[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 16, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7908-S7910]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
                      CHURCH ARSON PREVENTION ACT

 Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, last week at the White House, 
the President held a ceremony to thank the Congress for acting swiftly 
on legislation to make it a Federal crime to burn a church.
  H.R. 3525 passed the House on June 18, 1996 by a vote of 422 to 0. 
The Senate approved a broader bill on June 26, 1996 by a vote of 98-0. 
The House passed the Senate version on June 27, 1996 by unanimous 
consent.
  Due to the compelling need to pass legislation, House and Senate 
Democrats and Republicans met on a bipartisan basis where the 
differences between the two bills were reconciled. Because of the speed 
with which we acted, there was little time to prepare a statement of 
the conferees.
  In lieu of a conference report, I ask that this statement of managers 
be printed in the Record, and be made part of the legislative history 
of H.R. 3525.
  The statement follows:

Joint Statement of Floor Managers Regarding H.R. 3525, the Church Arson 
                         Prevention Act of 1996

 (By: Senators Faircloth and Kennedy, and Congressmen Hyde and Conyers)


                            I. Introduction

       Recently, the entire Nation has watched in horror and 
     disbelief as an epidemic of church arsons has gripped the 
     Nation. The wave of arsons, many in the South, and a large 
     number directed at African American churches, is simply 
     intolerable, and has provoked a strong outcry from Americans 
     of all races and religious backgrounds.
       Congress has responded swiftly and in a bipartisan fashion 
     to this troubling spate of arsons. On May 21, 1996, the House 
     Judiciary Committee held an oversight hearing focusing on the 
     problem of church fires in the

[[Page S7909]]

     Southeast. Two days later, on May 23, Chairman Hyde and 
     Ranking Member Conyers introduced H.R. 3525, the Church Arson 
     Prevention Act of 1996. H.R. 3525 was passed by the House of 
     Representatives on June 18, 1996, by a vote of 422-0. On June 
     19, 1996, the Senate introduced a companion bill, S. 1890.
       In the interests of responding swiftly to this pressing 
     national problem, Congressman Henry Hyde and Congressman John 
     Conyers, the original authors of the bill in the House of 
     Representatives, and Senator Lauch Faircloth and Senator 
     Edward Kennedy, the original authors of the bill in the 
     Senate, with the cooperation and assistance of the Chairman 
     and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have 
     crafted a bipartisan bill that combines portions of H.R. 
     3525, as passed on June 18, 1996 by the House of 
     Representatives, and S. 1890, as introduced in the Senate on 
     June 19, 1996. On June 26, 1996, an amendment in the form of 
     substitute to H.R. 3525 was introduced in the Senate, and 
     passed by a 98-0 vote. This substitute embodies the agreement 
     that was reached between House and the Senate, on a 
     bipartisan basis. The House of Representatives, by unanimous 
     consent, took up and passed H.R. 3525 as amended on June 27, 
     1996.
       This Joint Statement of Floor Managers is in lieu of a 
     Conference report and outlines the legislative history of 
     H.R. 3525.


                     II. Summary of the Legislation

       The purpose of the legislation is to address the growing 
     national problem of destruction and desecration of places of 
     religious worship. The legislation contains five different 
     components.


       1. Amendment of Criminal Statute Relating to Church Arson

       Section three of the bill amends section 247 of Title 18, 
     United States Code to eliminate unnecessary and onerous 
     jurisdictional obstacles, and conform the penalties and 
     statute of limitation with those under the general Federal 
     arson statute, Title 18, United States Code, Section 844(i). 
     Section two contains the Congressional findings that 
     establish Congress' authority to amend section 247.


                  2. Authorization for Loan Guarantees

       Section four gives authority to the Department of Housing 
     and Urban Development to use up to $5,000,000 from an 
     existing fund to extend loan guarantees to financial 
     institutions who make loans to organizations defined in Title 
     26, Section 501(c)(3), United States Code, that have been 
     damaged as a result of acts of arson or terrorism, as 
     certified by procedures to be established by the Secretary of 
     Housing and Urban Development.


              3. Assistance for Victims Who Sustain Injury

       Section five amends Section 1403(d)(3) of the Victim of 
     Crime Act to provide that individuals who suffer death or 
     personal injury in connection with a violation described in 
     Title 18, United States Code, Section 247, are eligible to 
     apply for financial assistance under the Victims of Crime 
     Act.


