
arson currently scheduled for June 25, 1996 by the Judiciary Committee
as well as excerpts of other statements submitted in the context of
that hearing be made a part of the overall record pertaining to
consideration of the Faircloth-Kennedy church arson prevention bill.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Excerpt of Statement of Deval Patrick, Assistant Attorney General,
Civil Rights Division, Before the Committee on the Judiciary, May 21,
1996
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear today to discuss the efforts of the
Department of Justice to prosecute those individuals
responsible for the deplorable act of setting fires to houses
of worship and intimidating their parishioners.
Let me assure you all, first and foremost, that the
Department of Justice considers investigation of church fires
and prosecution of those persons responsible for attempting
to destroy houses of worship to be among our most important
investigative and prosecutorial priorities. Houses of worship
have a special place in our society. They are, of course, the
center of a community's spiritual life. In many communities,
the church is the center of its social life as well. As we
have seen in communities that are the subject of today's
hearing, destruction of a church can have devastating
effects.
When the fire is accompanied by an explicit or implied
threat of violence directed at church members because of
their race, these devastating effects are multiplied. In our
society, arson of a church attended predominantly by African
Americans carries a unique and menacing threat--that those
individuals are physically vulnerable because of their race.
These threats are intolerable; no one in our society should
have to endure them. The Department of Justice is committed
to insuring that those who make such threats will be
prosecuted and will serve sentences commensurate with the
cowardly and despicable nature of their actions.
I will provide a more general overview of federal
prosecutorial activities.
federal jurisdiction
There are a number of statutes that provide federal
jurisdiction over arsons at churches.
We also have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 247 and 248.
Under 18 U.S.C. 247, anyone who ``intentionally defaces,
damages, or destroys and religious real property, because of
the religious charter of that property, or attempts to do
so,'' through use of fire, has committed a felony. Subsection
(b) of the statute states that the defendant must have
traveled in interstate or foreign commerce, or used a
``facility or instrumentality of interstate or foreign
commerce in interstate or foreign commerce'' in committing
the crime, and caused more than $10,000 damage.
Section 844(h) of Title 18 applies when fire or an
explosive is used to commit another crime, and section 844(i)
of Title 18 prohibits the use of fire when destroying a
building used in interstate or foreign commerce. Section
248(a)(3) of Title 18 makes it a crime to ``intentionally
damage[] or destroy[] the property of a place of religious
worship.'' As we discuss later, however, our ability to use
248 may be limited.
successful prosecutions
Investigation of church fires is extremely challenging.
Fire often destroys all of the relevant evidence. In addition
to examining the evidence at the scene of the fire, many
witnesses must be interviewed in order to get a lead, as
there are seldom witnesses to an arson at a church,
particularly churches located in rural areas, as many of
these churches are. There are currently over 200 federal
agents from the ATF and FBI assigned to the various fires we
are investigating.
We have had successful federal prosecutions, and have
secured sentences commensurate with the seriousness of these
crimes. Two recent cases demonstrate the type of
investigations and prosecutions that vindicate federal
rights.
maury county, tennessee
In January of 1995, two African American churches and an
African American-owned tavern were burned. Local law
enforcement investigated, and arrested three suspects, all of
whom said the fires were the result of actions they took
while intoxicated, and were intended only as a joke. The FBI
also investigated, and determined that all three defendants
spent a Sunday watching the Super Bowl, drinking, and
discussing their hatred of African Americans. The discussion
later turned specifically to ``burning nigger churches.''
After gathering various supplies, the defendants first drove
to an adjoining county and tried to set fire to the tavern by
throwing a molotov cocktail through the window. It failed to
ignite. They also burned a cross on the tavern property. They
then crossed back into Maury County and went to the
Friendship Missionary Baptist Church, an African American
church, and threw a railroad tie and molotov cocktail through
the window. The fire ignited and caused heavy damage to the
church. They also attached a small cross to the church sign
and ignited it. They then drove to another African American
church, the Canaan African Methodist Episcopal Church, again
throwing a molotov cocktail into the church and causing
damage, and again leaving a cross on church property.
The FBI obtained inculpatory statements and physical
evidence, and identified other persons who later testified
before the grand jury concerning the defendants' intent to
burn African American churches. Attorneys from the United
States Attorney's Office for
[[Page S6523]]
the Middle District of Tennessee, as well as from the
Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division, participated
in the Federal prosecution of these three defendants. They
also met often with local church officials, not only to
keep them apprised of the developments in the Federal
prosecution, but also to discuss with them the impact of
this attack on the members of the church.
The defendants were arrested in August of 1995 on Federal
charges of violating 18 U.S.C. 241 by conspiring to set fire
to the two African American churches and the tavern. They
pled guilty to the Federal charges in October of 1995. Two of
the defendants were sentenced to 33 months in Federal prison,
and the third to 57 months, for this hate crime.
One reason we decided to proceed with a Federal prosecution
was that because the tavern firebombing occurred in another
county, trial in State court would have required separate
State indictments and resulted in the juries in each case
seeing only part of the overall crime. The Federal conspiracy
charge permitted the full scope and nature of the crime to be
presented in one prosecution, and provided certain
evidentiary advantages, such as the admissibility of co-
conspirator statements. In addition, the sentences these
defendants would have received under local law were much less
than Federal law would permit. The Federal sentencing
guidelines permitted the court to tailor sentences which
reflected the culpability and subsequent cooperation and
acceptance of responsibility by the defendants. The
Government was able successfully to argue at sentencing that
the leader of three defendants deserved an enhanced sentence.
The Federal investigation also revealed that the local
firefighters who responded to the first church burning were
placed at a substantial risk of death or serious bodily
injury by the fire, which also persuaded the court to impose
an enhanced sentence. The decision to proceed against these
defendants in Federal court and on Federal charges resulted
in sentences that fit the contemptible nature of their
actions and the effect of those actions on the members of the
churches they attempted to destroy.
pike county, mississippi
On April 5, 1993, on the 25th anniversary of the death of
Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., two African American churches
in rural southern Mississippi burned to the ground. The FBI,
with some cooperation by the local sheriff's department, took
the lead in the investigation and identified three suspects,
one adult and two juveniles. The Bureau contacted the father
of one suspect, and met with the suspect, his father and his
attorney. Later the Bureau agent and a lawyer from the
criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division met with
another suspect and the suspect's parents. The suspects
admitted setting fire to the churches. The churches were
chosen because they were African American churches, and the
suspects admitted making racially derogatory remarks such as
``Burn Nigger Burn'' and ``that will teach you Niggers'' when
setting the fires.
These fires were set in an area of Mississippi with a
disturbing and violent racial past. This prosecution sent a
strong message that this sort of violence will not be
tolerated. A thorough six month investigation was done,
followed by grand jury testimony. On October 1, 1993, all
three participants pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 241.
Two defendants were sentenced to 37 months in Federal prison
and one to 46 months.
These are two instances of successful Federal investigation
and prosecution of hate crimes involving the burning of
African American churches. Other fires have been investigated
jointly with State and local authorities. Some of these have
resulted in State convictions and lengthy sentences.
increase in reports of church fires
We have found a disturbing increase in the number of fires
at churches reported to the Justice Department over the past
two years. As of May 1, 1996--only four months into the
year--we had received reports of fires at 24 churches,
seventeen of which occurred at churches in which the
membership is predominantly African American. During 1995, we
received reports of fires at 13 churches, and reports of acts
of vandalism at three churches that did not involve fires.
Eleven of the fires that occurred in 1995 were at African
American churches. From 1990 through 1994, we received and
investigated reports of fires at only 7 houses of worship, 6
of which were at African American churches, and acts of
vandalism at 5 synagogues.
This pattern of church fires has not been limited to one
region of the country. The reports of church fires occurring
in 1996 have come from Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia, South Carolina, and Texas
in the southern United States, and also from Arizona,
Maryland, and New Jersey. In 1995, we investigated church
fires that occurred in Alabama, North and South Carolina,
and Tennessee, and also one that occurred at an African
American church in Washington state.
Nearly one-quarter of the cases reported to us in 1995 and
1996 have been resolved. Of the 24 fires reported to us as of
May 1 of this year, arrests have been made in two cases, and
one has been determined to have been accidental. The rest
remain under active federal investigation, and we are hopeful
that we can bring some to conclusion soon. Of the 13 fires
and 3 incidents of vandalism occurring in 1995, 10 remain
under active federal investigation. Two investigations have
been closed after successful federal prosecution, and one
fire was determined to be accidental. Arrests have been made
in two of the incidents still under active investigation. The
three incidents of vandalism at churches in Alabama were
resolved through local prosecution.
We have taken a number of steps to encourage local law
enforcement personnel throughout the country and others to
contact the FBI and ATF whenever a fire appears suspicious.
We have also spoken to church and civil rights leaders in
many areas to encourage them to get the word out to their
parishioners and members that fires and acts of vandalism at
houses of worship are of serious federal concern, and that
they should quickly report these incidents to both local and
federal officials.
I recently went to Boligee, Alabama, to visit the sites of
recent church arsons and to meet with local law enforcement
officials as well as officials of the damaged churches. I
spoke both of the high priority these cases have in the
Department of Justice, and of our need for a close
relationship with local law enforcement and local citizens
regarding these kinds of actions. I was heartened by the
reception I was given by local church officials, and I hope
they, and other church members and other citizens around the
country fully understand the Department's commitment. I know
that Assistant Secretary James Johnson from the Department of
the Treasury has also made a number of visits to churches
around the country victimized by suspicious fires, and has
explained the manner in which the federal government is
responding to these fires.
