Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I was seated with the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] when this incident occurred, and there was provocation. A high-spirited gentleman from Arizona gets caught up in the heat of the moment, and believe me there was heat. On the other hand, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is essential if we are going to do the transportation bill this evening. He is the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations. Both are reluctant to apologize to each other. I would. Please. I would suggest that both gentlemen, both gentlemen, express regret that this incident happened, and then we can get on with the business of the evening. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hayworth was allowed to speak out of order.) calling for apology and resumption of the business of the house

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I agree with both gentlemen. It would be desirable, but we do have other considerations. I think the expedition with which we pass this sends that same message. It was a unanimous vote in both Chambers, and that speaks loudly, as well as the fact that we are here today to get it passed.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, last Mother's Day, Terry Gnezda Peckham, the wife of Gardner Peckham, an assistant in the Speaker's office, wrote a beautiful and profound paper entitled ``Thoughts on Motherhood.'' Her statement is pure literature and I urge my colleagues to take the time to read it carefully. They will be enriched. Thoughts on Motherhood--Mothers' Day 1996 (By Terry Gnezda Peckham) When Father DeSilva asked me to speak today about motherhood, I was very honored to have the chance to share some of my feelings and experiences with you. I'm sure that I am not alone when I think of motherhood as probably the most treasured experience I will ever have. I'm also sure that all of you can remember, as I do, special moments when you have been overcome by the intensity and the beauty of the love you share with your children. I can vividly remember a beautiful early Summer afternoon two years ago when my daughters were playing in our backyard. School had just ended and the girls seemed so carefree and happy. As I looked out the window that day at my two precious daughters, I thought, life is great! I felt so happy and proud that my husband and I could have given our daughters such a wonderful start in life. They had a nice house in a nice neighborhood, two healthy parents, and a safe, loving, and secure family. On that afternoon I felt so lucky and so overwhelmed with love for my girls, that all the ups and downs of motherhood were replaced with a sense of deep satisfaction and peace. I remember thinking that that was going to be an especially wonderful Summer for us. Three weeks later, everything had changed when I found myself in the hospital confronting the fact that I was seriously ill. My doctors outlined a plan for several months of horrible and debilitating treatment that would end with extremely serious surgery. I was terrified--terrified of the treatment, and terrified of what could happen to me if things didn't go as the doctors had planned. I didn't know how I would find the strength to get through it. But, no matter how uncertain my future was at that point, I knew I had to fight this illness--mostly because of my two girls; they were only 4 and 7 at the time, and we still had so much to share. So, with support from my husband, my family and friends, and with God's help, I was able to find the strength I needed to get through my ordeal. And, thankfully, things went as my doctors had planned, and I'm here--and I expect to be here for a long, long, time. But this experience, as awful as it was, has led me to a deeper understanding of many things, one of which is motherhood. It has also led me to an unquestionable respect for the power of God's love that flows between mothers and their children. Ever since I was a little girl I wanted to be a mother. I used to love to go to Church on Sunday morning and watch all the young mothers with their babies. Sometimes I'd even take one of my dolls with me so that I could pretend that I, too, was a young mother. I couldn't imagine anything more wonderful than to have a house full of children. I dreamed about how much fun it would be to watch them all grow, sharing their interests and their dreams and bringing so much love and excitement to life. I think I played with dolls longer than any of my friends, and I grew up in great anticipation of having children of my own. Well, motherhood has turned out to be much, much more than I could have ever dreamed. I love being a mother and think it's just about the greatest gift that God has ever given me. It's awfully hard to put into words what motherhood is really all about. Sometimes it seems too demanding, too tiring, and too overwhelming to cope with, and other times it is incredibly rewarding, very