[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1302-H1314]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                     VICTIM RESTITUTION ACT OF 1995

  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 60 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 60

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 665) to control crime by mandatory victim 
     restitution. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 
     not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the 
     Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. 
     During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman 
     of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 
     of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
     read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and 
 [[Page H1303]] report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the 
House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
one motion to recommit with or without instruction.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. 
Pryce] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 60 is an open rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 665, a bill designed to ensure that criminals pay 
full restitution to their victims for all damages caused as a result of 
the crime committed and to any other persons who are harmed by an 
offender's unlawful conduct.
  This legislation is the first in a series of anticrime measures which 
the House will consider this week. It is only fitting that the first 
bill, the one dealing most directly with the casualties of crime, the 
victims themselves, be considered under an open, wide open, rule, 
because each and every Member here brings to this debate a unique and 
personal perspective on this issue.
  For, tragically, crime is so pervasive that no citizen escapes its 
reach.
  This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, and makes in order the Committee on the 
Judiciary amendment in the nature of a substitute as the original bill 
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions. Under this rule, the Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole may give priority and recognition to Members who have printed 
their amendments in the Congressional Record.
  Let me just emphasize once again to my colleagues that preprinting of 
amendments is not mandatory. It is purely optional. Members who have 
not published their amendments will still be permitted to offer them at 
the appropriate time.
  The majority on the Committee on Rules continues to encourage Members 
to exercise this option in the future not only to receive priority 
status but also to inform our colleagues in advance of the number and 
type of amendments they are likely to be offering.

                              {time}  1250

  Mr. Speaker, throughout my years as a judge and prosecutor, I worked 
closely with victims of crime, and was very often moved by their 
plight. These individuals and their families did not ask to be victims, 
yet after experiencing crime firsthand, they bravely embarked on the 
process of trying to recover from unexpected, unwanted, and totally 
undeserved trauma.
  The committee report accompanying H.R. 665 includes some very 
sobering statistics. For example, according to the Bureau of Justice 
Statistics, from 1973 to 1991, more than 36 million people in the 
United States were injured as a result of violent crime. In 1991 alone, 
crime resulted in an estimated $19.1 billion in losses. Clearly, there 
are tremendous costs associated with crime--emotional, physical, and 
financial--all of which must be borne by individuals, families, and 
ultimately, by this Nation.
  After years of elevating the rights and needs of criminals, the 
American public is beginning to recognize that crime victims have very 
real needs as well. Their voices are finally being given a meaningful 
role in the public policy process, helping them turn their personal 
anguish into positive action. Despite this progress, crime victims' 
rights are still often overlooked, and additional
 reforms are needed to bring some balance into an often one-sided 
process. One of those reforms is the right to adequate restitution from 
the perpetrator for losses incurred as a result of the crime itself.

  That is the purpose of H.R. 665--to mandate that restitution be 
awarded by the court in Federal proceedings, and that it also be 
considered for persons other than the victim who may have been harmed 
by the criminal's unlawful acts.
  Although this legislation cannot erase the victims' suffering, it is 
an important step toward securing justice and ensuring greater 
accountability on the part of criminals themselves. H.R. 665, would 
require criminals to come face-to-face with the harm suffered by their 
victims and also just as important provide the victim with some small 
sense of satisfaction that the system addresses their needs as well.
  Only one amendment was offered during the Judiciary Committee's 
markup of H.R. 665, and it was accepted by voice vote. The bill itself 
was reported favorably, as was this rule. Should there be any remaining 
concerns about the legislation, this open rule would give the House 
ample opportunity to discuss them.
  Mr. Speaker, crime victims do not ask for our pity and do not ask for 
our sympathy. They simply ask to be treated with the respect and 
compassion their circumstances deserve. I strongly support the Victim 
Restitution Act of 1995, and urge adoption of this very open rule so 
that we may continue the spirit of openness and deliberation that is 
needed in the people's House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague, 
the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce], as well as my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle for bringing this resolution to the floor. 
House Resolution 60 is essentially an open rule which will allow full 
and fair debate on the important issue of victims restitution. Under 
this rule, germane amendments will be allowed under the 5-minute rule, 
the normal amending process in the House of Representatives. I am 
pleased that the Rules Committee was able to report this rule without 
opposition and I plan to support it.
  Although this rule is open it does include a provision allowing the 
Chair to give priority recognition to Members who have preprinted their 
amendments in the Congressional Record. This is unnecessary to the rule 
and sometimes confuses Members who are not sure whether the printing 
requirement is mandatory.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 60 allows the House to consider a very 
important piece of legislation, H.R. 665, the Victim Restitution Act. 
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 1973 to 1991, 36.6 
million people in the United States were injured as a result of violent 
crime. In 1992, there were nearly 34 million victims of crime 
nationally. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that criminals pay 
full restitution to their victims for all damages caused as a result of 
a crime.
  Since crimes against people and households have resulted in an 
estimated $19.1 billion in losses in 1991 alone, it is only fair that 
restitution be ordered. By requiring full financial restitution, the 
act requires an offender to face the victims of his crime, and the 
victims to receive some compensation for their emotional and physical 
harm resulting from the crime. I understand this bill does have 
bipartisan support and major amendments are not expected. I sincerely 
hope we will continue to see open rules on the more controversial crime 
bills coming down the pike as well.
  As I indicated before, I support this open rule and I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the 
very distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], our very able 
chairman of the Subcommittee on the Legislative Process of the 
Committee on Rules.
  [[Page H1304]] (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Columbus, OH, 
Judge Pryce, for yielding this time to me and would like to say how 
happy we are to have her as a member of the Committee on Rules. It is 
already making a difference, as you have just heard.
  Mr. Speaker, what a difference 7 months makes as well. Last August 
this House spent countless hours in an effort to pass a crime bill 
conference report that I do not think anybody was enthusiastic about. 
After keeping Members in town for an extra week and a half of sweet 
persuasion, as I think Speaker Foley used to call it--some others of us 
would call it arm-twisting--the Democratic leadership was able to eke 
out a very small majority to pass out the rule and the bill.
  I had the privilege of managing the crime bill rules for the minority 
last August, and two things about that debate really stand out in my 
mind. The speech by Minority Leader Bob Michel preceding the original 
vote on the crime bill, I think, can now be seen as the turning point 
in 40 years of congressional history and, in some ways, the start of 
the 104th Congress.
  An energized Republican minority at that time joined by dissatisfied 
Democrats defeated the rule, actually defeated the rule, signalling the 
beginning of the end, I think, for the old order. Republicans won a 
hard-fought battle for a seat at the bargaining table because of that 
vote, primarily, and many saw for the first time a light at the end of 
the permanent minority status tunnel that we were in.
  However, despite that long bipartisan negotiation that followed, I 
think most Members of the House were under-whelmed by the 
final crime bill product, and so here we are today.
  Our Members on this side in fact did make a promise then, we promised 
to revisit the crime bill and to address its many shortcomings if we 
were put in the majority. The American people listened, and we are here 
today as the majority. A short 7 months later, just over a month into 
the 104th Congress, we are fulfilling that promise. And we are doing so 
under an open rule.
  Let us not forget that the original rules, there were several of them 
for consideration of last year's omnibus crime bill, were some of the 
most creative, I think you can read contrived for that, that we have 
seen, including special provisions to report and consider a rule on the 
same day, a multitude of waivers, including waivers for not having a 
report on the bill, a report on the bill, and for dispensing with the 
normal 3-day layover. In other words, Members did not necessarily know 
what was in the bill. And a closed amendment process that picked and 
chose among the scores of amendments that were actually filed. What a 
difference 7 months make, and what a difference a new majority makes. 
Today we have an open rule, as promised, to proceed under.
  So I cheerfully urge my colleagues to support the rule and the bill. 
It is worth your vote.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the ranking member of the Committee 
on Rules.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding this time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, like the other Democratic members of the Committee on 
Rules, I am very glad the bill is being brought up under an open rule, 
but I must say that I think it could just as easily have been brought 
up under suspension of the rules, especially given the great hurry to 
finish the Contract With America within 100 days.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no controversy at all around this bill. It had 
one amendment in committee that passed by voice vote. The bill itself 
passed the committee on the Judiciary by a voice vote. The majority 
could have just as easily put this under the suspension calendar, and I 
do not know why they did not, unless they want to show all the open 
rules that they have amassed over the year.