I am sure that local church and community members are as
frustrated as we are by those instances in which church fires
are not yet solved. I certainly hope that those same
officials and citizens understand that we are actively
investigating these fires, and doing whatever we can to
determine what happened and to make arrests where criminal
activity occurred. It is important to remember that arsons
are among the most difficult crimes to solve. Fire often
destroys important evidence. Some of these fires were set at
churches located in rural, isolated areas, and for that
reason the fires at some were extensive. In some instances,
churches burned to the ground. It is not yet clear whether
the increase in the number of fires reported to us reflects
an increase in the number of fires that have occurred, or
reflects an increase in reporting. As I stated earlier, we
have actively encouraged local citizens and law enforcement
officials to report all fires at houses of worship to federal
officials, and recent publicity about some church fires may
have encouraged the reporting of others.
It is clear, however, from some of the cases that have been
solved, that some of the people who have set fires at houses
of worship are motivated by hate. Most of the other cases are
still under investigation. As you know, I cannot discuss
specifics of any open case. I can say, however, that during
our investigation we focus not only on the circumstances of
the specific fire before us, but also on whether, if we
identify an individual or individuals responsible for the
fire, there is any evidence that these individuals have any
ties to fires that have occurred elsewhere in the country.
Because these investigations are ongoing, it is premature to
draw conclusions one way or the other as to whether the fires
we are seeing are part of an organized hate movement.
difficulties with federal jurisdiction
While I mentioned the Federal statutes that give us
jurisdiction over some fires and acts of vandalism at houses
of worship, using those statutes does present some
difficulties.
18 U.S.C. 241 applies when we have two or more defendants
acting in a conspiracy. While we can get significant jail
sentences under section 241, we can use section 241 only when
we have a conspiracy of two or more persons. When we do not
have two or more individuals involved in the fire, section
241 is not available.
When we are left with only one suspect, our jurisdiction is
provided by 18 U.S.C. sections 247 or 248. Prosecutions under
section 247 are complicated significantly by the fact that
subsection (b) of the statute states that the defendant must
have traveled in interstate or foreign commerce, or used a
``facility or instrumentality of interstate or foreign
commerce in interstate or foreign commerce'' in committing
the crime, and caused more than $10,000 damage. These
provisions make this statute nearly impossible to use. The
$10,000 requirement means that when the damage from the fire
is minimal, or when hate is expressed, not through fire but
through desecration or defacement of houses of worship, 18
U.S.C. 247 is not an available source of jurisdiction. In
those cases, the message of hate is just as clear, and the
effect on the victims often just as palpable and disturbing,
but an important law enforcement tool is not available.
18 U.S.C. 248(a)(3) also provides Federal jurisdiction in
church arsons. While that section could be a useful tool to
address this problem, we believe that the Supreme Court's
recent decision in United States v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624
(1995), may make use of that provision more difficult.
Section 844(h) of title 18 applies when fire or an
explosive is used to commit another crime, and section 844(i)
of title 18 prohibits the use of fire when destroying a
building used in interstate or foreign commerce. Their
utility is limited, however, where no other crime is present,
or the interstate commerce nexus is not met.
[[Page S6524]]
conclusion
The Clinton Administration is determined to address this
problem using all the law enforcement and investigative tools
available, working cooperatively with our Federal as well as
State and local law enforcement. Solving these crimes, and
punishing those responsible, remains a high priority for this
Administration.
____
Statement by the Rev. Dr. Joseph E. Lowery, President, Southern
Christian Leadership Conference, Chairman, Black Leadership Forum,
Inc., to the Judiciary Committee, Tuesday, May 21, 1996
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Judiciary Committee, the
Department of Justice through the Assistant Attorney General,
Civil Rights Division, has advised us that (as of April 24,
1996) they have investigated ``fires and incidents of
desecration'' at 46 different houses of worship in 15 States
. . . since 1990.
Of the 46 incidents listed, 29 remain unsolved. So far in
1996, 25 incidents have been reported, and 23 remain
unsolved.
We have been outraged at these continuing attacks on places
of worship--and sorely disappointed that until recently law
enforcement in particular, as well as government and media in
general--have seemed only mildly interested in focusing on
these acts of terrorism. Scant notice was given by national
media until a church where the assistant pastor was a well
known professional football star--was torched.
In late 1995, SCLC intensified its protest and plea to law
enforcement agencies to unleash all available resources to
bring these criminals to justice.
In early 1996 we visited the sites of burned churches in
Alabama and Louisiana. Subsequently, Asst. Atty. Gen. Deval
Patrick visited our offices in Atlanta to assure us that the
investigation of these fires would be given top priority. An
official in the enforcement division of the Treasury
Department (ATF) also called and informed us that a Joint
Task Force with the Justice Dept.--consisting of
approximately 100 persons--had been assigned to the
investigation. We were advised that two of the officers
originally assigned to the Task Force had been removed after
it was discovered that they had been among ATF agents who
attended a Good Ol' Boy Roundup, where shameful racist
activities took place. It is our understanding that none of
the agents who frequented these ``Roundups'' has been
dismissed or severely disciplined. African Americans are
concerned that many law enforcement agencies include
personnel who are also members of racist groups.
We are not surprised at this feeble response to racist
behavior--for like the national response to these church
burnings, it represents a fifty-first state in the nation--
``the state of denial''. While we have been shocked as a
nation at the rise of hate groups and right-wing terrorists
that have bombed federal buildings, and militia groups that
pose serious threats to democracy, we have downsized the
racist nature of these groups. History, however, is clear
that hate mongers in this nation are usually integrated with
white supremacists, anti-Semites, and neo-Nazis. They are
usually gun addicts and are heavily armed with assault
weapons.
Is it any wonder that we are outraged that law enforcement
agencies insist on denying the racist nature of these attacks
on the soul of the Black community--our churches?
A few days ago a gang of white teenagers in Ft. Myers,
Florida--known as ``Lords of Chaos''--shot and killed a high
school band director who uncovered their mayhem. This gang of
white teens--from affluent homes (some of whom were honor
students)--had burned a soft drink warehouse, a restaurant
with exotic birds; had burned property of a Baptist church
and were on their way to attack Disney World with assault
weapons. What the media have hardly mentioned is that their
plans included a shooting spree against Black tourists
following the attack on Disney.
We are witnessing a frightening and serious assault on
African Americans in this nation, in the judicial and
legislative suites--as well as in the streets. One hundred
years ago, around the time of Plessy vs. Ferguson (separate
but equal) African Americans were stripped of political power
and our properties including churches were burned. One
hundred years later the ghost of Plessy vs. Ferguson and the
forces that ended reconstruction are haunting the nation. Our
children are cast into inferior courses by ``tracking'' and
other forms of miseducation and denial of justice and equal
opportunity in education. Our voting rights are being
devastated by federal judges who hold the sacred rulings of
their predecessors in contempt. Equal opportunities in
employment and economic enterprise are imperiled by the
assault on affirmative action. The rhetoric around welfare
reform suggests that welfare recipients are black, lazy,
dishonest, and need to be penalized for being poor. It is
soundly perceived and believed that efforts to balance the
budget are totally insensitive to the needs of the poor and
elderly--and that the budget should be balanced on the backs
of the poor. So-called angry white males are concerned that
affirmative action, the Federal government, and welfare
recipients are their enemies and are responsible for their
economic uncertainties. These misconceptions are fomented by
the rhetoric and policies of extremists in both the public
and private sector.
While we continue to call for intensive and massive efforts
by law enforcement to bring these criminals to justice, we
recognize that concomitantly, we must: (1) recognize the
widening impact of anti-Black, anti-poor policies, in
creating attitudes of hostility that can translate into acts
of hostility; (2) we must hold accountable the extremist
groups that fan flames of racial and class divisions.
We would strongly urge the Congress of these United States
to:
1. Call for a massive, intense effort on the part of the
FBI, and the entire law enforcement contingency of the United
States government to bring to justice those who committed
these crimes.
2. Commend, support and encourage the ministers,
congregations and communities that refuse to be intimidated
by these cowardly acts of terrorism. The message must be loud
and clear that the African American community will not be
intimidated in 1996 any more than we were in 1896, 1963 or
any other time. These attacks stiffen our resistance to
oppression and render firm our resolve in the pursuit of
justice and equity.
We respectfully urge this committee and the Congress to
remember the history of fire bombing of churches in our
community. While no life has been lost, we recall with deep
pain and sorrow the murder of four little girls in Sunday
school in a church in Birmingham, Alabama. These criminals
must be stopped before such tragedies recur.
3. We respectfully urge the committee and the Congress to
seek ways and means of addressing the economic distress, the
loss of jobs, the growing fears and uncertainties about the
future in ways that do not make African Americans, Hispanics,
women, and low income persons--scapegoats.
We urge the Congress to engage in a positive campaign to
achieve racial justice and an end to political, judicial,
economic and street violence.
We believe that an intelligence system and advanced
criminological technology that can identify terrorists in
faraway lands, and in New York and Oklahoma, ought to be able
to apprehend angry arsonists who burn churches.
Finally, some religious extremists have offered rewards for
the culprits and challenged civil rights groups to match the
reward monies.
We believe the religious community could better serve the
common good by engaging in joint efforts to eliminate the
climate of hostility which encourages acts of hostility. We
are willing to work together for social justice, the beloved
community, and an end to economic, political, judicial and
physical violence.