 4. Authorization of Funds for the Department of the Treasury and the 
                         Department of Justice

       Section six authorizes funds to the Department of Justice, 
     including the Community Relations Service, and the Department 
     of the Treasury to hire additional personnel to investigate, 
     prevent and respond to possible violations of Title 18, 
     United States Code, Sections 247 and 844(i). This provision 
     is not intended to alter, expand or restrict the respective 
     jurisdictions or authority of the Department of the Treasury 
     and the Federal Bureau of Investigation relating to the 
     investigation of suspicious fires at places of religious 
     worship.


          5. Reauthorization of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act

       Section seven reauthorizes the Hate Crimes Statistics Act 
     through 2002.


                        6. Sense of the Congress

       Section eight embodies the sense of the Congress commending 
     those individuals and entities that have responded to the 
     church arson crisis with enormous generosity. The Congress 
     encourages the private sector to continue these efforts, so 
     that the rebuilding process will occur with maximum possible 
     participation from the private sector.


      III. Amendment to Title 18, United States Code, Section 247

       Section 3 of H.R. 3525, as passed by the Senate and the 
     House, amends section 247 in a number of ways.


 1. Expansion of Federal Jurisdiction to Prosecute Acts of Destruction 
             or Desecration of Places of Religious Worship

       The bill replaces subsection (b) with a new interstate 
     commerce requirement, which broadens the scope of the statute 
     by applying criminal penalties if the ``offense is in or 
     affects interstate or foreign commerce.'' H.R. 3525 also adds 
     a new subsection (c), which provides that: ``whoever 
     intentionally defaces, damages or destroys any religious real 
     property because of the race, color, or ethnic 
     characteristics of any individual associated with that 
     religious property, or attempts to do so,'' is guilty of a 
     crime. Section two of H.R. 3525 contains the Congressional 
     findings which establish Congress' authority to amend 
     section 247.
       The new interstate commerce language in subsection (b) is 
     similar to that in the general Federal arson statute, Title 
     18, United States Code, Section 844(i), which affords the 
     Attorney General broad jurisdiction to prosecute conduct 
     which falls within the interstate commerce clause of the 
     Constitution.
       Under this new formulation of the interstate commerce 
     requirement, the Committee intends that the interstate 
     commerce requirement is satisfied, for example, where in 
     committing, planning, or preparing to commit the offense, the 
     defendant either travels in interstate or foreign commerce, 
     or uses the mail or any facility or instrumentality of 
     interstate commerce. The interstate commerce requirement 
     would also be satisfied if the real property that is damaged 
     or destroyed is used in activity that is in or affects 
     interstate commerce. Many of the places of worship that have 
     been destroyed serve multiple purposes in addition to their 
     sectarian purpose. For example, a number of places of worship 
     provide day care services, or a variety of other social 
     services.
       These are but a few of the many factual circumstances that 
     would come within the scope of H.R. 3525's interstate 
     commerce requirement, and it is the intent of the Congress to 
     exercise the fullest reach of the Federal commerce power.
       The floor managers are aware of the Supreme Court's ruling 
     in United States v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995), in which 
     the Court struck down as unconstitutional legislation which 
     would have regulated the possession of firearms in a school 
     zone. In Lopez, the Court found that the conduct to be 
     regulated did not have a substantial effect upon interstate 
     commerce, and therefore was not within the Federal 
     Government's reach under the interstate commerce clause of 
     the Constitution.
       Subsection (b), unlike the provision at issue in Lopez, 
     requires the prosecution to prove an interstate commerce 
     nexus in order to establish a criminal violation. Moreover, 
     H.R. 3525 as a whole, unlike the Act at issue in Lopez, does 
     not involve Congressional intrusion upon ``an area of 
     traditional state concern.'' 115 S.Ct. at 1640 (Kennedy, J. 
     concurring). The Federal Government has a longstanding 
     interest in ensuring that all Americans can worship freely 
     without fear of violent reprisal. This Federal interest is 
     particularly compelling in light of the fact that a large 
     percentage of the arsons have been directed at African-
     American places of worship.
       Congress also has the authority to add new subsection (c) 
     to section 247 under the Thirteenth Amendment to the 
     Constitution, an authority that did not exist in the context 
     of the Gun Free School Zones Act. Section 1 of the Thirteenth 
     Amendment prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude. Section 
     2 of the Amendment states that ``Congress shall have the 
     power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'' 
     In interpreting the Amendment, the Supreme Court has held 
     that Congress may reach private conduct, because it has the 
     ``power to pass all laws necessary and proper for abolishing 
     all badges and incidents of slavery in the United States.'' 
     Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 439 (1968). See 
     also Griffin v. Breckinridge, 403 U.S. 88 (1971). The 
     racially motivated destruction of a house of worship is a 
     ``badge or incident of slavery'' that Congress has the 
     authority to punish in this amendment to section 247.
       Section two of H.R. 3525 sets out the Congressional 
     findings that establish Congressional authority under the 
     commerce clause and the Thirteenth Amendment to amend section 
     247.
       In replacing subsection (b) of section 247, H.R. 3525 also 
     eliminates the current requirement of subsection (b)(2) that, 
     in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1), the loss 
     resulting from the defacement, damage, or destruction be more 
     than $10,000. This will allow for the prosecution of cases 
     involving less affluent congregations where the church 
     building itself is not of great monetary value. It will also 
     enhance Federal prosecution of cases of desecration, 
     defacement or partial destruction of a place of religious 
     worship. Incidents such as spray painting swastikas on 
     synagogues, or firing gunshots through church windows, are 
     serious hate crimes that are intended to intimidate a 
     community and interfere with the freedom of religious 
     expression. For this reason, the fact that the monetary 
     damage caused by these heinous acts may be de minimis should 
     not prevent their prosecution as assaults on religious 
     freedom under this section.
       H.R. 3525 also amends section 247 by adding a new 
     subsection (c), which criminalizes the intentional 
     destruction or desecration of religious real property 
     ``because of the race, color or ethnic characteristics of any 
     individual associated with that property.'' This provision 
     will extend coverage of the statute to conduct which is 
     motivated by racial or ethnic animus. Thus, for example, in 
     the event that the religious real property of a church is 
     damaged or destroyed by someone because of his or her hatred 
     of its African American congregation, section 247 as amended 
     by H.R. 3525 would permit prosecution of the perpetrator.
       H.R. 3525 also amends the definition of ``religious real 
     property'' to include ``fixtures or religious objects 
     contained within a place of religious worship.'' There have 
     been cases involving desecration of torahs inside a 
     synagogue, or desecration of portions of a tabernacle within 
     a place of religious worship. These despicable acts strike at 
     the heart of congregation, and this amendment will ensure 
     that such acts can be prosecuted under section 247.

