[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 37 (Thursday, March 20, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2651-S2654]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               STATISTICS

  Again, according to the Uniform Crime Reports in 1994, there were 
1,798,785 violent crimes reported to law enforcement, a rate of 684.6 
violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants. The 1995 total was about 40 
percent above that of 1985.
  Additionally, in 1995 there were: 21,957 murders, a rate of 8.2 per 
100,000 inhabitants; 580,545 robberies, a rate of 220.9 per 100,000 
inhabitants; 2,594,995 burglaries, a rate of 987.6 per 100,000 
inhabitants; 1,099,179 aggravated assaults, a rate of 418.3 per 100,000 
inhabitants; and 97,464 rapes, a rate of 37.1 per 100,000 inhabitants.
  Further, juvenile crime is skyrocketing. According to statistics 
compiled by the FBI, from 1985 to 1993 the number of homicides 
committed by males aged 18 to 24 increased 65 percent, and by males 
aged 14 to 17 increased 165 percent. In addition, according to 
the Department of Justice, during 1993, the youngest age group 
surveyed--those 12 to 15 years old--had the greatest risk of being the 
victims of violent crimes.


                        THE HEAVY COST OF CRIME

  Aside from the vicious personal toll exacted, crime also has a 
devastating effect on the economy of our country. To fight crime, the 
United States spends about $90 billion a year on the entire criminal 
justice system. Crime is especially devastating to our cities, which 
often have crime rates several times higher than suburbs.
  A Washington Post article detailed the work of Professors Mark Levitt 
and Mark Cohen in estimating the real cost of crime to society. 
According to the article, ``[i]nstead of merely toting up the haul in 
armed robberies or burglaries, Cohen tallied all of the costs 
associated with various kinds of crime, from loss of income sustained 
by a murder victim's family to the cost of counseling a rape victim to 
the diminished value of houses in high-burglary neighborhoods.'' These 
``quality of life'' costs raise the cost of crime considerably. Cohen 
and Levitt calculated that one murder costs society on average $2.7 
million. A robbery nets the robber an average of $2,900 in actual cash, 
but it produces $14,900 in ``quality of life'' expenses. And while the 
actual monetary loss caused by an assault is $1,800,

[[Page S2652]]

it produces $10,200 in ``quality of life'' expenses.


                              LEGISLATION

  Fighting crime must be a top priority. Few would dispute this. 
According to a poll conducted for Reuters by the New York-based John 
Zogby Group that was released on January 31, 1997, voters rank crime as 
the most important issue. Further, according to an article in the July 
19, 1995 Tucson Citizen, about 500 business, education, and government 
leaders in Tucson ranked crime as the number one issue in a survey 
commissioned by the Greater Tucson Economic Council. Also, according to 
a November 6, 1996 article in The Arizona Daily Star, Arizonans rank 
crime as one of the most important issues.
  Given the magnitude of the problem of crime in our society, I believe 
that it is important to consider a comprehensive crime package. My bill 
has solid reforms that should blunt the forecasted explosion in crime. 
I would like to take this opportunity to outline of the provisions 
included in the Crime Prevention Act of 1997.


                  VICTIM RIGHTS AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

  Women are the victims of more than 4.5 million violent crimes a year, 
including half a million rapes or other sexual assaults, according to 
the Department of Justice. The National Victim Center calculates that a 
woman is battered every 15 seconds. A message must be sent to abusers 
that their behavior is not a ``family matter.'' Society should treat 
domestic violence as seriously as it does violence between strangers. 
My bill will strengthen the rights of domestic violence victims in 
Federal court and, hopefully, set a standard for the individual States 
to emulate.
  First, my bill authorizes the death penalty for cases in which a 
woman is murdered by her husband or boyfriend. Courts will not, under 
this bill, be able to exclude evidence of a defendant's violent 
disposition toward the victim as impermissible ``character'' evidence. 
My bill also provides that if a defendant presents negative character 
evidence concerning the victim, the government's rebuttal can include 
negative character evidence concerning the defendant. It makes clear 
that testimony regarding battered women's syndrome is admissible to 
explain the behavior of victims of violence.
  We must establish a higher standard of professional conduct for 
lawyers. My legislation prohibits harassing or dilatory tactics, 
knowingly presenting false evidence or discrediting truthful evidence, 
willful ignorance of matters that could be learned from the client, and 
concealment of information necessary to prevent sexual abuse or other 
violent crimes.
  Violence in our society leaves law-abiding citizens feeling 
defenseless. It is time to level the playing field. Federal law 
currently gives the defense more chances than the prosecution to reject 
a potential juror. My bill protects the right of victims to an 
impartial jury by giving both sides the same number of peremptory 
challenges.
  The 1994 Crime Act included a provision requiring notice to State and 
local authorities concerning the release of Federal violent offenders. 
Under the act, notice can only be used for law-enforcement purposes. 
The Justice Department opposes this limitation because it disallows 
other legitimate uses of the information, such as warning potential 
victims of the offender's return to the community. My bill would delete 
this restriction.
  It is our responsibility to continue to work to combat violent crime, 
wherever it occurs. Titles I and II take an important step toward 
protecting the rights of crime victims, curbing domestic violence, and 
removing violent offenders from our streets and communities.


