[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.

                          ____________________