inspiring, and deeply satisfying. Motherhood pushes us to our limits, physically, emotionally, and often intellectually, as we and our children experience life together. Through motherhood, we face every possible emotion with an intensity that is unparalleled in other aspects of life. When our children are happy, we are overjoyed, and when they're sad we ache inside, often because we feel powerless to take away the pain. This intensity of feeling brings such pride (the kind that makes you well-up inside with tears), it keeps us focused on our responsibilities, and leads us to so much uncertainty (and sometimes guilt) as we wonder if we're doing the right thing as we bring-up our children. For--here is this person who needs parents for everything-- for protection, for love, and for guidance--guidance to learn about the world, to learn about other people, to learn how to behave, and to learn about himself or herself. And here we are, with our husbands, responsible for teaching this person all the things that we think are most important to provide a sound foundation to guide our child's life. One of the most remarkable things that happens as a result of motherhood is that we learn a great deal about ourselves. It is through motherhood that we come closer to an understanding of who we are, and therefore, what God has given us to share with our children. In fact, I think motherhood brings us into the most intimate relationships that we will ever have with other human beings. And at the heart of this intimacy is honesty and love. It's not hard to be honest with our children about what we think, feel, or believe, because most of the time it seems that they can see right through us, or at least they sense when something doesn't seem right. And it's a remarkable thing to be honest with our children about who we are, because it gives us the freedom to enjoy life with them in a wonderful way. With our children, together, we realize that it's O.K. to be spontaneous or silly sometimes. It's good to have fun and laugh. It's also very important to cuddle and hug the people we love, and to trust that there is someone who accepts us as we are, loves us without question, and is always there. But children must also learn that sometimes it's important to be serious, it's normal to be mad or sad, or disappointed, and fear and unhappiness are part of life, too. And as we teach our children all of these realities of life, we must also show them the value of having a deep and enduring faith in God. For it is through God's love and his presence in all of us that we are able to celebrate our joys and endure our pain. With this knowledge, children can trust that they are never alone and that God will help them get through anything that life brings. Together, the intimate relationships with parents, and an enduring faith in God help children to grow into people who accept themselves and others, and feel compassion toward all humanity. So, motherhood is a monumental responsibility, but it is full of love, joy, and countless rewards. In fact, it is God's most important work. And, even though I still dread making brown bag lunches for school every day, dislike the struggle over homework every night, and tire of reminding my girls to brush their teeth before they go to bed, I wouldn't trade those moments for anything, because they're part of it all. And it's when they play together for hours on end singing so happily, or read to each other, cuddling closely on the sofa, or when they marvel at the shapes of the clouds or the colors of the sky--or even when they sit up in the middle of the night, fold their hands and pray that they won't have anymore nightmares--that's when motherhood really feels worthwhile. Or, when we get all those hugs that come out nowhere, or when they look up at us with such trust and love, or when they want to share every last detail of their day, that's also when motherhood feels worthwhile. My girls are still in primary and elementary school, so I know we've got a long way to go together, but I have faith that the love we have for each other will get us through whatever the future brings, and I know that God will be there to help us. And so, even though my girls are a little older now, I often wonder if when they were babies and I took them to Church on Sunday mornings, if maybe, just maybe, there was a little girl who dreamed, as I had so many years ago, about how wonderful it will be to be a mommy. To that little girl and all the other little girls here today, I hope you will keep dreaming, and that someday you, too, will be blessed with the gift of motherhood.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts].

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stockman].

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], the chairman of the District of Columbia Appropriation Subcommittee.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan].

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis].