                                FIREARMS

  Almost 30 percent of all violent crimes are committed through the use 
of a firearm, either to intimidate the victim into submission or to 
injure the victim, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. And 
70 percent of all murders committed were accomplished through the use 
of a firearm. To help stop this violence the bill increases the 
mandatory minimum sentences for criminals who use firearms in the 
commission of crimes. It imposes the following minimum penalties: 10 
years for using or carrying a firearm during the commission of a 
Federal crime of violence or drug trafficking crime; 20 years if the 
firearm is discharged; incarceration for life or punishment by death if 
death a person results.


                         THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE

  To ensure that relevant evidence is not kept from juries, the bill 
extends the ``good faith'' exception to the exclusionary rule to non-
warrant cases, where the court determines that the circumstances 
justified an objectively reasonable belief by officers that their 
conduct was lawful.


                           THE DEATH PENALTY

  The vast majority of the American public supports the option of the 
death penalty. A Gallup poll conducted in April 1996 found that 79 
percent of Americans support the death penalty, and an ABC News/
Washington Post poll conducted in January 1995 found that 74 percent of 
Americans favor the death penalty for persons convicted of murder.
  To deter crime and to make a clear statement that the most vicious, 
evil behavior will not be tolerated in our society, the bill 
strengthens Federal death penalty standards and procedures. It requires 
defendant to give notice of mitigating factors that will be relied on 
in a capital sentencing hearing--just as the Government is now required 
to give notice of aggravating factors--adds use of a firearm in 
committing a killing as an aggravating factor that permits a jury to 
consider the death penalty, and directs the jury to impose a capital 
sentence if aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors.


                             HABEAS CORPUS

  To eliminate the abuse, delay, and repetitive litigation in the lower 
Federal courts title VI of this bill provides that the decisions of 
State courts will not be subject to review in the lower Federal courts, 
so long as there are adequate and effective remedies in the State 
courts for testing the legality of a person's detention. This provision 
limits the needless duplicative review in the lower Federal courts, and 
helps put a stop to the endless appeals of convicted criminals. Judge 
Robert Bork has written a letter in support of this provision.

                        ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENA

  The bill allows high-ranking Secret Service agents to issue an 
administrative subpoena for information in cases in which a person's 
life is in danger. The Department of Agriculture, the Resolution Trust 
Corporation, and the Food and Drug Administration already have 
administrative subpoena power. The Secret Service should have it to 
protect the lives of American citizens.


                               CONCLUSION

  The Kyl crime bill is an important effort in the fight against crime. 
We can win this fight, if we have the conviction, and keep the pressure 
on Congress to pass tough crime-control measures. It is time to stop 
kowtowing to prisoners, apologists for criminals, and the defense 
lawyers, and pass a strong crime bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL (for himself and Mr. Reid):
  S. 489. A bill to improve the criminal law relating to fraud against 
consumers; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                 the telemarketing fraud prevention act

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor to 
the Telemarketing Fraud Prevention Act. Unfortunately, my State of 
Nevada has the highest rate of bogus telemarketing operations in the 
Nation. I have been involved over the last few years with uncovering 
these scams. We held a hearing last year in the Special Aging Committee 
to call attention to this crime, which primarily targets seniors. At 
the time of the hearing I called these scams electric muggings, and 
stated that Congress needs to treat these telephone thugs like 
criminals on the street who attack and steal. This act aims to do just 
that.
  Nationwide these phone schemes cost consumers over $60 billion a 
year. As I stated earlier, Nevada has the highest rate of fraudulent 
telemarketing operations. But Kathryn Landreth, U.S. attorney for 
Nevada, has been working with the Department of Justice to break up 
these schemes. Last year they rounded up over 200 fraudulent operators 
in Las Vegas. Nevada AARP members served as decoys for the sting, and I 
again commend them for doing so.