                              {time}  1300

  Yesterday, in the Committee on Rules, the chairman of the Committee 
on the Judiciary said this bill was noncontroversial. So, an open rule 
for the bill is a good step, but not exactly a courageous one.
  Mr. Speaker, what concerns me is what may happen when we get the more 
controversial parts of the crime bill to the floor. Last week the 
majority brought up three bills under open rules that passed last 
session under suspension. Well, I say to my colleagues, ``You know, 
it's one thing to have a definition of what an open rule or closed rule 
is, and it's one to use open rules when you can and suspensions when 
you can, and especially when the chairman keeps prodding people, `Hurry 
up, hurry up, we have only got a hundred days, and Ronald Reagan's 
birthday,' and so on, an I'm just afraid it might be somebody else's 
birthday Sunday and we might not even be able to go home.''
  But today my Republican colleagues are bringing up a bill that has 
few, if any, amendments under an open rule, but it looks like tomorrow 
or the next day they will bring up bills that do have amendments under 
a closed rule. In other words:
  ``You can have an open rule, if it doesn't look like you're going to 
use it.''
  Mr. Speaker, let us continue this trend of open rules on crime bills, 
whether Members have amendments or not.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from upstate New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Where it is about 30 below zero without the wind chill 
factor right now.
  It just bothers me that here we are trying to be as open, and fair 
and accountable as we possibly can. I just want to inform the gentleman 
that we are right now entertaining a suggestion from his minority 
leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], and other Democrat 
leaders on trying to do exactly what the gentleman is complaining 
about.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The time of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has expired.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional minute to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I ask, ``Why doesn't he yield him such time 
as he might consume?''
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I say to the gentleman, ``Mr. Solomon, we know you're 
all-powerful, but please let Mr. Hall do what he wants to do.''
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Well, as I was saying, the Democrat minority would like 
to bring up on the floor, as early as maybe even this afternoon or 
tomorrow morning, the habeas corpus or the death penalty bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Under an open rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. We are trying to accommodate our colleagues; with no 
rule at all by unanimous consent, so the gentleman ought to, as my 
colleagues know, be cooperative. We are going to consult.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I will be very cooperative. All I want to do is show the 
rules, the definition of the rules, that we worked when I was chairman 
and the definition of the rules that the gentleman is working as the 
chairman. Last week, Mr. Speaker, we put three bills on open rules, 
when under my chairmanship they went through the Suspension Calendar.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I do not want to belabor the point.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier].
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. 
Pryce] for yielding and would like to congratulate her on her superb 
management of this bill, and I would simply respond to the former 
chairman, the now distinguished minority ranking Member's position on 
suspensions versus open rules, and we need to recognize, Mr. Speaker, 
that under the suspension provisions amendments are not allowed, and 
the main reason that we have proceeded with this open amendment process 
is that we allow Members to have a chance to offer amendments, whereas 
in the past open rules were granted when there were virtually no 
amendments that were even being considered at all, and so our 
 [[Page H1305]] goal here is to allow Members that opportunity.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Well, there were no amendments offered in committee on 
the ones that went through suspension last year, and there was one 
amendment that was accepted by voice vote in the Committee on the 
Judiciary, and then after that was accepted, the entire bill was 
accepted on voice vote.
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, under the open amendment 
process we did not announce here on the floor for Members to come 
upstairs, the reason being that we planned to have a completely open 
process. Two amendments were filed with the Record here, so there were 
amendments the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] offered, and we, in 
fact, have wanted to have free and fair debate and an open process.
  We are not simply trying to run up the number of open rules we have, 
which tragically was the case in the 103d Congress, and so the 
Suspension Calendar actually does restrict Members from having the 
opportunity to participate----
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman, would you and Mr. 
Solomon go back over the Record a couple of years, and take all the 
bills that we put under suspension, and make----
  Mr. DREIER. Absolutely not because it is a completely different 
structure.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. It is a completely different regime.
  Mr. DREIER. That is true, too.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, can there by any doubt in the America of 
today that crime, that lawlessness, that violence that is afflicting 
our families and their homes and their businesses on streets and 
highways across this country is a No. 1 concern?
  Indeed at the very moment of this debate, Mr. Speaker, there are 
honest, hard-working Americans who are out there being subject to 
violence to their life, to destruction of their property, from those 
who are lawless, who are the target of this legislation, and yet one 
would think that, knowing the enormity of this problem, our Republican 
colleagues, who have a commanding majority, would be here structuring a 
debate so that we could have an open and free-flowing discussion of the 
most effective way to fight crime in this country.
  That is not occurring here.
  In fact, the underlying agenda of what is occurring here today is not 
open and free-flowing debate. Rather it is the attempt to split, and to 
split asunder, the first truly comprehensive smart crime fighting 
measure that this Congress enacted within less than 9 months. That bill 
is not presented to us today in whole. It is split into itty-bitty 
parts.
  And where do we begin in that debate? Do we begin up front in trying 
to prevent crime? Do we begin with the law enforcement officers, all of 
whom, all of the major law enforcement organizations, back this smart 
crime bill; do we begin with them? No, we begin at the tail end.
  I can tell my colleagues that this debate is a classic case of the 
tail wagging the dog, and, as a fellow named Doggett, I am an expert on 
that subject. I can tell my colleagues, ``When you begin at the tail 
end of crime instead of dealing with the dog, instead of dealing with 
the police, and with the crime fighting, and with the crime prevention, 
you begin at the wrong end.''
  So what do we find ourselves doing in this great building at a time 
that Americans are dying, at a time that Americans are having their 
property stolen? We are here talking about a bill that everybody agrees 
on, that there should be restitution. Of course there should be 
restitution.
  As a State senator, I sponsored crime victims compensation 
strengthening amendments to ensure that criminals in our State of Texas 
did some restitution and did some repayment to victims. But, by golly, 
do my colleagues know a victim anywhere in this country who would not 
rather have the crime prevented? Who would not rather have the law 
enforcement officer there on the beat in the community instead of 
getting restitution?
  Our Republican colleagues bring us a bill to fight crime that we 
agree with, and why do they do it this way, under this great open rule? 
Well, I will tell my colleagues why. Because somewhere among the 
splintered bills of this great crime bill that was passed by the last 
session of Congress, right at the tail end of the presentation is the 
measure concerning our police, concerning crime prevention.
  Why is it that the police always have to come in last? Why is it that 
the crime prevention has to come in last? Because the Republican 
majority that claims to be against crime has structured a debate that 
does not allow for a free-flowing discussion of whether we ought to end 
the commitment to a hundred thousand police on American streets, end 
the Federal commitment to effective local crime prevention programs, 
and take all that money that the police would have gotten that have 
added 25 new police to my hometown in Austin, who are being trained 
right now, take that money and pour it into concrete, pour it into 
steel bars, and somehow think we can build prisons fast enough to house 
all these violent criminals if we do not do a better job of preventing 
crime in the first place.