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today we consider the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996, H.R. 3525, legislation reflecting a bipartisan congressional response to the rash of church burnings that have occurred in recent months. On May 21, the House Judiciary Committee conducted a hearing focusing on this problem. The committee, at that time, heard first hand from Federal and State law enforcement officials regarding the status of their various investigations. In addition, we heard some very compelling and emotional testimony from two black ministers representing affected African-American congregations. During that hearing, the Department of Justice indicated that the principal statute used to prosecute church arson contains some significant defects that need to be remedied. Specifically, section 247 of title 18, damage to religious property, imposes an interstate commerce requirement that goes well beyond constitutional requirements. The current law says that the defendant must either travel in interstate commerce, or use a facility or instrumentality of interstate commerce and that the defendant must do so ``in interstate commerce.'' Thus, for example, it's not enough to use a telephone to help commit the crime--the call must go out of State. Another example would be a circumstance where the defendant uses public transportation to facilitate the crime--it would not be enough if that bus or train traveled interstate, the defendant must have used it in interstate commerce. This highly restrictive and duplicative language has greatly limited the effectiveness of this law. The Justice Department has indicated that in the majority of these cases, the Government is unable to establish the commerce clause predicates required. Consequently, this statute is simply not punishing or deterring the very kind of misconduct it was originally intended to address. Just 2 days after our hearing I introduced H.R. 3525, and was pleased to be joined in this effort by the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, John Conyers. There are now 94 cosponsors of our bill. Today, under suspension of the rules, we will consider a manager's amendment to the bill as reported by the Judiciary Committee. That amendment contains additional provisions intended to assist in compensating the victims of these abhorrent acts. Specifically, this legislation would broaden the jurisdictional authority of the Federal Government to seek criminal penalties in cases of damage to religious real property based upon whether or not the offense is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce. This formulation replaces the interstate commerce requirement of current law, thereby simplifying and enhancing the ability of the Attorney General to successfully prosecure cases under Federal law. The interstate commerce requirement is intended to avoid the problem identified in United States v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995), in which the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional legislation which would have regulated the possession of firearms in a school zone. In that case, the Court found that the conduct to be regulated did not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, and was therefore not within the Federal Government's reach under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. H.R. 3525, by contrast, specifically limits its reach to conduct which can be shown to be in or to affect interstate commerce. Thus, if in prosecuting a particular case, the Government is unable to establish this interstate commerce connection to the act, section 247 will not apply to the offense. The formulation of the interstate commerce nexus in H.R. 3525 is virtually identical to that found in section 844(i) of title 18, the Federal arson statute, which is limited to cover buildings ``used in interstate commerce or in any activity affecting interstate commerce.'' That statute, which was enacted in 1970, has been used to prosecute church arsons, thereby confirming our view that church arsons could be found to be in interstate commerce. See, e.g., United States v. Norton, 700 F.2d 1072 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 910 (1983); United States v. Swapp, 719 F. Supp. 1015 (D. Utah 1989), aff'd 934 F.2d 326 (10th Cir. 1991). In fact, the Supreme Court, in reviewing the legislative history associated with section 844(i), cited an amendment to the provision which was intended to expand coverage from just business property to ``a private dwelling, or a church or other property not used in business.'' Russell v. United States, 471 U.S. 858, 860-862 n.7 (1985). We are making the interstate commerce requirement of section 247 consistent with that of section 844(i) so as to ensure that the Federal Government has equal authority to prosecute damage to religious real property caused by something other than arson. Further, section 247 will permit prosecution of those who would intentionally obstruct any person in the enjoyment of his or her free exercise of religious beliefs. Second, the manager's amendment eliminates the requirement of current law that the damage involved must be of a value of more than $10,000. When introduced, our bill would have reduced that amount to $5,000. In Committee, substitute language was adopted that eliminated the dollar threshold in its entirety. I offered this amendment because I have become convinced