____
Excerpts of Testimony of John W. Magaw, Director, Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms, Before the Committee on the Judiciary, May 21,
1996
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Conyers, and members of the
Committee, for providing this forum to discuss the Federal
response to the recent series of church fires, predominately
African-American, that have occurred in the Southeastern
United States. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is
the arson investigative agency of the Federal government, and
we bring unparalleled expertise to fire investigations.
Today, I'd like to highlight ATF's role in working with State
and local fire and police authorities, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and the Civil Rights Division of the
Department of Justice in investigating these fires. The
burning of churches is a particularly heinous crime because
those who would attack our churches seek to strike at our
most fundamental liberties and sources of personal support.
African-American churches historically have served as places
of sanctuary, centers of the community, and symbols of
freedom. ATF is committed to fully applying all of our
investigative resources to determine the cause of these fires
and arrest those responsible for the arsons.
Although ATF has dedicated a tremendous amount of resources
to investigating this unusual increase in the number of
church fires, church fires are not necessarily a new
phenomenon. According to statistics compiled by the National
Fire Data Center (NFDC) in the U.S. Fire Administration, 179
church fires were reported in 1994. The NFDC estimates that
the statistics represent half of the actual number of fires
which occur each year. ATF has investigated 135 church fires
across the United States since October 1, 1991. However, as
depicted in the displayed pie chart, all church fires that
ATF initially investigates are not determined to be arsons.
current church fire investigations
Since January 1995, ATF has conducted more than 2,600 fire
investigations. During this same period, ATF has conducted 51
church fire investigations. Twenty-five of these
investigations are arsons which occurred at predominately
African-American churches in the Southeast. These include six
in Tennessee: five each in Louisiana and South Carolina; four
in Alabama; three in Mississippi; and one each in Virginia
and Georgia. These locations are reflected in the displayed
map chart. As you know, these investigations are ongoing and,
therefore, I am unable to go into detail about the specifics
of these fires. I can tell you that, as of May 15, 1996,
there have been two individuals arrested in connection with
fires in Williamsburg County and Manning, South Carolina. In
addition, there have been three arrests in Lexington County,
South Carolina; one arrest in Tyler, Alabama; and another in
[[Page S6525]]
Satartia, Mississippi. I am confident that we will make
additional arrests in the near future.
The concentration of arsons at African-American churches, depicted on
the line chart, raises the obvious possibility of race/hate-based
motives. The proximity in time and geographic region indicates the
possibility that some of the fires are connected. Because of the
potential of racial motives, and the possibility that some fires may be
connected, there has been an extraordinary degree of coordination of
the various investigations. We are always aware of the possibility that
evidence and information developed in one investigation might provide
valuable leads in another. While the targets, timing, and locations of
the arsons have resulted in heightened attention to race/hate-based
motives and possible connections, ATF must also examine all other
possible motives for the fires. Motives can range from blatant racially
motivated crimes to financial profit to simply personal revenge or
vandalism. In any event, the motive in one arson does not automatically
speak to the motive in another arson or series of arsons. A conspiracy
was uncovered involving at least two fires in South Carolina. We have
not yet found any evidence of an interstate or national conspiracy, but
until our work is done no motive or suspect will be eliminated.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) is the
arson investigative agency of the Federal government and we
bring unparalleled expertise to fire investigations. AFT
derives its authority to investigate arson incidents, in
part, from 18 U.S.C. Section 844(i) which makes it a Federal
crime to use explosives or fire to destroy property affecting
interstate commerce. The legislative history of this law
makes it clear that Congress intended it to cover churches
and synagogues. The interstate nexus generally flows from
national or international affiliations that involve the
movement of funds, property, and other support services
across State boundaries.
Since January 1995, ATF has conducted more than 2,600 fire
investigations. During this same period, ATF has conducted 51
church fire investigations. Twenty-five of these
investigations are arsons which occurred at predominately
African-American churches in the Southeast. We are working in
concert with over 20 State and local law enforcement and fire
agencies, as well as with the FBI, the Civil Rights Division
of the Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys' offices, and
local prosecutors. We have committed virtually every arson
investigative resource at our disposal to the investigation
of the African-American church fires. Approximately 100 ATF
special agents have been assigned to the active
investigations in the Southeast. We have employed all of
ATF's investigative resources, such as our National Response
Teams, Certified Fire Investigators, and ATF-trained
accelerant detecting canines to help process the crime
scenes.
Because of the potential of racial motives, and the
possibility that some fires may be connected, there has been
an extraordinary degree of coordination of the various
investigations. A conspiracy was uncovered involving at least
two fires in South Carolina. We have not found any evidence
so far of an interstate or national conspiracy, but until our
work is done no motive or suspect will be eliminated.
African-American churches have served as places of sanctuary,
centers of the community, and symbols of freedom. We will
continue to vigorously pursue all investigative leads to
solve these arsons and remove the fear.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-
by-section analysis of the legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the section-by-section analysis was ordered
to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Faircloth-Kennedy Church Arson Prevention Act
Section One: Short Title: This section notes that the bill
may be cited as ``The Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996.''
1. Sections Two and Three: Amendment to Federal Criminal
Code.--Title 18, United States Code, Section 247, is one of
the principal federal statutes addressing destruction of
religious property. Since its passage in 1988, this provision
has been used once by federal prosecutors, despite the
hundreds of incidents of destruction or desecration of
religious property. (The one case involved the murder of a
cult member by another cult member.) The reason prosecutors
do not use the statute is because it contains jurisdictional
requirements that, as a practical matter, have been
impossible to meet.
Specifically, section 247(b) contains a very high
interstate commerce requirement, a requirement that is not
constitutionally mandated, even after Lopez. The level of
interstate commerce required under section 247(b) is much
higher than is required in other similar federal statutes,
such as the arson statute.
In addition, in cases of destruction of religious property,
there is a requirement that the damage exceed $10,000. The
monetary requirement is arbitrary, and does not reflect the
seriousness of many crimes. For example, there have been a
number of very serious cases involving skinheads firing
gunshots into synagogues that could not be prosecuted under
this statute because the damage did not exceed $10,000.
The upshot of these two requirements is that section 247 is
essentially useless because prosecutors cannot meet the
unduly onerous jurisdictional requirements. The attached bill
(Section 3) addresses this problem by eliminating these
unworkable jurisdictional requirements and replacing them
with a more sensible scheme that will expand the scope of a
prosecutor's ability to prosecute religious violence under
section 247. The monetary requirement is eliminated
altogether, and the interstate commerce requirement is
replaced by a much more workable framework that will enable
prosecutors to prosecute church arsons, as well as other
serious acts of religious violence, under this statute. The
House bill contains a very similar provision, and the
Administration supports this approach.
The Senate bill pertaining to section 247 contains two
additional features that are not contained in the House bill.
First, the Senate bill conforms the penalty provisions of
section 247 so that they are identical to the general federal
arson statute. Presently, if a defendant is prosecuted under
the federal arson statute for the arson of a building in
which nobody is injured, he faces a maximum possible penalty
of 20 years. However, if that same person burns down a place
of religious worship, and is prosecuted under section 247,
the maximum possible penalty is 10 years. Similarly, the
statute of limitations for prosecutions under the general
federal arson statute is seven years, while it is only five
years under section 247. The Senate bill corrects these
anomalies by conforming these provisions of section 247 to
the provisions of the federal arson statute.
The Senate bill (Section 2) also contains the requisite
Congressional findings that enable Congress to amend section
247. These findings, in conjunction with the extensive
factual record that is being generated, are intended to
ensure that the bill withstands constitutional scrutiny.
2. Section 4: Loan Guarantees--The Senate bill contains a
provision intended to assist victims in seeking to rebuild
without running afoul of First Amendment establishment clause
concerns. Under this provision. HUD will have the authority
to use up to $5,000,000 from an existing fund to extend loan
guarantees to financial institutions who make loans to
501(c)(3) organizations that have been damaged as a result of
an act of terrorism or arson. This provision does not require
an appropriation of additional funds to HUD. It will simply
give HUD the authority to use already existing funds in a new
manner. The financial benefit derives primiarly to the
financial institution, which now has the ability to make
certain loans that it might now otherwise have considered.
The House bill does not contain this provision.
3. Section 5: Additional Resources to ATF--ATF trains
approximately 85-90% of state and local law enforcement in
how to investigate suspicious fires. It has been very
difficult for state and local enforcement to keep pace with
the recent spate of arsons. As a result, ATF has played a
prominent role in these investigations. The bill contains
authorization language (Section 5) for ATF to add
investigators and technical support personnel to participate
in these investigations, and to train state and local law
enforcement with the necessary arson investigation skills to
enable them to conduct these difficult investigations. The
House bill does not contain this provision.
4. Section 5: Additional Resources to Community Relations
Service--The Community Relations Service is the mediation/
conciliation arm of the Justice Department that was created
as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Its mission is to go
out in the community to quell racial unrest through mediation
and conciliation. From working in Memphis following the death
of Martin Luther King to working in Los Angeles during the
Rodney King riots, the Community Relations Service has worked
to calm communities during our nation's most tense moments.
CRS focuses on non-litigation approaches to problem solving,
and has earned the respect of police chiefs and community
leaders across the country.
In an unfortunate development, CRS had its budget cut in
half (10 million to 5 million) during the 1996 appropriation
cycle. Consequently, effective June 22nd, at a time when
their services are in great demand, CRS will be forced to lay
off almost half its staff, unless they get additional money.