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. Speaker, it is essential that in the course of this debate we 
recognize that if all that is accomplished out of these splintered 
bills is to take money away from our policemen, many of whom are here 
today as I speak covering a press conference defending the crime bill 
that was passed last week, if we take that money away from our law 
enforcement officers, that thin blue line that protects American 
communities, if we take away that commitment and if we destroy a 
Federal commitment to an effective local crime prevention program, 
which is exactly what this series of bills does, if we take all that 
money and we pour it into concrete and we pour it into steel bars and 
we pour it into boondoggles, Mr. Speaker, there is no way we can build 
fast enough to replace what we have destroyed.
  I support this victims restitution bill. I do not know of anyone who 
does not support it. But, by golly, we need to be on the side of our 
law enforcement officers. We need to keep adding more law enforcement 
officers and more prevention and then take care of restitution.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to one 
of our new colleagues, the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Foley]. The gentleman from Florida has already proven to be a very 
active and very effective Member of the House of Representatives, and 
we are very pleased to have him with us.
  (Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio and, of 
course, my good friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] for 
their leadership on the crime bill.
  This is the Victim Restitution Act. ``Victim''--let us say that word 
repeatedly--``victim.'' This is not about hurting the police officers. 
We want to help them, but we cannot help them unless we make the 
victims whole from their tragedies. Let me tell the Members about a 
personal experience I had.
  My home was broken into. The perpetrator of the crime was a juvenile. 
He had been arrested 17 times. Each time the parents came into the 
courtroom and said, ``Your Honor, we're trying. He's really a nice 
young man. We're doing our best.''
  Each time the judges would say, ``O.K., go home. Probation.''
  When my home was robbed, the judge looked at the family when the 
parents started that same pablum about ``My good child,'' and said, 
``You know, you must be proud of your son. Who wouldn't be proud of a 
child that had been arrested 17 times? I'll make a deal for you. Mr. 
Foley has lost 3,000 dollars' worth of valuable possessions from his 
home. If you're not in the courtroom, parent, at noontime tomorrow with 
a check made payable to the Clerk of Courts for $3,000, I will put in 
 [[Page H1306]] an arrest warrant for you and your son and you'll stay 
in jail until you decide who is going to be the boss of the family.''
  With that the father hit the kid in the head and said, ``Look what 
you got me into.''
  It took money out of the parents' pockets to recognize that they are 
responsible for their children.
  Let me tell the Members another story that happened in my district. 
Joe Dubeck, a young man in my district, was stabbed in the chest. After 
nearly dying on the way to the hospital, he was rushed into intensive 
care. While he was laying on the gurney, the assailant was bailed out 
with $3,000. Three thousand dollars, and he is out of jail. Joe Dubeck 
spent weeks in recovery, and thankfully, he is seeking recovery, and I 
am happy to say that he is now back with his wife and children. While 
he continues that recovery, however, his small business that he was 
building is undergoing serious challenges.
  For far too long we have forgotten the innocent victims of crime. 
This House resolution and H.R. 665 are going to help prevent that. The 
bill restores common sense in the criminal justice system by holding 
criminals responsible for their actions.
  I rise in support of this bill because of the Dubeck family and the 
many young families like them that have had to watch from the sidelines 
as our system coddles the villains and ignores those who abide by the 
laws of this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill to get tough 
on the criminals, to support law enforcement officers who want this 
bill to pass because they are tired of arresting criminals who are 
released before their report ink is dry. They want this bill to pass 
because it will help them do their jobs to protect the members of their 
communities.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield 
back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). Pursuant to House Resolution 60 
and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 665.

                              {time}  1312


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 665) to control crime by mandatory victim restitution, with Mr. 
Riggs in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Conyers] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, to explain this victims restitution bill, 
I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the full 
Committee on the Judiciary, the honorable gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hyde].
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, the 1994 Omnibus Crime Control Act was not so 
omnibus. It did nothing for the victims of crime.
  This bill remembers that crime has victims; this bill remembers that 
the victims for too long have been forgotten in the sentencing process; 
this bill remembers that the victims for too long have been without 
standing to address and advise sentencing judges of the economic harms 
visited upon them through the criminal actions of the offender.
  This bill directs Federal judges to impose upon convicted defendants 
restitution orders to pay back their victims for the harm caused by 
virtue of their criminal activity. No longer will the defendant's 
financial situation take precedence over his victim's. Instead, 
consideration for the victim is a primary consideration in the 
sentencing process, just where it belongs. Today criminals know that 
crime pays. Now it will pay the victims. Defendants are financially 
responsible for physical, emotional, or monetary harm. Victims can be 
reimbursed for child care, transportation, and other reasonable 
expenses related to their participation in the prosecution of the 
offense.
  The court under this legislation must consider the victim's financial 
circumstances when determining the manner and method of payment or 
restitution. The victim will be paid either a lump sum, in interval 
payments, or in kind. In-kind payments include return of the victim's 
property and replacement of the property or services rendered. The bill 
guarantees that the victim of criminal activity will not be overlooked 
at any point in the criminal justice proceedings.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a restitution bill with teeth.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this may have been a bill that could have 
been a candidate for the Suspension Calendar, but I think it will move 
rapidly through the House under the procedure that now exists.
  I rise in support of the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act of 1995. It 
is a good measure which has the broad support of Members on both sides 
of the aisle. In essence, the bill changes the current law which gives 
Federal judges the discretion to order restitution.
                              {time}  1320

  Now under H.R. 665, judges would be compelled to order convicted 
offenders to pay restitution to their victims. It is clear to me that 
this provision draws upon the 1994 crime bill enacted into law which 
created a similar provision to enable women who had been victims of 
violence to recover damages from their attackers, another good measure 
that we all supported.
  An innovative aspect of this legislation is the provision that 
restitution may also be ordered for any other person, that is, one who 
is not a victim, who has yet suffered physical, emotional, or monetary 
injury from the criminal act or conspiracy or pattern of unlawful 
activity.
  For instance, in drug dealing and racketeering cases there are 
thousands of victims who now have a chance of meaningful economic 
recovery for the damages inflicted upon their communities. In 
neighborhoods where crack houses now spread destruction among young 
people and where businesses are afraid to operate, it is not enough to 
arrest of few low-level drug dealers who can easily be replaced.
  Now, after a conviction, when the trial moves to the damages stage, 
all the victims will now be empowered to rise in unity against the 
hugely profitable drug dealers to seek restitution for their injuries.
  But let us be candid: This provision should be a useful tool in white 
collar prosecutions as well. It is needed to combat environmental 
pollution by requiring corporate defendants who have been convicted of 
toxic discharges to pay homeowners whose property has been damaged or 
who have suffered emotional injury. It is needed to pay restitution to 
victims of price fixing or securities violations or for those who are 
victims of criminally negligent actions of manufacturers.
  Of course, in many cases involving poor defendants, the chances of a 
victim recovering any restitution at all are about as good as getting 
blood from a turnip. In fact, only 18 percent of the current Federal 
defendants are under a restitution order, suggesting that this may be 
an impracticable idea in many ways.
  However, given the broad possibilities of helping reduce fear in 
neighborhoods and holding corporate criminals accountable for their 
actions, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  [[Page H1307]] Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have introduced H.R. 665, the Victim 
Restitution Act of 1995, and to speak in favor of its passage today. It 
is very fitting that we begin our floor consideration of crime 
legislation in the 104th Congress with a bill about victims. Perhaps no 
group has been more forgotten in our criminal judicial process than the 
victims of crime. Too often they are denied justice, but even more they 
must endure their losses without compensation.
  Under current law Federal judges are merely authorized to order 
offenders to make restitution to their victims. While the restitution 
may be ordered in addition to any other penalty if the crime is a 
felony, it can only be ordered in lieu of any other penalty if the 
crime is a misdemeanor. There is no provision for restitution to be 
paid to anyone other than the immediate victim of the crime.
  Under H.R. 665, however, Federal judges would now be required to 
order criminals to make restitution to their victims. The bill also 
would give the court the discretion to order the offender to make 
restitution to persons other than the victim, but who have also been 
harmed by the offender's unlawful conduct.
  Specifically, H.R. 665 would ensure that offenders make restitution 
to their victims by mandating that restitution be paid to victims of 
crime, in addition to any other penalty authorized by law. Judges would 
be able to substitute restitution for other penalties only in the case 
of misdemeanor crimes. The bill would also help to ensure that all 
persons harmed by an offender's unlawful conduct receive restitution by
 giving judges the discretion to award restitution to all persons 
harmed by the offender's conduct, regardless of whether that harm was 
physical, emotional, or financial.