that a minimum dollar amount is not necessary to justify Federal involvement in these types of cases. That is, they are clearly hate crimes and implicitly interfere with the first amendment rights or civil rights of the victims. Spray painted swastikas on synagogues or gunshots fired through church windows may not reflect large dollar losses, but they are nevertheless assaults on religious freedom. The manager's amendment also amends section 247 by creating a new subsection (c) which makes it unlawful to damage religious real property because of the racial or ethnic character of persons associated with that property. Current law requires that the damage be caused only because of the religious character of the property. Section 247, as amended by H.R. 3525, will firmly reach any attack of a church that is tied to the racial or ethnic characteristics of the members of the church or house of worship. Because power to enact this subsection is found in the 13th amendment to the Constitution rather than the commerce clause, a showing that the offense is in or affects interstate commerce is not an element of a subsection (c) crime. Section 1 of the 13th amendment prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude. Section 2 of the amendment states, ``Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'' It is pursuant to this authority to enforce the 13th amendment, that Congress may make it a crime for persons to deface, damage, or destroy houses of worship because of the race, color or ethnic origin of persons using the house of worship. The leading Supreme Court case on Congress's authority to reach private conduct under the 13th amendment is Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968). In Jones, Congress reviewed 42 U.S.C. 1982, which provides that, ``All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as in enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.'' The Court in Jones held that 42 U.S.C. 1982 barred private discrimination in the sale or rental of private property, and that Congress had authority under section 2 of the 13th amendment to reach private acts of racial discrimination. ``[T]he fact that section 1982 operates upon the unofficial acts of private individuals, whether or not sanctioned by state law, presents no constitutional problem.'' 392 U.S. at 438. The Court stated that section 2 of the 13th amendment gave Congress ``power to pass all laws necessary and proper for abolishing all badges and incidents of slavery in the United States.'' Id. at 439. The Court concluded in Jones that ``badges and incidents of slavery'' included racial restraints upon the holding of property, and therefore legislation that prohibited discrimination in the right to hold and use property clearly was encompassed within Congress's power to enforce the 13th amendment. Id. at 441. Subsequently, the Supreme court stated, ``[S]urely there has never been any doubt of the power of Congress to impose liability on private persons under Section 2 of [the Thirteenth] Amendment.'' Griffen v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 105 (1971). While 42 U.S.C. 1983 was enacted in 1866, Congress has used its authority to enforce the 13th amendment more recently. The 13th amendment was one authorization on which Congress relied when it enacted the fair housing provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-284, approved April 11, 1968). See discussion in United States v. Hunter, 459 F.2d 205, 214 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 934 (1972); Williams v. Matthews Co., 499 F.2d 819 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1021 (1974). Like 42 U.S.C. 1982, some provisions of the Fair Housing Act prohibit discriminatory private conduct, and Congress in fact enacted both civil and criminal provisions addressing private discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. 3631 making it a crime for anyone, ``whether or not acting under color of law,'' to injure, interfere with, or intimidate anyone because of race, color, national origin, or religion in seeking to secure, or helping others to secure housing. Accordingly, based on Jones versus Mayer, Congress may make it a violation of Federal criminal law to destroy or attempt to destroy a church because it is owned or used by African-Americans. Racially motivated destruction of a church would be no less a badge or incident of slavery than denial of housing based on race. Many of the victims of church arsons have been quoted recently as stating that the fires appeared to them to resurrect the days in which racial discrimination and intimidation was rampant. This legislation easily falls within the kind of private action Congress may reach pursuant to its authority to enforce the 13th amendment to prohibit private conduct that discriminates on the basis of race. While this legislation might be targeted primarily at the recent increase in fires at churches owned by African-Americans, its reach is broad enough to include arsons or acts of violence motivated by bias directed at any racial or ethnic minority group, and at synagogue desecrations as well. In Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604 (1987), the Supreme Court stated that an individual of Arab descent could file a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1981, in which Congress guaranteed to all persons the same right to enter contracts ``as is enjoyed by white citizens.'' Section 1981, like 42 