Section 5 of the bill contains authorization language for CRS
to receive such sums as are necessary to perform these
essential services. It is Senator Kennedy's hope that CRS
ultimately will be funded at 1995 levels. The House bill does
not contain this provision.
5. Section 6: Reauthorization of the Hate Crimes Statistics
Act--Newspaper reports give differing accounts of the number
of church fires that have occurred over the past two years.
The inability to document the number of such incidents points
to the need to reauthorize the Hate Crimes Statistics Act
permanently.
Section 7 contains a provision permanently reauthorizing
the Hate Crimes Statistics
[[Page S6526]]
Act. Although the Senate has already passed a separate bill
reauthorizing the HCSA, the House has not acted. Given the
paucity of time remaining in this legislative term, it is
imperative to pass the HCSA reauthorization as soon as
possible. As a result, it has been included in the Senate
bill.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 224-
4031. I hope your Senator will consider co-sponsoring this
proposal so that the Senate can send a strong message to the
American public on this pressing issue.
6. Section 7: Sense of the Senate--Section 7 is a sense of
the Senate resolution commending individuals and entities who
have assisted financially, or offered to assist financially,
in the rebuilding process. This resolution encourages the
private section to continue these efforts.
7. Section 8: Severability Provision.--This clarifies the
severability of all provisions of this bill.
Mr. KENNEDY. I think I have 2 minutes left. I yield 2 minutes to the
Senator from Alabama for his comments.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, may I make an inquiry? Am I listed on
that bill as cosponsor? I just want to find out.
Mr. KENNEDY. Senator Faircloth, I think, is indicating in the
affirmative, Senator.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Yes, the ones so far are Senator Lott, Senator
Thurmond, Senator Warner, Senator D'Amato, Senator Gramm, Senator
Frist, and Senator Cochran. There are several others, and many more who
are going to sign on, but you are listed, Senator Thurmond.
Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes, 30 seconds.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, we recently awoke once again to disturbing
news that has become all-too-commonplace. We were told that during the
night, additional southern black churches had been burned. These recent
church burnings came amidst heightened national concern over the
epidemic of such episodes throughout the South. As each fire is
reported, we cling to the hope that what we will hear is that it was
the result of an accident and not the work of some demented arsonist.
The evidence, however, points away from the accidental fire.
As these hateful incidents continue to occur with alarming
regularity, we are reminded of some of the most terrible moments of the
civil rights struggle of the 1960's. Then, homes, businesses, churches,
and other property was set afire in the dark of the night by those who
wanted to preserve the existing social order. Their goal was to
intimidate and frighten those working legally for the causes of
equality and integration.
To those of us who remember those dark days and who applaud the
progress which has been made in our society since then in terms of race
relations, these current images of fires at churches in the early hours
before dawn are profoundly disturbing and disconcerting. This is not
supposed to happen in this day and age, not in the South or anywhere in
this country.
Such incidents remind us that such hatred is alive in the United
States of America and it is directed today at the very heart of these
small, rural black communities. We ask ourselves who would hate a group
enough to burn its church, the spiritual and social center of the
community. The forces of evil are intentionally striking at the very
soul of these communities by destroying their most sacred and powerful
symbols.
Last week, the President said:
``This country was founded on the premise of religious
liberty. It's how we got started * * * It is the cruelest of
all ironies that an expression of bigotry in America that
would sweep this country is one that involves trashing
religious liberty.
Most would agree that one of the most logical institutions or symbols
for bringing different people together would be a house of worship.
What better venue could there be for transcending social and cultural
division than the spiritual setting provided by a church?
These fires are far more than an expression of religious bigotry. The
fact that these small churches are so much more to the community than
simply places of worship makes the expressions of hatred even more
egregious. They go beyond religion to the very essence of racial
hatred. We have to ask ourselves what kind of hatred could possibly
motivate individuals to destroy these symbols of a community in such a
despicable manner.
As the Government searches for ways to address this epidemic,
including the legislative efforts which I strongly support, we have to
look at the twin possibilities of a conspiracy and the work of copycat
arsonists. If it is a conspiracy, the work of one isolated group or
groups fanning their hatred across the South, then our task is to find
the perpetrators and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.
Some of the evidence points to a conspiracy, such as the timing of the
fires--they have all occurred in the very early hours of the morning,
before day-light. As disturbing as it would be, it would be better for
us as a country if the fires are the result of a conspiracy, the work
of one group of individuals that does not reflect the current sentiment
in this region of the country.
If, on the other hand, they are the result of copycats, which is more
likely the case, then we are dealing with a societal disease.
Addressing such a societal ill is far more difficult and requires a
much different response that goes beyond basic law enforcement. At the
same time, it provides us with an opportunity to reevaluate race
relations in this country and to seek new ways to improve them. As
these tragic fires illustrate, some remedial attention with regard to
continued progress in race relations is needed.
There are some ways in which communities can be brought together
because of these fires. White churches should invite their black
neighbors who have lost their places of worship to come and worship
with them. Black and white churches should come together in forming
watches to prevent these attacks in the future. Ministers--black and
white--should speak forcefully about racial equality and of the
importance of honoring houses of God and keeping them sacred.
These rather small but common-sense acts of neighborliness and
spiritual leadership could direct more attention on where we are in
terms of racial attitudes and relations. It is sad that with all the
progress we have made over the last few decades, these kinds of
terrorist acts still occur. Throughout my career, I have striven to
promote racial harmony in my State and throughout the Nation. I am
proud of the progress we have made. But, as my time in the Senate draws
to a close, I am, frankly, quite disheartened that these kinds of
incidents are again plaguing our society.
While we do all in our power possible to stop these hate crimes,
bring their perpetrators to justice, and encourage compliance with the
law, we should also ask ourselves if there is more we can do as
individual communities to advance the causes of equal rights and racial
harmony. So, Mr. President, I support the Faircloth-Kennedy bill. I
think it is an improvement over the House bill. A lot of work has gone
into this. I think it approaches the situation with an investigatory
device, to try to enhance the right of the FBI to investigate these
terrible acts that are occurring throughout our Nation.
Senator Pryor has asked me to add his name to this. I am sure there
will be others. I ask unanimous consent the cosponsors' names be
allowed to be entered for a period of time following this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I also see this as an opportunity to bring
further improvement in regard to race relations. Yesterday I spoke with
a group of Methodist ministers. I told them this was an opportunity to
extend a hand of friendship to the black members of churches that were
destroyed, to endeavor to try to work with them to improve their lot in
the agony they are suffering today. I think this is an opportunity.
I do not know whether this is a conspiracy or whether it is a copycat
situation. If it is a conspiracy, we should root out the perpetrators
of this and punish them. If it is a copycat situation, then we have to
try to work to remove the root cause.
So, it is something I think the American people ought to be aware of,
and that they ought to do everything they can to address these crimes.
[[Page S6527]]
I fully support this bill.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, any time I have remaining I also yield
back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts and the
Senator from North Carolina, have they completed their remarks and the
introduction of their bill?
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair and ranking minority member for
yielding for this purpose. We yield back our time.
Mr. NUNN. I congratulate both Senators on taking this step. I think
there is nothing that is so discouraging and heartbreaking than to see
the burnings that have taken place of churches across much of our
country.
I congratulate both the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator
from North Carolina. Maybe we can get unanimous support for denouncing
this unexplainable and detestable series of acts. Whatever the cause, I
think the message should go out that the U.S. Senate is firmly on
record, both sides of the aisle, every political philosophy, deploring
this kind of conduct.
So I congratulate both Senators for introducing this bill. I know it
will receive prompt and careful consideration by the Senate and the
respective committees.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong
condemnation of the rash of church burnings that have swept through the
South. This is a national crisis.
These acts of terrorism, which are aimed solely at predominately
black churches, strike at the very heart of what is sacred in our
country--the right to freedom of religion and fundamental civil rights.
Churches, mosques, temples, and synagogues are sanctuaries where
Americans enjoy the freedom to worship. That is why these acts are
truly repugnant, and I am outraged that the arsons continue.
Yesterday the Senate passed unanimously a resolution expressing our
horror at these repugnant acts, and calling for rigorous investigation
and prosecution of these crimes. I was proud to be a cosponsor of that
resolution.
But we can and must do more. That is why I am cosponsoring the bill
introduced by my colleagues, Senators Kennedy and Faircloth, that will
make it easier for the Federal Government to investigate and prosecute
crimes involving the intentional destruction of churches.
Our Nation has made tremendous progress since the civil rights
movement in the 1960's. Church burnings turn the clock back on the
strides we have made since the 1960's and bring shame to our great
Nation. Our Nation cannot tolerate the increasing number of black
church arsons. The burnings have reached epidemic proportions.
It is a painful reminder of a time when hate and ignorance prevailed
in many parts of the country. The perpetrators of these crimes must be
caught and punished. They must know that our Nation will not tolerate
or encourage these cowardly acts. Citizens around the country are
outraged that places of worship--mostly in small Southern towns--are
being burned to the ground. Many of the churches are historic
landmarks. Some were erected over 100 years ago.
Black churches are the lifeblood in small Southern communities--by
burning these churches the arsonists strike at the very heart of the
black community. But, all of us who worship and believe in God are hurt
by these church burnings; they strike everyone.