  The bill would ensure that restitution is paid in full by requiring 
that restitution orders be calculated without regard to the offender's 
ability to pay or the fact that the victim has received or is entitled 
to receive compensation from some other source. But the bill does allow 
the judge to consider the offender's finances and assets, projected 
earnings, and other financial obligations when deciding how to schedule 
the offender's payments of the restitution actually awarded.
  The bill's provisions ensure fairness by limiting the victim to one 
recovery through a provision which requires that the restitution award 
be set off from any damages that the victim may recover against the 
offender in a civil action relating to the crime. The bill also 
provides that insurers which pay compensation to victims will be 
entitled to receive the restitution payments once the victim is made 
whole.
  The bill's provisions have teeth, so that offenders will comply with 
restitution orders. The bill provides that if the offender fails to 
live up to the terms of the restitution order, the court may revoke any 
probation or supervised release granted to the offender, hold the 
offender in contempt of court, enter a restraining order or injunction, 
or take any other action necessary to force the offender to comply with 
the restitution order. The bill also allows the Government and the 
offender to enforce the order as a civil judgment in Federal court.
  The bill ensures that judges will have maximum flexibility in 
awarding restitution. Under the bill, judges may award restitution in 
the form of money payments or in-kind restitution such as the return of 
property, replacement of property, or services to be rendered to the 
victim or even to a person or organization other than the victim. It 
also allows both victims and offenders to petition the court to modify 
the restitution order if the offender's economic circumstances change 
at a later date.
  I might make sure at this point, Mr. Chairman, that everybody is 
clear that this bill covers not only violent crimes that most people 
think of when they think of crimes, but whatever white-collar crimes 
you might conceive of, including Federal crimes involving fraud. Mail 
fraud in particular, I would point out, would be covered by this. If 
some elderly person in my home State of Florida were to be defrauded in 
the process of some hooligan coming through with mail fraud or some 
other Federal fraud crime, that certainly is covered. It also would 
cover any kind of situation involving a securities fraud or securities 
scam or any other crime of a Federal nature involving a pecuniary loss 
to an individual as well as those kinds of crimes involving physical 
harm, as has been pointed out in this previous discussion.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the 
subcommittee for making that clarification, because we raised this 
briefly in the full committee, and also in my remarks. So we are 
talking about the fact that corporate defendants and white collar 
criminals would all be caught under this, as well as those who commit 
street crime.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. They will be caught under this bill. Restitution would 
apply to all types of Federal crimes as far as the injuries are 
concerned. It is very clear we are talking about pecuniary as well as 
injuries to the person.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman, and thank him for 
that further detailed explanation.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would also point 
out that as we look through this restitution provision, you will note 
that there are other victims who might be not considered normally a 
victim who are going to get some kind of compensation. For example, let 
us assume that you have a single mother, a single parent, who is going 
to come to court to testify against a criminal defendant. That person 
may not be the victim in the sense of having been the person who was 
harmed, but perhaps she witnessed the activity, and she has to leave 
her child with a child care sitter or somebody to care for that child 
and has to pay those costs.
  Under this restitution bill, the court could order that the accused, 
who then becomes the convicted person once he is convicted of the 
crime, the judge could order him to pay restitution to this witness, 
the mother, who had to pay the child care fees and so on.
  So it is a very broad restitution bill. It leaves a lot of discretion 
to the judge, but it mandates that he compensate, at least through the 
order of restitution, the actual victim of the crime.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Oxley], who authored, I believe, the first one of these restitution 
proposals several years ago, and it is finally coming to fruition.
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to first commend the Committee on the 
Judiciary for bringing this crime victims restitution bill to the floor 
today. It is not I think an accident that this is the first of several 
crime bills in which the new majority attempts to rewrite the crime 
bill of 1994. I applaud them for their efforts and for their foresight.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. Chairman, I obviously rise in support of H.R. 665, the Victim 
Restitution Act.
  This has been a long time coming for this Member. Five years ago, in 
the 101st Congress, I introduced the first mandatory victims' 
restitution bill into the Congress. Then minority leader, Bob Michel, 
and I offered an amendment to the 1990 crime bill on the floor of the 
House, and with Bob Michel's strong support, we passed that crime 
victims' restitution bill on a voice vote.
  Our good friend and colleague in the other body, Senator Don Nickles 
from Oklahoma, introduced a similar bill that was passed in the Senate, 
so we had a crime victims' restitution bill that had passed in the 
House, in the 101st Congress, passed in the Senate, and then somehow 
disappeared from the conference committee report. Lo and behold, that 
was to set the pattern for crime victims' restitution bills during the 
last 5 years.
  I think that is unfortunate, because this bill is essentially based 
on personal responsibility, saying to the bad guy, ``Look, not only do 
you have to 
 [[Page H1308]] face jail and fines, but you also have to try to make 
that victim whole. That is, as a personal responsibility, you have 
violated not only the law of the land but you have violated some other 
individual or group of individuals and, therefore, you should have to 
be required to make that person whole.''
  That is really what this provision is all about. So we fought and 
fought. Last year in the 1994 crime bill, same old stuff, introduced a 
bill, had 150 some cosponsors, bipartisan in nature. Went to the 
Committee on Rules and asked that the amendment be made in order. Guess 
what? The Committee on Rules, about midnight, essentially stiffed us 
one more time. We were not able to bring up crime victims' restitution, 
even though I had, again, the strong support of Bob Michel, and though 
he is no longer with us and has retired, I am sure that this is a proud 
day for him as we finally see this legislation on the floor and 
ultimately going to be enacted into law.
  This bill holds support for victims. It holds an offender accountable 
for his actions and strengthens some of his personal responsibilities, 
something that we have too little of today, society. I am just excited 
about the prospects for this bill.
  Let me say also to my friend from Florida, who has shown great 
leadership on this issue, that all of the crime victims' restitution 
organizations, the crime victims' groups that are all over the country, 
and I know he has some in his district, I have got some in my district, 
all of them for numerous years, at least 5 years since I have been 
involved in this project, have strongly endorsed mandatory crime 
victims' restitution. I think we owe it to those folks who have worked 
long and hard for this day to pass this legislation. I commend it to my 
colleagues.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. Jackson-Lee asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Victim 
Restitution Act of 1995. Let me add that none of us clearly can imagine 
or walk in the shoes, the footsteps, in the footprints of victims.
  Clearly I believe that what we have done in a really bipartisan 
manner is to be able to say to the more than 36 million victims in this 
Nation that this House will stand with you. Many times victims have 
approached some of the systems that have been put together by States 
which in good faith have offered victims restitution. They have not 
been mandatory. They have not been required. Some victims have been 
confused as to how they access this compensation.
  It is also important to note, as I stand here, that coming from the 
18th congressional district in the State of Texas, that importantly 
victims come in all shapes and sizes, all races, male and female, 
children, families. We come now under this particular act to be able to 
say to these individuals that ``we will now stand for you and with you. 
Restitution is not only offered but it is required. And we will not 
treat you like another litigant in the courtroom, asking you to show 
what other compensation you have received. But we will say to you that 
regardless of insurance and other sources, it is important for the 
person who did the crime, and was convicted to show the victim the 
deference and the respect of restitution for the emotional, financial 
and other kinds of loss that you have received.''
  I think that we are truly going in the right direction. This 
legislation gives the court the discretion to provide restitution to 
someone who is not just the crime victim, who in some manner has been 
harmed physically, emotionally, or financially by the criminal's acts. 
That speaks to some very tragic situations that have occurred in my 
district in Texas, where a grandmother now is taking care of the 
children of her deceased daughter, a loving daughter who stood by her 
children, who simply was going to the grocery store in order to provide 
them with the necessities of life and never, never came home.
  Now we have that grandmother who is left to care and love and nurture 
those children. Oh, she does it in good spirit and love. She does it 
with enthusiasm. But yet she does it with great need, need for support, 
need for restitution from that particular criminal or that person who 
was the offender.
  I think we are starting in the right place. And I think the place 
where we are starting is a bipartisan place, which offers to the 
American people a commitment to the victims of crime.
  We should go further, of course, as we proceed with this bill. We 
certainly should look at prevention. We should look at expanded cops on 
the streets. All of those are parts of the aspects of making sure that 
we face crime in an intelligent manner, but a compassionate manner.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Victim Restitution Act of 1995, 
because I know the victims in my community. I know the police in my 
community who have come to me to share in these many stories. As a 
lawyer, I have seen individuals, as victims, who have had various 
situations that have required assistance.
  So I simply say that it is important that we stand for the victims 
and support the Victim Restitution Act of 1995.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Schumer], the distinguished ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Crime, of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the 
former chairman that subcommittee.
                              {time}  1340