U.S.C. 1982, was enacted pursuant to Congress's authority to implement the 13th amendment. The court in Saint Francis College held that, when sections 1981 and 1982 were enacted in the mid-1800's, the persons who did not qualify as white citizens under the Congress's understanding of that term at the time included ethnic minorities. In Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb, 481 U.S. 615 (1987), decided with Saint Francis College versus Al- Khazraji, the Supreme Court held, under the same analysis, that Jews were encompassed within the protections of 42 U.S.C. 1982. These two cases establish that, in passing legislation to protect churches and houses of worship under its 13th amendment authority, Congress may reach attacks not only on churches owned by African- Americans, but churches owned or used by other minority groups, and synagogues as well. Congress's exercise of its authority to eliminate the badges and incidents of slavery easily supports legislation to make it a crime to deface, damage or destroy a house of worship because of the race, color, or ethnic origin of the person or persons who own or use the building. Finally, the manager's amendment extends eligibility under the Victims of Crime Act to persons who have been killed or suffered personal injury as a result of a crime described in new section 247. The arson of a place of worship is repulsive to us as a society. When a fire is motivated by racial hatred it is even more reprehensible. In my view there is no crime that should be more vigilantly investigated and the perpetrators more vigorously prosecuted than crimes of this type. We are dealing with depraved actions resulting from twisted and bigoted minds. It is important that this Congress move forward on this legislation to ensure that Federal law enforcement has the necessary tools to punish and deter these shameful, vile acts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis]. (Mr. DAVIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Heineman]. (Mr. HEINEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3525) to amend title 18, United States Code, to clarify the Federal jurisdiction over offenses relating to damage to religious property, as amended.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we have had an interesting and good and full debate on this important issue. Burning a church is about as rotten, reprehensible an act as anybody can do, and I hope this law helps in the identification and severe punishment of the perpetrators. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I just cannot let this opportunity pass without paying homage to one of the really great people I have been privileged to meet in a rather long life. Bill Natcher was as close to a perfect legislator as I have ever encountered, a man of impeccable rectitude. He was as straight as he stood, which was with ramrod severity. He was honorable, he was straightforward. You knew where he stood on any issue and every issue. But, most importantly, his contributions, which were many, most importantly they were not that he ran the Committee on Appropriations with an iron hand, but with compassion and a generous hand. He never turned anybody away who needed help, any cause. He was a liberal in the best sense of the term as anybody I have ever met, and yet he kept a very tight ship. But I think his most important and lasting contribution was his defense of the unborn. It was not very popular for him, but he was pro- life, and there are literally millions of children alive today because Bill Natcher would not budge on the issue of Federal funding for abortion. He was a great man, he is a great man, and one bridge is hardly enough, but at least it is a start. God bless you, Bill Natcher.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I surely am not going to take all that time. I have nothing new to add that has not already been said. This is a fine piece of legislation. It will cure or move toward cure of a very serious problem, that of counterfeiting, and so I will ask that my remarks, which are truncated and comprehensive, be included in the Record. But, I do want to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California, Carlos Moorhead, and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Colorado, Mrs. Patricia Schroeder, on her excellent counsel, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, who initiated this legislation. And I think the staff, certainly our staff, Tom Mooney, John Dudas, Mitch Glazier, Joe Wolfe, and Betty Wheeler, all deserve special thanks as well. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 2511, the Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1996. Soon we will consider the renewal of most-favored-nation status for China. This timely legislation highlights one of the growing problems we have with that country: counterfeit goods. The Chinese continue to counterfeit the goods of legitimate American companies at an alarming rate. Just 2 weeks ago, the administration issued a finding that China was not satisfactorily implementing the Agreement on Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights and Market Access, signed in March 1995. In making its finding, the administration said the following: Critical deficiencies are present in China's implementation of measures to address piracy at the production and wholesale distribution level. Piracy remains particularly rampant in Guangdong province. Manufacturers