[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 20, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1276-S1277]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BREAUX:
  S. 1569. A bill to provide for one additional Federal judge for the 
middle district of Louisiana; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                 LOUISIANA FEDERAL JUDICIAL LEGISLATION

  Mr. BREAUX.
  Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that will correct a 
serious inequity in Louisiana's judicial districts.
  My legislation adds an additional judge to the middle district of 
Louisiana, based in Baton Rouge. U.S. District Judges John Parker and 
Frank Polozola, the two Baton Rouge judges, each have almost 2,000 
cases pending. The national average for Federal judges is 400 cases 
pending. Case filings in the middle district have totaled more than 
four times the national average. The Baton Rouge district also ranks 
first among the Nation's 97 Federal court districts in total filings, 
civil filings, weighted filings and in the percent change in total 
filings last year.
  Louisiana's middle district is composed of nine parishes. The State 
capital and many of the State's adult and juvenile prisons and forensic 
facilities are located in this district. The court is regularly 
required to hear most of the litigation challenging the 
constitutionality of State laws and the actions of State agencies and 
officials. The district now has several reapportionment and election 
cases pending on the docket which generally require the immediate 
attention of the court. Additionally, because numerous chemical, oil, 
and industrial plants and hazardous waste sites are located in the 
middle district, the court has in the past and will continue to handle 
complex mass tort cases. One environmental case alone, involving over 
7,000 plaintiffs and numerous defendants, is being handled by a judge 
from another district because both of the middle district's judges were 
recused.
  Since 1984, the middle district has sought an additional judge 
because of its concern that its caseload would continue to rise despite 
the fact that its judges' termination rate exceeded that national 
average and ranked among the highest in numerical standing within the 
United States and the fifth circuit. Both the judicial conference and 
the Judicial Council of the Fifth Circuit have approved the middle 
district's request for an additional judgeship after each biennial 
survey from 1984 through 1994.
  Mr. President, I know that my colleagues will agree with me that the 
clear solution to this obvious inequity is to assign an additional 
judge to Louisiana's middle district. I look forward to the Senate's 
resolution of this important matter.
                                 ______

      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 1570. A bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
of 1974 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the 
restriction on the assignment or alienation of pension plan benefits 
shall not apply to court-ordered criminal fines or victim restitution; 
to the Committee on Finance.


              RESTITUTION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME LEGISLATION

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
would provide crime victims a real opportunity to receive their due 
restitution from convicted criminals. This bill would enhance 
collections on criminal restitution orders for crime victims by 
allowing the Federal Government to garnish the pension plan benefits of 
convicted felons.
  Currently, courts may not garnish pension benefits provided under the 
Employee Retirement Income Security Act [ERISA] to satisfy criminal 
restitution orders. As a result, criminals can avoid paying fines or 
making restitution to their victims when their only income consists of 
pension money. In fact, in most cases, criminals have pension money as 
their only source of income, and therefore, they never pay off their 
debt.
  The amount of criminal debt had ballooned to nearly $4.5 billion by 
the close of fiscal year 1994. The largest amount of that criminal debt 
is owed by defendants who have been ordered to pay restitution directly 
to crime victims. Over $3 billion is outstanding on these criminal 
restitution orders.
  We must not sit idly by and watch these criminal debt figures 
continue to mount year after year. Our Nation's crime victims deserve 
restitution. It is unfair that criminals are allowed to shield their 
pension funds from being garnished when those funds are necessary to 
provide much needed restitution to their victims.
  Mr. President, the National Victim Center supports this legislation 
and best expressed the principle behind this bill by recognizing that 
crime shouldn't pay, but criminals should.
  I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It will 
increase 

[[Page S1277]]
criminal fine collection by allowing a new source of the offender's 
income to be collected, and will help ensure that victims are properly 
and fairly compensated in a timely manner.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter from David Beatty, 
acting executive director of the National Victim Center, be printed.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                       National Victim Center,

                                 Arlington, VA, February 16, 1996.
     Hon. Senator McCain,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: Thank you for the opportunity to 
     express our views concerning your proposed amendment to the 
     Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 and the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.
       Offender accountability has long been a corner stone of the 
     American criminal justice system. Such Accountability 
     includes not only the offender's payment of his debt to 
     society but also financial responsibility to the innocent 
     victims who suffer the severe economic consequences of the 
     crimes inflicted upon them.
       Requiring offenders to pay restitution to their victims for 
     the harm that resulted from their criminal acts serves the 
     ends of justice in several ways. First and foremost, 
     restitution reimburses crime victims for the goods and 
     services that are essential to their physical, emotional and 
     financial recovery.
       It also provides the kind of direct accountability to 
     victims that helps satisfy their sense of fairness and their 
     desire for justice. By engendering a greater sense of 
     personal responsibility, restitution also serves the broader 
     criminal justice objectives of deterrence and even 
     rehabilitation.
       Studies have shown that there is a clear correlation 
     between restitution and lower recidivism rates. Offenders who 
     are held financially responsible to their victims develop a 
     greater appreciation for the hardship and human suffering 
     cause by their thoughtless criminal acts. Offenders who gain 
     a moral sense of responsibility by making payment directly to 
     their victims are less likely to commit such crimes in the 
     future.
       Yet, none of the advantages restitution have to offer will 
     be fulfilled unless offenders are actually made to pay. Not 
     surprisingly, offenders' failures to pay have all but 
     defeated the principle and purpose of restitution as a 
     practical matter. Given the perplexity involved in locating 
     and seizing the economic resource of offenders, it is 
     extremely difficult to force offenders to pay the restitution 
     they owe.
       Senator McCain has introduced an amendment that helps solve 
     the restitution payment problem--at least in those cases 
     where the government is already in possession of assets 
     belonging to the offender. The amendment would allow 
     government officials to divert federal pension benefits and 
     tax refunds owed to the offender directly to the victims to 
     whom the offender owes restitution. This simple and sensible 
     solution allows government officials to avoid the time and 
     expense of searching out and seizing those assets already in 
     the hands of offenders. In short, this approach is the 
     perfect incarnation of the old adage that, ``A bird in the 
     hand is worth two in the bush''.
       Currently, the federal government is paying convicted 
     offenders who are refusing to pay their victims. The McCain 
     Amendment will effectively put an end to this unconscionable 
     practice.
       The McCain Amendment would apply these same interception 
     mechanisms to the collection of federal fines. Since federal 
     fines are used to fund victim compensation and assistance 
     programs nationwide, crime victims have a great stake in 
     seeing that every effort is made to fully collect such fines. 
     Again, this amendment would ensure that monies owed offenders 
     by the federal government would be used to serve victims 
     rather than enrich their perpetrators. In other words, 
     ``Crime shouldn't pay, but criminals should''.
       It is for these reasons that the Board of Directors and 
     staff of the National Victim Center fully support Senator 
     McCain's efforts to divert government payments owed to 
     offenders to benefit their victims.
           Sincerely,
                                                     David Beatty,
     Acting Executive Director.

                          ____________________