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Conyers], not only for the time but for his leadership on this 
important issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to make three points. The last one will be 
about the bill. I would like to talk about two other things first.
  First is the timing of the whole six crime bills. I would say to my 
colleagues--and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], who in all 
the years I have worked with him, including his brief tenure as 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, he has been very fair--that today we only have one or 
possibly two bills on the floor.
  I know that the majority leader and others are saying we have to meet 
certain deadlines on the crime bill and on the contract. There is a 
great deal to debate on the last three bills, the exclusionary rule, 
the prisons bill, and the police prevention bill.
  What we had urged, Mr. Chairman, through our leadership, and I know 
they met with the Speaker this morning and late last week, was that we 
hurry up, we do these bills together, and give us more time Thursday, 
Friday, Monday, and Tuesday for exclusionary rule, prisons, and 
prevention. To just do this restitution bill, which is not 
controversial in the least and has broad bipartisan support, and then 
not do anything else today, and then rush us in on Monday and Tuesday 
to do both habeas and prevention would not make much sense.
  I would just make that point: Mr. Chairman, let us use that time 
today.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman may not be aware, but when 
this restitution bill is finished, and I do not believe it is going to 
take much time, we are going to move right into the exclusionary rule 
bill. We should complete that today.
  In addition to that, as the gentleman may be aware from discussions 
yesterday, there are ongoing discussions with the ranking member of the 
gentleman's full committee in an effort to bring up some of these bills 
earlier, which we are more than happy to do if we can waive some of the 
technicalities involved in it.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I think that is a very 
worthwhile thing, to do the exclusionary rule today. That makes a good 
deal of sense. That was the main urgency I had. I would not have wanted 
to adjourn at 3 o'clock and be told we did not have time to debate.
  The second point I would make is on a different point. It is on the 
general crime bills themselves; that is, what the American people want 
is this: They want us to do something real about crime.
  [[Page H1309]] They knew that we did something real last year. The 
tough on punishment, smart on prevention, hundred thousand cops formula 
had broad and wide public support from one end of America to the other. 
There may have been minor imperfections in those bills, most of which 
were cleared up by the time the bill reached the President's desk, but 
the basic concept was there.
  Mr. Chairman, I am virtually certain--I have seen polling data, I 
have talked to people in law enforcement and everywhere else--that the 
American people do not want to rip up that bill and start all over. 
They certainly do not want to just make a few quick and rather cheap 
political points to say, ``We had a better one than you had.'' They 
want us to work together on crime.
  This bill, Mr. Chairman, that we are talking about is just what it is 
all about. If the new majority wants to build on our old crime bill, 
fine. Everything can be improved. That is what is happening in 
restitution. The very restitution measures that were in the Violence 
Against Women Act, this bill expands to all other victims. Good idea. 
It does not destroy what we did before; it builds on it.
  However, I must say much of the rest of the bill, particularly on the 
police and the prevention side, as well as on the prisons, goes back. 
To rip up those bills and start all over does not make any sense to 
anyone in America, and it seems to me that we are making a big mistake.
  Therefore, I would use this bill, the restitution bill, as a model of 
what we should do, working together, building on what was done last 
year, which was at least in the field of crime, quite epochal. It was 
the first time the Federal Government got involved.
  However, we should not destroy for the sake of destroying, destroy 
for the sake of saying, ``See, we did it better.'' It is almost like 
little kids in the schoolyard going, ``Nyaa, nyaa, nyaa, nyaa, our bill 
is better than yours, and we are doing a new one.'' That does not make 
any sense. I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, my third point is on the substance of this bill itself. 
This is a good bill. Members will not find much argument from many 
people on this side about that. It restores restitution to people who 
deserve it from those who have committed crimes. As I said, it builds 
on what we did in the Violence Against Women Act last year.
  We are all for it. We do not expect a lot of debate. The gentleman 
from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] has a couple of amendments. Other than that, 
we will move through it quickly.
  I want to compliment the majority for coming up with this proposal. 
It is a good idea and I fully endorse it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Scott], a distinguished member of the Subcommittee on 
Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this bill will streamline the procedure by 
which victims can get restitution. Victims already have the right to 
sue and could go into civil court, but since everybody is right here in 
court to begin with, they can get the restitution that they deserve.
  There is one problem. It does not provide extra money for the judges 
and the probation officers for the extra work they will do. However, on 
the whole, it will allow victims to get more justice while they are in 
court.
  However, Mr. Chairman, I would believe that victims would appreciate 
more of a focus on preventing the crimes to begin with than what to do 
after they have been victimized. This bill focuses on what happens 
after the people have already been victimized. We are, in other crime 
bills, taking money away from prevention and police officers that could 
have prevented their crime to begin with.
  Hopefully, Mr. Chairman, we will restore some of that money to crime 
prevention and community police officers. In the meanwhile, I guess we 
have to deal with the fact that victims will be out there victimized 
because we did not have the foresight to prevent the crimes before they 
occurred.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  (Mr. GEKAS asked was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, when I first came to Congress, I had come 
from a State which had paid a great deal of attention to the rights of 
victims, and like many other States, had established crime victims 
compensation commissions and boards, with ample appropriations to cover 
some of the damages suffered by crime victims which could not have been 
recovered in court.
  When I came to the Congress, President Reagan and President Bush and 
now President Clinton all paid their respects to victims of crimes in 
various ways, including Rose Garden ceremonies with anecdotes of heroic 
incidents involving victims of crimes, and the families of victims 
gathered for the proper respect that the public should have and the 
President did in each case pay to the victims of crime.
  However, today, we elevate our consciousness and the awareness of the 
public to a new level of respect for the victims when we include, as we 
do in this bill, a feature of mandatory consideration by the judges of 
the most important aspect of crime victims; namely, restitution, to try 
to restore them to the position that they were in before the dastardly 
crime had occurred.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, when we act today, what we are doing is 
sending a signal once and for all that the victims of crime who have 
for too long become a secondary feature in a criminal case in court now 
become equal to the juries and to the judge and to the citizens who are 
witnesses, and to their families, when we accord them the ultimate 
satisfaction and the ultimate sense of justice when we make sure that 
restitution is ordered on their behalf against the very individual who 
caused the damages in the first place.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Mrs. Seastrand].
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Chairman, on the old television show ``Baretta'', 
the detective used to say, ``Do the crime, do the time.''
  Today we are telling the criminals they will owe more than time.
  Crime is not restricted to large cities. Even in my district that 
includes many rural areas, threats to personal safety are a top 
concern.
  Crime is not restricted to certain age or income categories but the 
sad fact is that the problem is even more severe among minorities and 
the poor.
  Most alarming of all are the statistics regarding women and crime. A 
rape occurs every 5 minutes in our country and an aggravated assault 
every 29 seconds.
  Last year, Congress passed a bill that spent billions of dollars on 
criminals. This year we are going to pass a bill that makes the 
criminals pay.
  Today we are considering an important bill that does more than give 
criminals time, if forces them to pay their victims for what is really 
irreputable harm.
  For too long, crime bills have been about criminals. Now, we are 
recognizing that crime is about the victims.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an important bill. This is a bill we should 
pass today. I urge my colleagues to join me and vote for this measure.