and distributors, primarily located in southern China, continue to produce pirated CD's, LD's, and CD-ROM's in massive quantities. Due to lax enforcement at the point of production and at the border, exports of pirated computer software, movies, sound recordings, and other products have grown substantially over the past year. Products pirated in China have flooded Southeast Asia, Russia, and the other Commonwealth of Independent States [CIS] countries. Latin America and European markets have also been targeted, and the U.S. Customs Service has seized pirated CD's and CD-ROM's entering the United States from China. According to recent newspaper articles, the Chinese may have as many as 31 government-licensed plants turning out pirated CD's and CD-ROM's. To make matters worse, many believe that some or all of these plants are run by the Chinese military or government officials. According to these articles, the International Intellectual Property Alliance, which represents the record and motion picture industry, estimates that in 1995, the United States lost $6.9 billion in exports because of counterfeit movies, records, books, and software. About $2.3 billion were lost to the Chinese. The Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association estimates that its losses from pirated drug patents exceed $3 billion. Millions more are lost to counterfeit auto parts, athletic shoes, and apparel. Unfortunately, the probe is not limited to the Chinese. Organized crime operations sell counterfeit goods as a way to launder the money from their other criminal activities. By doing so, the Chinese, the Mob, and countless other criminals steal billions of dollars' worth of intellectual property that American companies and individuals have developed at great expense. For far too long, we have tended to look upon the counterfeiting of goods as a rather trivial crime. That must stop. The sale of counterfeit goods has numerous serious consequences. First, we must consider who is selling these goods: the Chinese communist government, the Mob, and common criminals. These are not people that Americans want to finance. Second, counterfeit goods amount to nothing more than the theft of intellectual property. If we do not vigorously protect intellectual property, we destroy the incentive to create. Third, counterfeit goods are frequently dangerous, and they can cause serious injury. The current issue of Business Week reports that substandard airplane parts contributed to at least 166 airplane crashes from 1973 to 1993. Last September, the New York Times reported that the FDA has uncovered at least 10 operations in 8 States producing substandard infant formula that has caused sickness in babies using it. Finally, by injuring legitimate American companies, counterfeit goods destroy American jobs. If we want to protect our American jobs, we must stop the importation of the phony compact discs and computer programs that the Chinese would foist upon us. Because of all these serious consequences, I strongly support H.R. 2511. It will give new tools to the legitimate American companies who want to fight off the counterfeiters. It will place counterfeiting activities within the RICO statute, exactly the place where such organized criminal activity belongs. With all of the RICO remedies in hand, law enforcement officials and the private companies will be able to hit the counterfeiters in their pocketbooks. H.R. 2511 will also give the Government new tools when it seizes counterfeit goods at the border. Amazingly, up until now, our law allowed counterfeiters who got caught at the border to re-export the goods to another country. Obviously then, there was little cost to getting caught. H.R. 2511 insures that we will never engage in that simple-minded practice again. Rather, under H.R. 2511, counterfeit goods seized at the border will either be destroyed or, if the legitimate trademark owner consents, given to charity. For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I commend the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, Mr. Moorhead, and the ranking member, Mrs. Schroeder, for their important work in bringing this bipartisan legislation to the floor. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2511.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996,'' legislation which will give Federal authorities the tools necessary to prosecute and bring to justice people who burn, desecrate, or otherwise damage religious property. I am pleased that the Committee's Ranking Member, John Conyers, is joining in sponsoring this bill. The arson of a place of worship is repulsive to us as a society. When the fire is motivated by racial hatred, it is even more reprehensible. There is no crime that should be more vigilantly investigated, and the perpetrators more vigorously prosecuted, than this. Earlier this week, on May 21, 1996, the Committee on the Judiciary held hearings on the very troubling increase in church burnings, and particularly those occurring in the southeastern United States. Since October 1991 there have been 110 incidents of church arson reported to Federal authorities; 33 of these occurred in the first five months of 1996. The victims of these crimes are not confined to a particular religious group--the burnings include synagogues, mosques, and church congregations both African-American and Caucasian. But, of the 51 fires reported since January 1995, more than half involve