                   2. Amendment of Penalty Provisions

       H.R. 3525 amends the penalty provisions of section 247 in 
     cases involving the destruction

[[Page S7910]]

     or attempted destruction of a place of worship through the 
     use of fire or an explosive. The purpose of this amendment is 
     to conform the penalty provisions of section 247 with the 
     penalty provisions of the general Federal arson statute, 
     Title 18, United States Code, Section 844(i). Under current 
     law, if a person burns down a place of religious worship 
     (with no injury resulting), and is prosecuted under section 
     247, the maximum possible penalty is 10 years. However, if a 
     person burns down an apartment building, and is prosecuted 
     under the Federal arson statute, the maximum possible penalty 
     is 20 years. H.R. 3525 amends section 247 to conform the 
     penalty provisions with the penalty provisions of section 
     844(i). H.R. 3525 also contains a provision expanding the 
     statute of limitations for prosecutions under section 247 
     from 5 to 7 years. Under current law, the statute of 
     limitations under section 844(i) is 7 years, while the 
     statute of limitations under section 247 is 5 years. This 
     amendment corrects this anomaly.

                            IV. Severability

       It is not necessary for Congress to include a specific 
     severability clause in order to express Congressional intent 
     that if any provision of the Act is held invalid, the 
     remaining provisions are unaffected. S. 1890, as introduced 
     on June 16, 1996 contained a severability clause, while the 
     original version of H.R. 3525 which was introduced in the 
     House did not. While the final version of H.R. 3525, as 
     passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives, does 
     not contain a severability clause, it is the intent of 
     Congress that if any provision of the Act is held invalid, 
     the remaining provisions are unaffected.

                          ____________________