                              {time}  1350

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], a member of the committee.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the minority leader 
on this committee for yielding time to me.
  I am not going to jump up and down about this bill, either for it or 
against it. I will probably vote for it, but I do think that we need to 
point out some things to the American people about this bill and some 
concerns that I have.
  No. 1, there is a provision in this bill that talks about when a 
person is on probation or parole and is not able to meet the 
restitution schedule, that probation or parole can be revoked, and I 
think that gets us dangerously close to being back to the point of the 
old 
 [[Page H1310]] debtors prison, and I want the American people to be 
aware that that provision exists in the bill.
  There is a process for going back into the court and getting the 
restitution order revised, but I think that process is going to be 
very, very difficult. So it causes me some concern.
  The second point I want to raise is the matter of due process under 
this bill. There is really no detailed way drawn out in the bill for 
due process to be given to the defendant in this case. The probation 
officer goes out and finds certain information, brings it back to the 
court, there is no process for a hearing at the initial level to decide 
whether the restitution is just or how much restitution will be 
awarded, and there are some concerns that I have about that.
  I simply thought that it behooved me to stand up and say that despite 
the fact that this bill generally moves in a good direction, there are 
some concerns. Those concerns were not addressed in committee because 
of the pace with which this bill was being moved, and I thought it 
would be remiss of me not to point out those concerns to the American 
public.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself so much time as I may 
consume to close the debate.
  I simply want to point out the fact that as we move through this 
process, we are beginning to bring to the floor six bills that 
comprised the Contract With America crime legislation that the 
Republicans, when we took over as the majority in the House of 
Representatives, committed to bring out in the first 100 days.
  There are six separate bills, but in the proposals we put forward, we 
did it in one complete crime process.
  The second piece of legislation that will come out later today deals 
with the evidence rules in search and seizure cases to open up more 
avenues for the officers of our criminal justice system to get 
convictions.
  The next bill that we have will deal with prison grants and prison 
construction in an effort to provide a better scheme in order to 
resolve the issue of what we think is most important, and that is, 
requiring those who have committed repeat violent felonies to serve at 
least 85 percent of their sentences.
  Another bill that will be out here very shortly deals with expediting 
the process of deporting criminal aliens. Those are aliens who have 
committed crimes in this country and are sitting in our jails taking up 
jail space and oftentimes actually are released and go out into the 
public and get lost again to commit more crimes before they are 
deported.
  Another bill that we are going to be bringing forward very shortly 
deals with the process of the issue of how we speed up carrying out 
death sentences in death row cases to try to end the seemingly endless 
appeals of death row inmates.
  And the last of this series of six deals with the issue of the block 
grant programs that we think should be used in place of cops on the 
streets and the prevention programs that were passed in last year's 
crime bill.
  The gentleman from New York referred to this latter bill when he said 
that he was perfectly happy with the restitution bill that we have out 
here today, but he did not really think we ought to be tinkering around 
the edges with what was done already.
  I would suggest to him and to all others who may be observing this 
proceeding today of our Members here, that we are not going to be 
tinkering with
 that. We are going to be making a major overhaul when we get to it. We 
are going to be taking virtually all the grant programs that were 
proposed last year in the prevention area and the cops-on-the-street 
program which constituted together a combined amount of almost $16 
billion and we are going to be putting these together in community 
block grants to the cities and to the counties of this country with the 
highest crime rates, according to those rates and their population. We 
are going to be giving them this money in the amount of about $10 
billion in order that they may, in their pure exercise of their 
judgment, decide what is in the best interest of their communities in 
fighting crime, whether that be hiring a new police officer, paying 
overtime pay to existing police, or doing some prevention program, gosh 
knows what it may be. But it will be their decision. We will allow 
maximum flexibility to the local communities instead of having 
Washington dictate it.

  I would just suggest that when we finish the six bills out here, 
including the one that the gentleman from New York referred to, we will 
have at that point in time actually made some very major revisions in 
the laws. We are not going to be tinkering with what was done last 
year. We are going to be making major revisions and we are going to be 
putting forth a general principle that Republicans believed at the time 
of that debate was important.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not here to debate those bills, I am here to close 
the debate, but I felt because of the comments that were made I needed 
to explain that.
  I close the debate on this restitution bill. It is not controversial. 
We do need to provide adequate restitution to those who are victims of 
crime. The bill before us today, H.R. 665, does that. It does go a long 
way to making victims whole again and making sure that those who have 
committed their crimes, be they violent crimes or be they white-collar 
crimes, pay not only in the sense of paying by punishment but paying in 
literal dollars and cents to those who are their victims and the other 
people whom they have cost in some way through their crimes 
compensation that will at least in some small measure provide relief to 
those individuals who are the victims and others who have been harmed 
by this process.
  It is a good bill and I urge the adoption of the bill today.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, if you would have noticed, our colleague from North 
Carolina raised a very sensitive point that troubles me and I would 
just like the gentleman to agree that we really need to look very 
carefully into the matter of someone on parole or probation who is 
brought back into the system for not meeting his restitution order, the 
suspicion being that he might be unemployed or unable to pay and that 
there ought to be some procedure that makes sure that we have not 
created a mini debtors prison in the process.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman, the court has 
the discretion, I might point out to the gentleman from Michigan, to 
make sure that he can change or modify the particular order of 
restitution at any time if the economic circumstances of the offender 
have changed, so that I do not believe the difficulty the gentleman 
from North Carolina raised is really present. I understand his concern. 
But we say here in one of the provisions of the bill, ``A victim or the 
offender may petition the court at any time to modify a restitution 
order as appropriate in view of a change in the economic circumstances 
of the offender.''
  I really believe that that will remedy the problem that the gentleman 
is concerned about.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the trouble I have with 
that provision, and that provision is fine and it contemplates a 
situation where the economic conditions of a defendant have changed and 
there is the time to do that, but I am not sure under this bill what 
court the defendant has the right to go back in front of immediately, 
before his probation is revoked, before his parole is revoked. There 
seems to be a disjoint between the process for raising that issue and 
the process of revocation of the parole and probation. That is the 
trouble I have with it.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. If I may reclaim my time, the revoking of probation 
when restitution is not paid is discretionary with the court. The word 
is ``may.'' So presumably the court that is going to be revoking it is 
going to be the court that indeed handed out the restitution in the 
first place.
  But I would submit to the gentleman that you could have different 
judges in the same court. We have that in many 
 [[Page H1311]] civil proceedings as well as criminal proceedings today 
in our courtrooms where for one reason or another, maybe a judge 
retires, maybe a judge is ill, maybe a particular judge is not there 
and he delegates it to a different one. But it is the same court.
  I would submit to the gentleman that I would share his concern, but I 
really believe the language is very broad and I do not think his fears 
will come to any real truth is reality.
  Nonetheless, I suppose we could always come back and address it. The 
gentleman would have a right, if he could find a better way of doing it 
in the amendment process, to deal with it in the amendments that we are 
about to offer.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 
665, the Victim Restitution Act. This legislation represents title III 
of the Taking Back Our Streets Act, one of the 10 points of the 
Republican Contract With America, and begins our efforts here in the 
House to address our Nation's crime problem.
  The bill before us today embodies one of the most fundamental tenants 
of our Nation's justice system--that criminals pay for the consequences 
of their crimes. H.R. 665 mandates that those convicted of a Federal 
crime provide full restitution to their victims for damages caused as a 
result of the crime. The court may determine the amount of restitution 
based on the victim's situation and regardless of the economic 
resources of the criminal.
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation faces a crime problem of epidemic proportion. 
Each year, one in four U.S. households fall victim to violent or 
property crime. That translates into nearly 5 million victims of 
murder, rape, robbery, and assault, and 19 million victims of arson, 
theft, and burglary. According to the Department of Justice, in the 
past two decades more than 36 million people in the United States were 
injured as a result of violent crime.
  In addition to the physical and emotional costs of these crimes there 
are substantial economic costs as well. In fact, in 1991 alone, crime 
against people and households cost an estimated $19 billion. Each year 
crime-related injuries force Americans to spend 700,000 days in the 
hospital. Today's legislation will help the victims of these crimes 
recoup the costs of these recoveries, and I strongly support its 
passage.
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, every day, career criminals exact an untold 
cost on American societal and cultural life. When the perpetrator of a 
crime commits his illegal act, be it an environmental crime, a white 
collar crime, or a crime of violence, the effect on the victims goes 
far beyond what the newspaper headlines tell. If the person responsible 
for injuring the victims goes to prison, he may pay his debt to 
society. But the victims of the crime are not made whole. There are 
physical, emotional, and financial costs that are not compensated 
unless that person brings a civil suit, a long and unpredictable 
process. Sadly, these individuals are often not paid any monetary 
restitution for their loss.
  Imagine this on a larger scale. Imagine this occurring in towns and 
cities across our Nation, all those victims of crimes whose lives have 
been dramatically disrupted by individual crimes. We as a society 
suffer. Indirectly we all pay these costs of crime in our Nation. ``No 
[person] is an island * * * every [person] is a piece of the 
continent.''
  Presently, Federal courts have discretion to order restitution be 
paid to victims by offenders. Why not make this a requirement? This is 
not a radical notion. Although a small step, this measure will ensure 
that to some extent, there will be compensation for those victimized by 
Federal crimes. Steps will be taken to make those affected by crime 
whole again. This bill also prohibits double-dipping, so injured 
parties will not receive undue compensation. Passing this bill is the 
least we can do here in Congress to help repair the damage done to 
peoples' lives by this epidemic of crime.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Victim 
Restitution Act.
  H.R. 665 addresses a fundamental question of fairness. Should victims 
have to suffer the burden of damages caused by criminals, or should be 
criminals compensate the victims of their crimes? I believe we must 
send a clear message that those who commit crimes will not only have to 
pay their debt to society, but also to those they have wronged.
  In Jacksonville, there are two facilities that offer assistance to 
victims: Hubbard House, which provides a full range of services to 
victims to domestic violence, and the Victims' Service Center, which 
provides services to victims of all types of crime. Both facilities are 
funded by private donations, businesses, and the city of Jacksonville.
  I mention these programs because they are excellent examples of local 
government and business responding to the needs of crime victims. 
However, these kinds of initiatives are not enough--and it is time for 
Congress to join the fight and pass H.R. 665.
                              {time}  1400