Faith built our country. We must begin building bridges to destroy
the plague of racism. It is the basis of our Constitution that everyone
has the freedom to worship wherever they please. These fundamental
freedoms must be protected from those who would like to bully and
intimidate peaceful, worshiping citizens.
Nearly 40 churches have burned since the beginning of the year. This
is the worst kind of terrorism. It is reminiscent of a time when the Ku
Klux Klan and other hate groups felt free to burn crosses, lynch
innocent blacks, and burn churches. The current wave of church burnings
has targeted remote, isolated places of worship in Southern black
communities. These arsonists sneak into the night to torch churches
falsely believing they will not be caught. We must not let these
arsonists continue to commit their acts without being punished.
Our country will not tolerate this kind of moral outrage and shame.
Federal prosecutors should be able to investigate and prosecute these
criminals to the fullest extent allowed by law. Federal prosecution of
those who are responsible for these fires at churches should be the
highest national priority. We need to have the resources to go after
these criminals; a civilized society cannot continue to have churches
being burned to the ground every other day.
It is encouraging that my Senate colleagues in a bipartisan fashion
have come together to condemn the church burnings. This is an issue
that crosses all racial and party lines. We need to begin rebuilding--
the churches across the South and the moral fabric of our country.
We must do all that we can to bring these criminals to justice. We
are all the victims of the rash of church burnings in our country.
I urge my colleagues to support the Kennedy-Faircloth bill. The
legislation will give law enforcement officials the tools they need to
stop this terrible epidemic.
We must come together to begin healing the racial wounds caused by
the church fires. Racism and hatred have no place in our country.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I join my colleagues to express concern and
outrage at the dastardly acts of hatred and violence against black
churches, against good and decent people, people of faith with a strong
sense of community. This legislation is a bipartisan statement that the
United States Senate is determined to bring this outrage to a halt.
Make no mistake, those who have set these churches ablaze have
rekindled our desire to stamp out bigotry and prejudice everywhere.
There was a time in America, not long ago, when many of us were
involved in the Civil Rights movement with men and women of good will--
white and black--who demonstrated and marched for equal rights and
justice in the face of the worst kind of violence, hatred, and bigotry.
Black churches had long been a refuge from prejudice and served as the
symbol of community for millions of Americans who were the victims of
blind intolerance that raged throughout this country.
We cannot and must not let the hatred and ignorance of a few
criminals, arsonists, separatists, or supremacists turn back the clock
on the progress we have made toward racial equality. We must, in this
face of the haters, the bigots, and the racists, strengthen our resolve
to tear down the walls that divide us and stand together, shoulder-to-
shoulder, in solidarity against intolerance and this kind of violent,
destructive, sociopathic behavior directed at our fellow citizens.
Those who have committed these hate crimes have forgotten the lessons
of history. They have forgotten or never learned what America went
through in the 1960s. They have forgotten the faces on the bridge in
Selma, the burning bus of the Freedom Riders ablaze in Anniston, AL and
the horrifying scene of demonstrators being dragged from the bus and
beaten. They have forgotten the image of ``Bull'' Connor ordering the
use of police dogs and fire hoses on demonstrators in Birmingham. They
have forgotten or never learned the meaning of the assassination of Dr.
King. These thugs are no different than the haters, cowards, and common
criminals in white hoods who burned crosses in the middle of the night
in a reign of terror against innocent people who sought only fairness,
equal rights, and justice.
We can thank God that history taught most of us a lesson. History has
passed its own lesson on the cross-burners along with men like ``Bull''
Connor because of their racism, ignorance and cowardice. But now, years
later, those who learned nothing from history, or those too young, too
alone, too desocialized, disinterested, or demoralized to know better
are burning churches instead of crosses, and they must be brought to
justice.
As a nation and as one people united in our constitutional,
religious, and philosophical belief in equal justice
[[Page S6528]]
under the law, we cannot let the actions of these criminals result in
bitterness, anger, or retaliation. We cannot let them divide us. We
must remember the words of Martin Luther King who said,
``I've seen too much hate to want to hate myself, and I've
seen hate on the faces of too many sheriffs, too many White
Citizens Councilors, and too many Klansmen of the South to
want to hate, myself; and every time I see it, I say to
myself: hate is too great a burden to bear.''
Let Dr. King's words be our lesson as we find these criminals, bring
them to justice, and rally together for an end to hatred and
intolerance in this Nation.
I commend the Senators who have taken the leading roles in crafting
the language on which we will be voting, and I urge my colleagues to
support the bill.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to cosponsor the Church Arson
Protection Act of 1996 introduced today by Senators Kennedy and
Faircloth.
Since the beginning of this year, a series of fires have swept our
country. More than 30 predominantly African-American churches in the
southeast have been burned. Not all of the fires have been set by
people filled with racial hatred. But many have. And even one is too
much.
Passing this measure is the least we can do to address this problem.
With this new law, we send a clear message to every person who is
thinking of setting fire to a place of worship: we will catch you. If
you think that any church is small and remote, think again. No church
is too small or remote for us not to care about it. If you think that
you can burn all of the evidence, think again. We will find the
evidence. If you think that no one cares if you burn a church used by
African Americans, think again. This Nation condemns your actions.
In the last few months, the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms, and State and local law enforcement have vigorously
investigated the fires in our churches. They have made numerous arrests
and have leads on many other cases.
Despite this progress, the news of these fires is genuinely
disturbing and perplexing. How could anyone do such a heinous thing?
How could anyone burn a church and feel proud of their actions? No one
who is truly committed to the principles of our country could do this.
This Nation was founded on tolerance and respect for religious worship.
And the greatest battle of our country's short life has been fought for
the principle of racial tolerance.
Many people may say that these fires are a blow aimed at racial and
religious equality. And they are. But they are feeble and small swats.
We will rebuild the burned churches; we will condemn the bigots who
started the fires; and with this law, we will help assure that
punishment is swift, sure, and severe. These fires cannot undo the
progress in race relations that we have made as a nation.
So today, I rise to cosponsor this legislation. And I urge my fellow
Senators to pass it rapidly an unanimously.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, what has happened recently in this
country is abominable and we have all heard the reports: yet another
church, attended by black parishioners, was torched in the South. The
recent rash of arson attacks on black churches should put this country
in fear; it has to this Senator.
These cases of arson are more than the destruction of a structure; it
is the destruction of the congregation and the communities themselves.
This is the time for this body, and for all this Nation, to lend their
support to these communities and these congregations for they have
suffered a tremendous loss. If we allow this to continue with impunity
in America, what protection do any of us have?
The reporting of over 30 church burning in 18 months indicates the
need for a swift and just response. The responsible parties must be
caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. These malicious
burnings must end and end now.
______
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 1891. A bill to establish sources of funding for certain
transportation infrastructure projects in the vicinity of the border
between the United States and Mexico that are necessary to accomodate
increased traffic resulting from the implementation of the North
American Free Trade Agreement, including construction of new Federal
border crossing facilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
the border infrastructure, safety, and congestion relief act of 1996
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Border
Infrastructure, Safety and Congestion Relief Act of 1996 with Senator
Bingaman of New Mexico.
When the Senate debated the North American Free Trade Agreement, I
opposed it on the grounds that the United States was unprepared for its
impact on our environment, infrastructure, and labor relations. In fact
our Mexican border States face trying to handle the increased traffic
from NAFTA in less time than it takes to design, review and construct
major highway projects.
Now that NAFTA is a reality, however, I am determined to make it work
to California's best advantage.
Whatever its shortcomings, NAFTA has increased trade across our
borders. However, this trade boom now threatens to overwhelm residents
and businesses in the border region of San Diego and Imperial Counties.
In California's border community of Otay Mesa, my colleagues, you can
see that the new global economy is choking old city streets.
To get a good idea of the problem, you need look no further than Otay
Mesa Road.
Just a few miles up the road is the Otay Mesa Port of Entry. Serving
a border region of over 4 million people, it is the third-busiest truck
crossing on the United States-Mexico border and the only commercial
crossing facility linking San Diego and Tijuana. The number of trucks
crossing annually at Otay Mesa has increased from 668,000 in 1993 to
more than 1.5 million today. Daily traffic is expected to double again
by the year 2010.
The Otay Mesa Port is connected to the U.S. Interstate Highway System
by this one city street, which narrows to two lanes before reaching
Interstate 905. Otay Mesa Road already carries traffic that is three
times its design capacity.
In Imperial County the situation is similar, if slightly less
intense. The Calexico/Mexicali Port of Entry serves a regional
population of 1 million. The border crossing opens on to a two-lane
road with no shoulders, which is expected to carry truck, car and bus
traffic through the heart of Calexico.
Between Otay Mesa and Calexico, construction is beginning on a new
Federal border port of entry at Tecate. The U.S. Department of
Transportation is providing no direct funding to link any of these
stations with the regional road networks.
The California Transportation Commission recently approved shifting
$244 million from other transportation projects in the State to the
border region as a down payment on about $1 billion in needed
infrastructure improvements to serve commercial vehicle traffic
crossing the California-Mexico border.
The State of California is doing its share. Now, State transportation
officials are demanding Federal assistance--over and above the State's
current Federal highway funding--to help pay for these border
improvements.
That is why Senator Bingaman and I are introducing the Border
Infrastructure, Safety and Congestion Relief Act of 1996.
Our bill provides a two-level system for Federal assistance to fund
the States' top-priority border infrastructure projects:
First, it establishes a $500 million Border Infrastructure Trust Fund
to provide grants by the Secretary of Transportation to the States in
order to pay for new or upgraded connections to the National Highway
System.