African-American congregations. Although Federal authorities have been somewhat successful in prosecuting these cases, the Federal statutes which grant jurisdiction over fires and acts of vandalism at houses of worship make it difficult to bring Federal cases if the culprits are acting alone. My bill will eliminate these impediments, thereby giving the Attorney General an effective weapon with which to fight these heinous crimes. The bill amends section 247 of Title 18, United States Code, which makes it a crime to damage religious property or to obstruct persons in the free exercise of religious beliefs, by requiring only that the offense ``is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce.'' In using this formulation, Congress will be granting jurisdiction over all conduct which may be reached under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. The parameters of this jurisdiction are left to the Courts to define, in accordance with Constitutional principles. In addition, the Hyde bill decreases the dollar value of destruction which must occur in order to prosecute a crime under section 247. Current law requires that the loss from the defacement, damage or destruction involved be more than $10,000. This means that when the damage from a fire is minimal, or when hate is expressed, not through fire but through desecration of defacement of houses of worship, 18 U.S.C. 247 is not an available source of jurisdiction. My bill reduces the dollar requirement to $5,000, an amount which will allow Federal prosecution of more cases, while ensuring that the Federal government is not becoming involved in cases that because of their de minimum effect, are best left to State authorities. I dare say that we in Congress are unanimous in our condemnation of those who would express their hatred by destroying or damaging religious property. While we may not be able to legislate this problem away, we can ensure that those who commit these crimes are swiftly and firmly punished. I invite my colleagues to join me in this goal by co- sponsoring the ``Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996.'' Should you wish to do so, or should you need further information, please contact me or Judiciary Committee counsel Diana Schacht, at extension 53951.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the extravagant introduction. Mr. Chairman, I am troubled by this amendment. I do not want to vote for this, because if there is a program that is diminishing the nuclear threat to our country, no matter what other aberrational things that are going on, such as selling submarines to Iran, I think anything that diminishes a nuclear threat to our country ought to be supported. However, I learned that the Russians are modernizing their nuclear capability. ``Russia test-launched new ICBM yesterday. Missile will replace SS-18's destroyed under Nunn-Lugar,'' on and on about how they are modernizing the nuclear capability. How does that diminish the threat to our country? It enhances it. So with one hand we are giving them money to sweep away the old stuff, the garbage, and then free up their own money to develop and modernize a nuclear threat. Support Solomon.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. General Leave

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, one of the least meritorious reasons the President has listed for his veto was that this bill infringed on States' rights. The newly discovered respect for the 10th amendment is heartening but somewhat misplaced. In our mobile society, 80 percent of our manufactured goods are shipped across State lines, and the unpredictability of a patchwork of 50 different sets of laws and liabilities is a major factor prompting this commonsense bipartisan reform. We do not help the consumer when factoring into insurance premiums the uncertainties of compliance with a myriad of different State laws and unpredictability of punitive damage awards. We only add to the cost of the product and render our industries less competitive with foreign companies. Plaintiffs collect less than half of every dollar spent on the civil justice system. The rest goes to lawyers and court costs. One study found the cost of this litigation explosion last year alone was $152 billion, and this is money that could be spent on hiring new workers and investing in new equipment. Tort reform does not deny valid claimants receiving adequate awards. It merely reduces the arbitrary excesses that harm consumers by discouraging many new products from being marketed, medical devices such as heart valve, pacemakers if they utilize silicon. The Washington Post, no conservative house organ, says the primary beneficiaries of our current system are a group of wealthy and powerful professionals. Guess who they are speaking about? The arbitrary potential liability that can be imposed through unrestrained punitive damage forces unjustified settlements, increasing insurance costs, and the public, the consumer, loses in the end. Negligence should be actionable and deserving plaintiffs should recover adequate damages, but it is the arbitrary excesses that make our tort system top heavy and this is what this legislation seeks to reform. Thanks to the veto, the status quo will continue, costing consumers dearly. They will pay more for products or go without them because they will be pulled from the market because of the liability exposure. The junior Senator from West Virginia said it all when