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute now printed in the bill is considered as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment and is considered as read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                                H.R. 665

       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 ``Victim Restitution Act of 
     1995''.

     SEC. 2. MANDATORY RESTITUTION AND OTHER PROVISIONS.

       (a) Order of Restitution.--Section 3663 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``may order, in addition to or, in the case 
     of a misdemeanor, in lieu of any other penalty authorized by 
     law'' and inserting ``shall order''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following: ``The requirement 
     of this paragraph does not affect the power of the court to 
     impose any other penalty authorized by law. In the case of a 
     misdemeanor, the court may impose restitution in lieu of any 
     other penalty authorized by law.'';
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) In addition to ordering restitution to the victim of 
     the offense of which a defendant is convicted, a court may 
     order restitution to any person who, as shown by a 
     preponderance of evidence, was harmed physically, 
     emotionally, or pecuniarily, by unlawful conduct of the 
     defendant during--
       ``(A) the criminal episode during which the offense 
     occurred; or
       ``(B) the course of a scheme, conspiracy, or pattern of 
     unlawful activity related to the offense.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1)(B) by striking ``impractical'' and 
     inserting ``impracticable'';
       (3) in subsection (b)(2) by inserting ``emotional or'' 
     after ``resulting in'';
       (4) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4);
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) in any case, reimburse the victim for lost income and 
     necessary child care, transportation, and other expenses 
     related to participation in the investigation or prosecution 
     of the offense or attendance at proceedings related to the 
     offense; and'';
       (5) in subsection (c) by striking ``If the court decides to 
     order restitution under this section, the'' and inserting 
     ``The'';
       (6) by striking subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h);
       (7) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (m); and
       (8) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d)(1) The court shall order restitution to a victim in 
     the full amount of the victim's losses as determined by the 
     court and without consideration of--
       ``(A) the economic circumstances of the offender; or
       ``(B) the fact that a victim has received or is entitled to 
     receive compensation with respect to a loss from insurance or 
     any other source.
       ``(2) Upon determination of the amount of restitution owed 
     to each victim, the court shall specify in the restitution 
     order the manner in which and the schedule according to which 
     the restitution is to be paid, in consideration of--
       ``(A) the financial resources and other assets of the 
     offender;
       ``(B) projected earnings and other income of the offender; 
     and
       ``(C) any financial obligations of the offender, including 
     obligations to dependents.
       ``(3) A restitution order may direct the offender to make a 
     single, lump-sum payment, partial payment at specified 
     intervals, or such in-kind payments as may be agreeable to 
     the victim and the offender.
       ``(4) An in-kind payment described in paragraph (3) may be 
     in the form of--
       ``(A) return of property;
       ``(B) replacement of property; or
       ``(C) services rendered to the victim or to a person or 
     organization other than the victim.
       ``(e) When the court finds that more than 1 offender has 
     contributed to the loss of a victim, the court may make each 
     offender liable for payment of the full amount of restitution 
     or may apportion liability among the offenders to reflect the 
     level of contribution and economic circumstances of each 
     offender.
       ``(f) When the court finds that more than 1 victim has 
     sustained a loss requiring restitution by an offender, the 
     court shall order full restitution to each victim but may 
     provide for different payment schedules to reflect the 
     economic circumstances of each victim.
       [[Page H1312]] ``(g)(1) If the victim has received or is 
     entitled to receive compensation with respect to a loss from 
     insurance or any other source, the court shall order that 
     restitution be paid to the person who provided or is 
     obligated to provide the compensation, but the restitution 
     order shall provide that all restitution to victims required 
     by the order be paid to the victims before any restitution is 
     paid to such a provider of compensation.
       ``(2) The issuance of a restitution order shall not affect 
     the entitlement of a victim to receive compensation with 
     respect to a loss from insurance or any other source until 
     the payments actually received by the victim under the 
     restitution order fully compensate the victim for the loss, 
     at which time a person that has provided compensation to the 
     victim shall be entitled to receive any payments remaining to 
     be paid under the restitution order.
       ``(3) Any amount paid to a victim under an order of 
     restitution shall be set off against any amount later 
     recovered as compensatory damages by the victim in--
       ``(A) any Federal civil proceeding; and
       ``(B) any State civil proceeding, to the extent provided by 
     the law of the State.
       ``(h) A restitution order shall provide that--
       ``(1) all fines, penalties, costs, restitution payments and 
     other forms of transfers of money or property made pursuant 
     to the sentence of the court shall be made by the offender to 
     an entity designated by the Director of the Administrative 
     Office of the United States Courts for accounting and payment 
     by the entity in accordance with this subsection;
       ``(2) the entity designated by the Director of the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall--
       ``(A) log all transfers in a manner that tracks the 
     offender's obligations and the current status in meeting 
     those obligations, unless, after efforts have been made to 
     enforce the restriction order and it appears that compliance 
     cannot be obtained, the court determines that continued 
     recordkeeping under this subparagraph would not be useful; 
     and
       ``(B) notify the court and the interested parties when an 
     offender is 30 days in arrears in meeting those obligations; 
     and
       ``(3) the offender shall advise the entity designated by 
     the Director of the Administrative Office of the United 
     States Courts of any change in the offender's address during 
     the term of the restitution order.
       ``(i) A restitution order shall constitute a lien against 
     all property of the offender and may be recorded in any 
     Federal or State office for the recording of liens against 
     real or personal property.
       ``(j) Compliance with the schedule of payment and other 
     terms of a restitution order shall be a condition of any 
     probation, parole, or other form of release of an offender. 
     If a defendant fails to comply with a restitution order, the 
     court may revoke probation or a term of supervised release, 
     modify the term or conditions of probation or a term of 
     supervised release, hold the defendant in contempt of court, 
     enter a restraining order or injunction, order the sale of 
     property of the defendant, accept a performance bond, or take 
     any other action necessary to obtain compliance with the 
     restitution order. In determining what action to take, the 
     court shall consider the defendant's employment status, 
     earning ability, financial resources, the willfulness in 
     failing to comply with the restitution order, and any other 
     circumstances that may have a bearing on the defendant's 
     ability to comply with the restitution order.
       ``(k) An order of restitution may be enforced--
       ``(1) by the United States--
       ``(A) in the manner provided for the collection and payment 
     of fines in subchapter B of chapter 229 of this title; or
       ``(B) in the same manner as a judgment in a civil action; 
     and
       ``(2) by a victim named in the order to receive the 
     restitution, in the same manner as a judgment in a civil 
     action.
       ``(l) A victim or the offender may petition the court at 
     any time to modify a restitution order as appropriate in view 
     of a change in the economic circumstances of the offender.''.
       (b) Procedure for Issuing Order of Restitution.--Section 
     3664 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a);
       (2) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e) as 
     subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d);
       (3) by amending subsection (a), as redesignated by 
     paragraph (2), to read as follows:
       ``(a) The court may order the probation service of the 
     court to obtain information pertaining to the amount of loss 
     sustained by any victim as a result of the offense, the 
     financial resources of the defendant, the financial needs and 
     earning ability of the defendant and the defendant's 
     dependents, and such other factors as the court deems 
     appropriate. The probation service of the court shall include 
     the information collected in the report of presentence 
     investigation or in a separate report, as the court 
     directs.''; and
       (4) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(e) The court may refer any issue arising in connection 
     with a proposed order of restitution to a magistrate or 
     special master for proposed findings of fact and 
     recommendations as to disposition, subject to a de novo 
     determination of the issue by the court.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
recognition to a Member offering an amendment that has been printed in 
the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those amendments will 
be considered as read.
  Are there any amendments to the bill?