States could also be reimbursed for projects that have begun any time
since 1994, when NAFTA was implemented. This means that California
would not be penalized for putting its State money up early to prepare
for NAFTA with projects such as the new inspection station at Otay
Mesa.
We also allow provide up to $10 million, if needed, for the Attorney
General to use to provide transportation improvements for the Border
Patrol
[[Page S6529]]
and other law enforcement agencies. I believe that we should do more at
the border to deter drug smuggling and illegal immigration. My bill
will provide important help in funding access roads, lighting, and
other transportation improvements needed by our Federal law enforcement
agencies.
The second part of our bill would authorize Federal loan guarantees
to assist the States in financing major construction of high-cost,
revenue-producing projects, such as toll roads. The assistance is
provided through the State Infrastructure Bank pilot program,
established under the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995.
Our bill, however, would authorize new Federal funds to finance border
infrastructure projects.
The final part of the bill authorizes Federal assistance to railroad
projects in the border region which are intermodal and will provide
traffic congestion relief by providing a rail alternative for freight
shipments. These loan guarantees for railroad improvements would be
provided under the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of
1976.
This assistance is critical to San Diego's efforts to reopen the
eastern extension of the San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway. Extending
this railroad across southeastern California will provide a critical
link to the U.S. national rail network. By providing fast and efficient
service to new markets throughout Mexico, it is also San Diego's best
opportunity to take advantage of NAFTA. Trade with Mexico's interior
offers the San Diego region its greatest opportunity to take full
advantage of NAFTA. But this cannot happen without good, dependable
rail service.
In today's post-cold-war global marketplace, the competition is
economic. America's place in the world will be determined largely by
our ability to produce and market goods and services and deliver them
efficiently into that global marketplace.
I have been working with the San Diego House delegation, local
elected officials, and members of the community to make Washington pay
much greater attention to our infrastructure needs at the border. The
San Diego Association of Governments, the four-State Border Trade
Alliance business group and the Greater San Diego Chamber of Commerce
have endorsed my legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1891
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 ``Border Infrastructure Safety
and Congestion Relief Act of 1996''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) although the United States Customs Service has
collected increased duties, merchandise fees, and revenues
from other commerce-related activities because of the
approval and implementation of the North American Free Trade
Agreement, these increased revenues have not been accompanied
by Federal funding for improving transportation facilities
along the international borders of the United States to
ensure the free and safe flow of trade destined for all
States and regions of the United States;
(2) because of NAFTA, all 4 States along the United States-
Mexico border will require significant investments in highway
infrastructure capacity and motor carrier safety enforcement
at a time when border States face extreme difficulty in
meeting current highway funding needs;
(3) the full benefits of increased international trade can
be realized only if delays at the borders are significantly
reduced; and
(4) the increased revenues to the general fund of the
Treasury described in paragraph (1) should be sufficient to
provide Federal funding for transportation improvements
required to accommodate NAFTA-generated traffic, in an amount
above and beyond regular Federal transportation funding
apportionments.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Border region.--The term ``border region'' means the
region located within 60 miles of the United States border
with Mexico.
(2) Border state.--The term ``border State'' means
California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.
(3) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the Border
Transportation Infrastructure Fund established under section
4(g).
(4) NAFTA.--The term ``NAFTA'' means the North American
Free Trade Agreement.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Transportation.
SEC. 4. DIRECT FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR BORDER CONSTRUCTION AND
CONGESTION RELIEF.
(a) In General.--Using amounts in the Fund, the Secretary
shall make grants under this section to border States that
submit an application that demonstrates need, due to
increased traffic resulting from the implementation of NAFTA,
for assistance in carrying out transportation projects that
are necessary to relieve traffic congestion or improve
enforcement of motor carrier safety laws.
(b) Grants for Connectors to Federal Border Crossing
Facilities.--The Secretary shall make grants to border States
for the purposes of connecting, through construction or
reconstruction, the National Highway System designated under
section 103(b) of title 23, United States Code, with Federal
border crossing facilities located in the United States in
the border region.
(c) Grants for Weigh-in-Motion Devices in Mexico.--The
Secretary shall make grants to assist border States in the
purchase, installation, and maintenance of weigh-in-motion
devices and associated electronic equipment that are to be
located in Mexico if real time data from the devices is
provided to the nearest United States port of entry and to
State commercial vehicle enforcement facilities that serve
the port of entry.
(d) Grants for Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Facilities.--
The Secretary shall make grants to border States to
construct, operate, and maintain commercial vehicle
enforcement facilities located in the border region.
(e) Limitations on Expenditures of Funds.--
(1) Cost sharing.--A grant under this section shall be used
to pay the Federal share of the cost of a project. The
Federal share shall be 80 percent.
(2) Allocation among states.--
(A) In general.--For each of fiscal years 1998 through
2001, the Secretary shall allocate amounts remaining in the
Fund, after any transfers under section 5, among border
States in accordance with an equitable formula established by
the Secretary in accordance with subparagraphs (B) and (C).
(B) Considerations.--Subject to subparagraph (C), in
establishing the formula, the Secretary shall consider--
(i) the annual volume of international commercial vehicle
traffic at the ports of entry of each border State as
compared to the annual volume of international commercial
vehicle traffic at the ports of entry of all border States,
based on the data provided in the most recent report
submitted under section 8;
(ii) the percentage by which international commercial
vehicle traffic in each border State has grown during the
period beginning on the date of enactment of the North
American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Public Law
103-182) as compared to that percentage for each other border
State; and
(iii) the extent of border transportation improvements
carried out by each border State during the period beginning
on the date of enactment of the North American Free Trade
Agreement Implementation Act (Public Law 103-182).
(C) Minimum allocation.--Each border State shall receive
not less than 5 percent of the amounts made available to
carry out this section during the period of authorization
under subsection (i).
(f) Eligibility for Reimbursement for Previously Commenced
Projects.--The Secretary shall make a grant under this
section to a border State that reimburses the border State
for a project for which construction commenced after January
1, 1994, if the project is otherwise eligible for assistance
under this section.
(g) Border Transportation Infrastructure Fund.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of
the United States the Border Transportation Infrastructure
Fund to be used in carrying out this section, consisting of
such amounts as are appropriated to the Fund under subsection
(i).
(2) Expenditures from fund.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), upon request
by the Secretary, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
transfer from the Fund to the Secretary such amounts as the
Secretary determines are necessary to make grants under this
section and transfers under section 5.
(B) Administrative expenses.--An amount not exceeding 1
percent of the amounts in the Fund shall be available for
each fiscal year to pay the administrative expenses necessary
to carry out this section.
(h) Applicability of Title 23.--Title 23, United States
Code, shall apply to grants made under this section.
(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Fund to carry out this section and
section 5 $125,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through
2001. The appropriated amounts shall remain available for
obligation until the end of the third fiscal year following
the fiscal year for which the amounts are appropriated.
SEC. 5. CONSTRUCTION OF TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES.
At the request of the Attorney General, the Secretary may
transfer, during the period consisting of fiscal years 1998
through 2001, up to $10,000,000 of the amounts from the Fund
to the Attorney General for the
[[Page S6530]]
construction of transportation infrastructure necessary for
law enforcement in border States.
SEC. 6. BORDER INFRASTRUCTURE INNOVATIVE FINANCING.
(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
(1) to encourage the establishment and operation of State
infrastructure banks in accordance with section 350 of the
National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (109 Stat.
618; 23 U.S.C. 101 note); and
(2) to advance transportation infrastructure projects
supporting international trade and commerce.
(b) Federal Line of Credit.--Section 350 of the National
Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (109 Stat. 618; 23
U.S.C. 101 note) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (l) as subsection (m); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (k) the following:
``(l) Federal Line of Credit.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection, the terms `border
region' and `border State' have the meanings provided in
section 3 of the Border Infrastructure Safety and Congestion
Relief Act of 1996.
``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury
$100,000,000 to be used by the Secretary to make lines of
credit available to--
``(A) border States that have established infrastructure
banks under this section; and
``(B) the State of New Mexico which has established a
border authority that has bonding capacity.
``(3) Amount.--The line of credit available to each
participating border State shall be equal to the product of--
``(A) the amount appropriated under paragraph (2); and
``(B) the quotient obtained by dividing--
``(i) the contributions of the State to the Highway Trust
Fund during the latest fiscal year for which data are
available; by
``(ii) the total contributions of all participating border
States to the Highway Trust Fund during that fiscal year.
``(4) Use of line of credit.--The line of credit under this
subsection shall be available to provide Federal support in
accordance with this subsection to--
``(A) a State infrastructure bank engaged in providing
credit enhancement to creditworthy eligible public and
private multimodal projects that support international trade
and commerce in the border region; and
``(B) the New Mexico Border Authority;
(each referred to in this subsection as a `border
infrastructure bank').
``(5) Limitations.--
``(A) In general.--A line of credit under this subsection
may be drawn on only--
``(i) with respect to a completed project described in
paragraph (4) that is receiving credit enhancement through a
border infrastructure bank;
``(ii) when the cash balance available in the border
infrastructure bank is insufficient to pay a claim for
payment relating to the project; and
``(iii) when all subsequent revenues of the project have
been pledged to the border infrastructure bank.
``(B) Third party creditor rights.--No third party creditor
of a public or private entity carrying out a project eligible
for assistance from a border infrastructure bank shall have
any right against the Federal Government with respect to a
line of credit under this subsection, including any guarantee
that the proceeds of a line of credit will be available for
the payment of any particular cost of the public or private
entity that may be financed under this subsection.