he said, and I quote, ``Unfortunately, special interests and raw political considerations in the White House have overridden sound policy judgment.'' Mr. Speaker, the American public wants and deserves reform of our current out-of-control legal system. We need to replace the liability lottery that pervades our courts with sensible procedures. We need a legal system which will fairly compensate injured parties without making defendants pay well beyond their share of the fault, simply because those defendants are perceived to have the deep pocket. It is no mystery to the average citizen that each of us pays for runaway product liability costs in the form of higher prices for the products we buy. Yet in placating the trial lawyers, the President has denied us all the benefits of long overdue tort reform. The sad thing is that the legislation the President has vetoed is a comparatively modest proposal, much narrower in scope than the bill which passed the House of Representatives on March 10, 1995 by a vote of 265 to 161. This conference committee version is strongly supported by groups such as the National Federation of Independent Business, the American Council on Life Insurance, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Health Care Liability Alliance. It also has the aggressive backing of many Members of the President's own party, among them Senator Jay Rockefeller, whom I mentioned before. The bill vetoed by the President contains provisions which would vastly improve the way product liability cases are tried and settled. It properly puts the blame for product liability injury on the manufacturers, not someone who is merely a reseller or someone who supplies component parts to a manufacturer of medical devices. It also provides that if the use of alcohol or illegal drugs is more than 50 percent of the cause of an injury, the manufacturer is not liable. It would reduce the damages for which a defendant is liable by the percentage of responsibility for the harm attributed to the misuse or alteration of the product involved. The President says he objects to the 15-year statute of repose, presumably because it is 5 years shorter than the Senate version. What he does not explain is that the 21 States which have enacted statutes of repose have all chosen limitations of 15 years or less. If we want U.S. manufacturers to be able to compete with foreign manufacturers, many of whom have only recently entered the market and thus bear no exposure for old products, we have to enact uniform, sensible cutoffs on liability. The President also criticizes the specifics of what the bill does to limit a plaintiff's ability to recover damages. Let us not focus on what it does not, or rather, let us focus on what it does not do. It does not change a plaintiff's ability to recover payment for loss of income, medical expenses and other economic damages. While it imposes limitations on the recovery of punitive damages, the conference report version is much more generous to plaintiffs than was the original House-passed bill. Our bill limited punitive damage awards in all civil actions to three times economic damages or $250,000, whichever is greater. The conference report limits punitive damage awards only in product liability cases and the limit is twice economic and noneconomic damages or $250,000, whichever is greater. In a major departure from the philosophy of the House approach, the conference report would permit a judge to exceed these limits under certain circumstances. The conference report also does not place any monetary cap on the amount of damages for pain and suffering and other noneconomic damages that may be recovered. Let us remind ourselves of the consequences of failing to enact reform. This legislation would unleash an American job creation boom, translating into real growth for our economy. It would particularly benefit small business, which has created the vast majority of all new jobs in this country since 1987. The need for this relief for the small business community is shown by the fact that it was the top issue to emerge from the 1986 White House Conference on Small Business. Tort reform and specifically many of the provisions contained in H.R. 956 was once again a high-priority recommendation of the 1995 White House conference. The President's veto can only be viewed as an affront to this important segment of the American economy. Of course it is not a perfect bill, but it is a very good bill. It may not solve all the problems in our legal system, but it would be a workable first step in that direction. It fairly balances the interest of plaintiffs and defendants in product liability cases. We are presented with a unique opportunity to obtain the ends of justice by giving the system certainty and imposing rational limits on damages. Mr. Speaker, after nearly two decades of effort to fashion a comprehensive set of product liability reforms, we have the chance to enact a bipartisan consensus package of bottom-up reforms. These reforms are desperately needed to restore some fairness to our present system and to remove roadblocks to our country's economic growth and job creation. We need to send the message to all Americans that this Congress means what it says in its commitment to broad-based legal reform and about bringing an end to lawsuit abuse. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to override this unwise veto. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.