                    Amendment offered by Mr. SANDERS

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, the amendment 
numbered 1, printed in the February 6 Congressional Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders: Page 4, line 24, after 
     the period insert ``A restitution order shall direct the 
     offender to give appropriate notice to victims and other 
     persons in cases where there are multiple victims or other 
     persons who may receive restitution.''

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is being offered by myself 
and members of the Progressive Caucus and I believe should not be 
controversial. In fact, I believe that it is consistent with the intent 
of the proposed legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no argument about the need for restitution for 
violent crimes, and I believe that the intent of this legislation is to 
cover white collar and corporate crime as well. The gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum] has made that quite clear. The amendment that I 
am offering simply requires that companies convicted of crimes must 
notify the victims of those crimes. Convicted companies should be 
required to notify as best as possible all of their victims.
  Let me give an example if I might. Price fixing goes on in America 
and I think there is no debate about it. We have had circumstances 
where companies that deliver oil, heating fuel to people's homes are 
convicted of price fixing, they are charging their customers too much 
money. It seems to me to be appropriate that if that company is 
convicted of price fixing, all of the victims, people who have paid 
more money than they should have, should be notified of that conviction 
and then again do as they choose to do. And that essentially is what 
this amendment is about.
  I have talked to the majority and I believe that they are not in 
disagreement with the intent of this amendment.
  I yield to the gentleman for a response.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman please repeat the 
question?
  Mr. SANDERS. I was suggesting that we had talked about this issue and 
that the gentleman is not in disagreement with the intent of the 
amendment.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. The gentleman is quite correct, I am not in 
disagreement, though I would suggest that we might be able to modify 
the gentleman's amendment to make it more palatable, because I think 
there is a question about how an offender would know under the broad 
language the gentleman has who all his victims are.


 Modification Offered by Mr. McCOLLUM to the Amendment Offered by Mr. 
                                SANDERS

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I would like at the appropriate time, if 
now is the appropriate time, to ask unanimous consent to modify the 
gentleman's amendment to add at the end of the words, ``and where the 
identity of such victims and other persons can be reasonably 
determined.''
  If the gentleman would concur in that, I ask unanimous consent, Mr. 
Chairman, that modification be made to this amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. I would concur, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to 
object, let me just raise the issue of whether that same shortcoming 
does not exist under the other language in the bill, that there is a 
lot to be desired in this bill on the issue of identifying who has been 
injured and who is entitled to have restitution made to them. 
 [[Page H1313]] If we are going to address it with respect to corporate 
defendants, it seems to me that we ought also to be making that 
language broad enough to cover others.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on his own 
reservation?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. In 
the case of the victims being determined in the normal course of this, 
the burden is on the prosecutors in the case to bring forth the 
evidence and present it to the court. In the case of the Sanders 
amendment, it is requiring a burden on the offender to determine who 
his victims are and in some cases that will be very simple. But there 
is no prosecutor involved here. This is after the fact, he has to 
notify them after the fact. So the court is not in the process at that 
juncture, the government is not in the process, and it is all left up 
to the individual. That is the reason why I believe it is appropriate 
to give some caveat of reasonableness here so that this person, whoever 
it may be, is not being asked to do the impossible. Whereas in a case 
again of the major part of this, if the government cannot show what it 
is supposed to show, nobody is going to be harmed, and there is no 
burden on any individual.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Further reserving the right to object, 
and I will not object if the sponsor of the amendment is satisfied, but 
it seems to me I cannot understand why we are putting corporate 
defendants in some separate section of the bill as opposed to putting 
them in with all of the other defendants.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. It is my understanding also they were 
being put in the bill someplace different from all other defendants.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentleman will yield, we are not. The gentleman 
from Vermont's proposal applies equally to noncorporate defendants as 
to corporate. He simply is providing, as I read it, a very broad 
interpretation. I think his intent is primarily to get at the 
corporate, but he actually gets at everybody in this case.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is my time to begin with.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina controls the time now 
on his reservation.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I am reserving the right to object, and I 
yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  My concern here is to make sure that in what would most likely be a 
corporate crime, multiple victims are notified. When somebody stabs 
somebody we know what is going on. If somebody rips off hundreds of 
people, it is very likely those hundreds of people will not know that 
they have been ripped off, will not be notified of that, will not have 
the opportunity to seek redress and that is the purpose of this 
amendment.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation 
of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] desire 
his amendment be modified as proposed by the gentleman from Florida?
  Mr. SANDERS. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification offered by Mr. McCollum to the amendment 
     offered by Mr. Sanders: At the end include ``and where the 
     identity of such victims and other persons can be reasonably 
     determined.''

  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the modification is agreed to.
  There was no objection.
  The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders, as modified: Page 4, line 
     24, after the period insert ``A restitution order shall 
     direct the offender to give appropriate notice to victims and 
     other persons in cases where there are multiple victims or 
     other persons who may receive restitution and where the 
     identity of such victim and other persons can be reasonably 
     determined.''.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I have nothing more to add to the 
discussion, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that on our side we strongly 
support the amendment of the gentleman from Vermont and commend the 
chairman of the majority for accepting a commonsense provision that 
would make victims of corporate activity able to be notified of their 
right to appear in court and to state their claims for restitution. I 
am proud to join in support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman--it was not long ago when we could go out in the streets 
and to the parks of our neighborhood and feel perfectly safe. Sadly, 
that is no longer the case. Now, it is virtually impossible for a day 
to go by without a headline detailing the newest criminal outrage.
  It is time that criminals understand their behavior will not be 
tolerated. Punishment must be certain, swift, and severe. Until they 
fear the consequences of being caught, we do not have a chance to win 
the war on crime.
  H.R. 665 the Victim Restitution Act, goes a long way in achieving 
this goal. It instructs Federal courts to award restitution to crime 
victims and allows those courts to order restitution to other people 
harmed by the criminal's unlawful conduct. Criminals who commit Federal 
crimes now know they will literally pay a price for their actions. 
Presently, such restitution is permitted, but not required.
  I am especially supportive of this measure because victim restitution 
is widely considered one of the most effective weapons to help fight 
violence against women. By requiring full financial restitution, this 
act required the offender to directly face the harm suffered by his 
victim by his unlawful actions.
  It also strives to provide crime victims with some means of recouping 
the personal and financial losses resulting from these terrible acts of 
violence.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 665.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], as modified.
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

                              {time}  1410

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments? If not, the question is 
on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Vucanovich) having assumed the chair, Mr. Riggs, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 665) to 
control crime by mandatory victim restitution, pursuant to House 
Resolution 60, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment 
adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the 
 [[Page H1314]] point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 431, 
nays, 0, not voting 3, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 97]

                               YEAS--431

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Frost
     Wilson
     Yates

                              {time}  1432

  Mr. BURR changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________