``(6) Interest rate and repayment period.--Any draw on a
line of credit under this subsection shall--
``(A) accrue, beginning on the date the draw is made,
interest at a rate equal to the current (as of the date the
draw is made) market yield on outstanding, marketable
obligations of the United States with maturities of 30 years;
and
``(B) shall be repaid within a period of not more than 30
years.
``(7) Relationship to state apportionment.--Funds made
available to States to carry out this subsection shall be in
addition to funds apportioned to States under section 104 of
title 23, United States Code.''.
SEC. 7. RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide
assistance for freight rail projects in border States that
benefit international trade and relieve highways of increased
traffic resulting from NAFTA.
(b) Issuance of Obligations.--The Secretary shall issue to
the Secretary of the Treasury notes or other obligations
pursuant to section 512 of the Railroad Revitalization and
Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 832), in such
amounts, and at such times, as may be necessary to--
(1) pay any amounts required pursuant to the guarantee of
the principal amount of an obligation under section 511 of
the Act (45 U.S.C. 831) for any eligible freight rail project
described in subsection (c) during the period that the
guaranteed obligation is outstanding; and
(2) during the period referred to in paragraph (1), meet
the applicable requirements of this section and sections 511
and 513 of the Act (45 U.S.C. 832 and 833).
(c) Eligibility.--Assistance provided under this section
shall be limited to those freight rail projects located in
the United States that provide intermodal connections that
enhance cross-border traffic in the border region.
(d) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the aggregate unpaid principal amounts of obligations
that may be guaranteed by the Secretary under this section
may not exceed $100,000,000 during any of fiscal years 1998
through 2001.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to make loan guarantees under this section
$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2001.
SEC. 8. REPORT.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall annually submit to
Congress and the Governor of each border State a report
concerning--
(1) the volume and nature of international commercial
vehicle traffic crossing the border between the United States
and Mexico; and
(2)(A) the number of international commercial vehicle
inspections conducted by each border State at each United
States port of entry; and
(B) the rate of out-of-service violations of international
commercial vehicles found through the inspections.
(b) Information Provided by United States Customs
Service.--For the purpose of preparing each report under
subsection (a)(1), the Commissioner of Customs shall provide
to the Secretary such information described in subsection
(a)(1) as the Commissioner has available.
______
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Wellstone):
S. 1892. A bill to reward States for collecting Medicaid funds
expended on tobacco-related illnesses, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
the tobacco medicaid recovery act of 1996
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Tobacco
Medicaid Recovery Act, along with Senator Wellstone.
This bill will create a new Federal/State partnership to help recover
Medicaid costs associated with tobacco use.
Mr. President, for years, the tobacco industry has hooked Americans
on products that cause death and disease. They've made billions of
dollars in the process. But they've never been held accountable.
When big tobacco sells it's deadly products, all Americans pay the
price. Not only through the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers
who are lost to lung cancer and other diseases. But through the higher
taxes that must be paid to support programs like Medicaid.
Mr. President, 10 courageous states are suing the tobacco industry
for the large Medicaid costs associated with tobacco use. There are two
other states, including New Jersey, that will soon file suit and 10
others that may file before the summer is out. These suits enjoy
bipartisan support from Democratic and Republican governors and
Democratic and Republican state attorney generals. In fact, I was
pleased to be joined this morning in unveiling this legislation with
Mike Moore, attorney general from Mississippi, Hubert ``Skip''
Humphrey, attorney general from Minnesota, and Bob Butterworth,
attorney general from Florida. They are all leaders in suing the
tobacco industry for Medicaid costs and strongly support this
legislation. The Minnesota suit is being supported by its Republican
Governor, Arne Carlson, and the Florida suit is being supported by its
Democratic Governor, our former colleague Lawton Chiles.
Mr. President, the tobacco industry is fighting hard to avoid being
held accountable. It doesn't just use every hardball legal tactic in
the book. It has even sent its hired guns into state attorney generals'
offices to intimidate them.
In one case, a state official was warned not to sue the industry--and
if the state did, the industry would force the state to pay enormous
sums--including the possible deposition of every single Medicaid
recipient in that state.
Mr. President, the courageous states, like Mississippi, Minnesota and
Florida, who have taken on the tobacco companies deserve more Federal
support--because they are doing the Federal taxpayers' bidding. If they
are successful in their litigation, they must return the Federal
portion of Medicaid funds to Washington. The Federal government should
be helping them get this money, not sitting on its hands.
This legislation would allow the states to keep a third of the
Federal
[[Page S6531]]
portion to better serve the needs of their Medicaid recipients--their
seniors, disabled, poor children and pregnant women.
Another third of the Federal share would go to the National
Institutes of Health to conduct research on the diseases caused by
tobacco products, like lung cancer and heart disease.
Finally, the balance would go into the Federal Treasury to help
reduce the deficit.
Currently, many states are sitting on the fence, thinking how
difficult and expensive it will be to sue the tobacco industry. This
bill may get them off the fence, and into battle with the industry.
Mr. President, it is time for the Federal government to help states
get the taxpayers' money back. It is time to reward the states for
trying to hold the tobacco companies accountable, and provide an
incentive for those considering entering the fray.
This bill could provide states with millions in much needed Medicaid
funds. It could increase funding for the National Institutes of Health.
And it will not increase the deficit.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
common sense legislation that will help our state taxpayers.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the text of the legislation
and a summary of it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 1892
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 ``Tobacco Medicaid Recovery
Act of 1996''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) Federal taxpayers pay for approximately $20,000,000,000
each year in Federal health expenditures to treat tobacco-
related illnesses, including expenditures incurred under the
medicare and medicaid programs operated under titles XVIII
and XIX of the Social Security Act, health care programs
carried out by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under
chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, and other Federal
health care programs. These expenditures often contribute to
an increase in the Federal budget deficit.
(2) According to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, tobacco-related illnesses cost the medicaid
program under title XIX of the Social Security Act
$5,100,000,000 each year.
(3) The efforts of several States that are attempting under
Federal law, including in some cases, under the Federal anti-
racketeering statutes, or under State law, to recover the
health care costs incurred under the medicaid program for the
treatment of individuals with diseases attributable to the
use of tobacco products from the manufacturers of such
products, are to be commended.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to reward States
that successfully recover the Federal and State health care
costs incurred under the medicaid program for the treatment
of individuals with diseases attributable to the use of
tobacco products by providing increased funding for their
medicaid programs and to provide increased resources to the
National Institutes of Health.
SEC. 3. INCENTIVE PAYMENTS FOR COLLECTION OF MEDICAID FUNDS
EXPENDED ON TOBACCO-RELATED ILLNESSES.
(a) Financial Reward for Successful Recoveries.--Section
1903(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(d)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(7)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if a
State recovers, by judgment in, or settlement of, any suit
arising under Federal or State law, amounts expended as
medical assistance under the State plan for the treatment of
individuals with diseases attributable to the use of tobacco
products, from a manufacturer of tobacco products, the State
shall notify the Secretary of the amount of such recovery.
Upon receipt of such a notice, the Secretary shall determine
the amount of Federal expenditures under this title that are
attributable to the amounts recovered, based on the Federal
medical assistance percentage, as defined in section 1905(b),
for such State. The Secretary shall treat the amount so
determined as an overpayment under this section, in
accordance with paragraph (2)(A), and with respect to such
amount shall do the following:
``(i) Provide that the State shall retain \1/3\ of such
amount, for the purpose of using such funds to meet the non-
Federal share of expenditures under the State plan with
respect to which payments may be made under this title.
``(ii) Pay \1/3\ of such amount to the Director of the
National Institutes of Health, for the purpose of conducting
disease research.
``(B) Any amount of new budget authority or outlays
resulting from the provisions of this paragraph shall not be
counted for any purpose under section 251 or 252 of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
``(C) For purposes of this paragraph--
``(i) the term `manufacturer of tobacco products' has the
meaning given such term by section 5702(d) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986; and
``(ii) the term `tobacco products' has the meaning given
such term by section 5702(c) of such Code.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1902(a) (42 U.S.C.
1396a(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (61);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (62) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (62) the following new
paragraph:
``(63) provide that the State shall provide prompt notice
to the Secretary of the amount of any recovery from a
manufacturer of tobacco products, as defined in section
1903(d)(7)(C)(i), of expenditures for medical assistance
provided under such plan for the treatment of individuals
with diseases attributable to the use of tobacco products, as
defined in section 1903(d)(7)(C)(ii).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a)
and (b) shall apply to amounts recovered on and after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
____
Lautenberg Bill to Reward States for Recouping Medicaid Expenditures
for Tobacco-Related Illnesses
This legislation recognizes the following:
States who sue the tobacco industry for Medicaid costs face
tremendous expenses, intimidation and extraordinary legal
tactics from the tobacco industry.
Pursuant to the Medicaid statute and other legal
interpretations, states must return the Federal Medicaid
share of any award to the Federal government.
States should be rewarded for their efforts to recoup
Federal tax dollars.
This bill will do the following:
Upon a settlement or a jury award between a state and a
tobacco company, the Federal government shall return 33
percent of the Federal share of the award to the states to be
used in their Medicaid programs.
Another 33 percent of the Federal share shall be placed in
an NIH Trust Fund to be used for research on lung cancer,
heart disease and other illnesses.
The final 34 percent of the Federal share shall be used for
deficit reduction.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 1893. A bill to provide for the settlement of issues and claims
related to the trust lands of the Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
the torres-martinez settlement agreement act of 1996
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation
that will ratify the settlement agreement negotiated by the U.S.
Departments of the Interior and Justice, Imperial Irrigation Water
District, Coachella Valley Water District, and the Torres-Martinez
Desert Cahuilla Indian Tribe. This settlement agreement resolves a long
standing dispute to replace reservation lands the Torres-Martinez Tribe
lost due to flooding from the Salton Sea.
In 1876, the Torres-Martinez Indian Reservation was created by a 640-
acre section of land in Coachella Valley, California at the northern
end of the Salton Sink. The Reservation was expanded in 1891 adding
approximately 12,000 acres to the original 640-acre reservation.
Between 1905 and 1907, flood waters of the Colorado River filled the
Salton Sink, creating the Salton Sea, inundating approximately 2,000
acres of the reservation lands. In 1909, an additional 9,000 acres of
land were then submerged under the Salton Sea.
Today, the federal government holds 25,000 acres of the reservation
in trust for the Tribe. Of this parcel, 11,800 acres is either
currently under water or has been condemned as uninhabitable due to
runoff and drainage water from the irrigation systems of the Imperial,
Coachella, and Mexicali Valleys into the Salton Sea. Since 1982, the
United States government, acting for the Tribe, has been negotiating
with the Imperial and Coachella Valley Water Districts to compensate
the Tribes for the loss of their reservation lands.
In the settlement agreement, the Torres-Martinez Indian Tribe will
receive $14 million: $10 million from the U.S. government and $4
million from the water districts. From these funds, the Tribe can
acquire and take into trust 11,800 acres of land. Of these parcels,
11,160 must be contiguous to existing reservation land. The Tribe can
acquire the remaining 640 acres within the Coachella Valley only if the
local
[[Page S6532]]
governing body or Riverside County does not object. The Tribe's right
to conduct gaming on lands taken into trust is limited and restricted
to one gaming operation on one site.
In return, the irrigation districts would be granted a permanent
flowage easement over tribal and Federal lands within the minus 220
foot contour of the Salton Sink.
The settlement of this land dispute has been a major concern for many
years. It has taken more than ten years for all parties involved to
reach a consensus on the settlement agreement. There have been
competing interests and priorities for everyone involved, including
completion of the construction of the Route 86 Expressway project.
All parties involved in negotiating this settlement agreement have
worked hard to reach a consensus to implement this agreement. The Tribe
has agreed to give local communities the right to veto its purchase of
land and Riverside County has passed a resolution in support of this
settlement agreement. Moreover, construction of Route 86 will progress.
I commend the Departments of the Interior and Justice, the Coachella
and Imperial Water Districts, and the Torres-Martinez Tribe for
remaining committed to resolving this issue.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution passed by
Riverside County in support of the agreement and correspondence I have
received from the Water Districts and the Torres-Martinez Tribe
indicating the accuracy of this legislation in completely implementing
the settlement agreement, be printed in the Record following my
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Congressman Sonny Bono introduced
identical legislation last Thursday and the Native American and Insular
Affairs Subcommittee of the House Resources Committee has scheduled
hearings this afternoon on this legislation. I look forward to working
with the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to implement this agreement
in law and the Appropriations Committee to provide funds as outlined in
the settlement agreement.
I hope my colleagues will join me today in enacting this legislation.
exhibit 1
Submittal to the Board of Supervisors, County of Riverside, State of
California
From: Supervisor Wilson.
Subject: Support of Legislation for Settlement With Torres-
Martinez Indian Tribe.
Recommended Motion: That the Board take a position in
support of the attached draft legislation, proposed by
Congressman Sonny Bono and providing for settlement with the
Torres-Martinez Indian Tribe by providing compensation for
acquisition of lands in the Coachella Valley; further, direct
the county Executive Office to immediately forward copies of
the Board Minute Order to members of California's
Congressional delegation.
Justification: The accidental creation of the Salton Sea in
1905-1907 resulted in approximately 12,000 acres of Torres-
Martinez Indian Tribal lands in the southeastern Coachella
Valley being either underwater or unusable. There has been
litigation since 1982 by the Federal Government on behalf of
the Tribe against Coachella Valley Water District and
Imperial Irrigation District, and the Tribe itself filed
litigation in 1991. In addition to the issue of compensation
to the Tribe, the completion of Highway 86 is also at risk,
as the alignment and construction of the highway is
contingent on right-of-way on existing Tribal lands.
The attached draft legislation has been developed in
consultation with all parties, and I am advised that all are
in agreement with its provisions. It provides the Tribe with
funds to acquire 12,000 acres, either in entirety in the
``primary'' acquisition area (Avenue 56, also known as
Airport Blvd., south to the Riverside/Imperial County line)
which is adjacent to existing Tribal lands, or up to 640
acres (out of the total 12,000) in the ``secondary''
acquisition area (the remainder of the Coachella Valley,
generally from Desert Hot Springs southeast to Avenue 56).
Finally, the legislation authorizes the Tribe to establish
a single gaming site, and provides land use jurisdiction
within the secondary acquisition area with the ability to
protest acquisition/conversion of land to Tribal status
within 60 days of being notified of the Tribe's intent.
County Counsel worked directly with Congressman Bono's
staff in development of the draft legislation, and I urge the
Board's support of this proposed settlement.
Roy Wilson.
____
Bayh, Connaughton & Malone, P.G.
Washington, DC, June 14, 1996.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
Senate Hart Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: I would like to transmit
correspondence from Coachella Valley Water District, the
Imperial Irrigation District and the Torres-Martinez Desert
Cahuilla Indians regarding the Torres-Martinez settlement
legislation (H.R. 3640).
For the past four years, on behalf of the water districts
and in full cooperation with the Tribe, I have assisted in
facilitating this settlement through the Departments of the
Interior and Justice. The legislation introduced by Rep. Bono
in the House accurately and completely implements the
settlement agreement. Thus, all parties support enactment of
this legislation and ask that you sponsor the companion bill
on the Senate side.
We appreciate your consideration of our request and are
grateful for all of the help we have received from Mia Ellis,
Susy Elfving and your other staff members over the past
several years. We are close to the finish line and we ask
that you and Senator Boxer help us on the Senate side in
enacting this legislation that is so critical to both the
Tribe and the water users in the Imperial and Coachella
Valleys of California.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Joseph Findaro.
____
Coachella Valley Water District,
Coachella, CA, June 14, 1996.
Hon. Diane Feinstein,
Senate Hart Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: The text of the Torres-Martinez
settlement legislation (introduced by Congressman Bono in the
House as H.R. 3640) accurately and completely implements the
settlement agreement. We, therefore, support enactment of
this legislation and request that you sponsor this
legislation in the Senate.
Yours very truly,
Tom Levy,
General Manager-Chief Engineer.
____
Imperial Irrigation District,
Imperial, CA, June 14, 1996.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: I sincerely appreciate your
consideration of our request to carry the Senate companion
bill to authorize the Torres-Martinez land claims settlement.
The text of the Torres-Martinez settlement legislation
(introduced in the House by Rep. Bono as H.R. 3640)
accurately and completely implements the settlement
agreement. We therefore support enactment of this legislation
and request that you sponsor this legislation in the Senate.
Again, thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Eric E. Yoder,
Government Relations.
____
The Torres Martinez
Desert Cahuilla Indians,
Thermal, CA, June 14, 1996.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
Senate Hart Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: The text of the Torres-Martinez
settlement legislation (introduced by Rep. Bono in the House
as H.R. 3640) accurately and completely implements the
settlement agreement. We therefore support enactment of this
legislation and request that you sponsor this legislation in
the Senate.
We thank you for all of your assistance.
Sincerely,
Mary E. Belardo,
Chairperson.
____
Law Offices of
Thomas E. Luebben,
Albuquerque, NM, June 14, 1996.
Attention: Mia Ellis.
Re Torres-Martinez settlement legislation, H.B. 3640.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
Senate Hart Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: The text of the Torres-Martinez
settlement legislation (introduced by Rep. Bono in the House
as H.R. 3640) accurately and completely implements the
settlement agreement. We therefore support enactment of this
legislation and request that you sponsor this legislation in
the Senate.
Sincerely,
Richard L. Young,
Attorney for Torres-Martinez,
Desert Cahuilla Indians.
____
City of Desert Hot Springs,
Desert Hot Springs, CA, June 10, 1996.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
Senate, Hart Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: Soon President Clinton is expected
to approve a settlement of claims by the Torrez-Martinez
Desert Cahuilla Indian Tribe regarding the Salton Sea. The
Imperial Irrigation District and our district will be signing
this agreement along with the Tribe and the Federal
government.
This settlement resolve long-standing disputes concerning
land and water use in our region of California. At the local
level, there is widespread support finally settling the
dispute and for swift enactment of legislation to implement
this settlement. We, therefore,
[[Page S6533]]
urge you to sponsor this legislation for introduction in the
Senate concurrently with House introduction.
The Cahuilla Indian Tribe will receive $14 million,
approximately $4 million from the two water districts and $10
million from the federal government. The districts will
receive permanent flowage easements, the Tribe will be able
to purchase new lands, and local water rights will be
protected.
We appreciate the attention your staff has given this
matter over the last several years and look forward to
working with you to obtain implementing legislation.
Sincerely,
Gerald F. Pisha,
Mayor.
____________________