[[Page S2653]]

  Sadly, victims of telemarketing fraud are most often our senior 
citizens. These white-collar thugs who cheat victims out of their hard-
earned money, are swindlers who choose to satisfy their greed by 
bilking others instead of doing an honest day's work. These thugs not 
only rob their victims of their financial security, but also of their 
dignity. Many older Americans live alone, may have just lost their 
spouse, and are particularly vulnerable to con-artists who act like 
they are their friends. One of the telemarketers prosecuted by the U.S. 
attorney of Nevada's office collected obituaries from various 
newspapers so that he could take advantage of recent widows and 
widowers.
  Typical schemes involve the telemarketer promising thousands of 
dollars, free vacations, or new cars if the victim buys a fur coat or 
overpriced vitamins, for example. If a victim receives anything at all 
in return for the money sent to the telemarketer, the items are 
generally worth far less than represented; in some cases they are no 
more than worthless junk.
  Not only do we need vigilant law enforcement and tough punishments, 
but we need to inform people. We have to get the message out to people, 
especially seniors, to be wary of offerings over the phone and hang up 
when asked for money. Further, they should report the incident to the 
U.S. attorney's office. Hopefully, strengthening the punishment for 
these crimes will deter others from entering the arena, but it is 
extremely important to follow up on this act with enforcement and 
information.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA:
  S. 490. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to adjust 
for inflation the dollar limitations on the dependent care credit; to 
the Committee on Finance.


         THE WORKING FAMILIES CHILD CARE TAX RELIEF ACT OF 1997

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation that I 
have sponsored in the past two Congresses to provide a measure of tax 
relief to working families throughout America. My bill would restore 
value to the child and dependent care credit by allowing an annual 
adjustment of the credit for inflation.
  Mr. President, as the Federal Government and the states work to move 
people from welfare to work, the problems faced by working Americans 
seeking affordable, quality child-care services for their children will 
likely worsen. The availability and affordability of adequate child 
care are the principal concerns expressed by an increasing number of 
middle-class working parents. Many parents are forced to patch together 
a network of child care providers to secure care for their children.
  The evidence in support of improving the child and dependent care 
credit is clear. The number of single mothers working outside the home 
has dramatically increased in recent years. More than 56 percent of all 
mothers with children under 6 years work outside the home, and over 70 
percent of women with children over age 6 are in the labor market.
  The percentage of Hawaii households in which both parents work 
outside the home is even higher than the national average. According to 
projections developed by the Bank of Hawaii based on the 1990 Census, 
61.8 percent of all Hawaii families have both parents employed, and 
71.3 percent of all households have at least two individuals in the 
workforce.
  The increased participation of single mothers in the labor market and 
the large number of two-parent families in which both parents work 
outside the home have made the dependent care credit one of the most 
popular and productive tax incentives ever enacted by Congress. 
Unfortunately, the value of the credit has declined significantly over 
the years as inflation has slowly eaten away at the value of this 
benefit. Measured in constant dollars, the maximum credit of $2,400 has 
decreased in value by more than 45 percent since 1982.
  In 1981, the flat credit for dependent care was replaced with a scale 
to give the greatest benefit of the credit to lower income working 
families. Since that time, neither the adjusted gross income figures 
employed in the scale, nor the limit on the amount of employment-
related expenses used to calculate the credit, has been adjusted for 
inflation. My bill provides a measure of much needed relief to working 
American families. It would index the child and dependent care credit 
and restore the full benefit of the credit.

  The maximum amount of employment-related child care expenses allowed 
under current law--$2,400 for a single child and $4,800 for two or more 
children--has simply failed to keep pace with escalating care costs. 
Unlike other tax credits and deductions provided taxpayers in the 
Internal Revenue Code, the dependent care credit is not adjusted for 
inflation.
  Without an adjustment for inflation, we will continue to diminish the 
purpose of this credit to offset the expense of dependent and child 
care services incurred by parents working outside the home. While the 
cost of quality child care has increased as demand exceeds supply, the 
dependent care credit has failed to keep up with the spiraling costs. 
My legislation addresses this chronic problem by automatically 
adjusting the dependent and child care credit for inflation. Under this 
legislation, both the dollar limit on the amount creditable and the 
limitation on earned income would be adjusted annually.
  Mr. President, the average cost for out of home child care exceeds 
$3,500 per child, per year. Child care or dependent care expenses can 
seriously strain a family's budget. This burden can become unbearable 
for single parents, almost invariably single mothers, who must balance 
the need to work with their parental responsibilities.
  Middle-class Americans are working harder than ever to maintain their 
standard of living. In many families, parents have been forced to work 
longer hours, deplete their savings, and go deeper into debt. There is 
an urgent need to enact changes in our tax code that are pro-family and 
pro-children. The Working Families Child Care Tax Relief Act meets both 
of these goals.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 490

       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 ``Working Families Child Care 
     Tax Relief Act''.

     SEC. 2. INFLATION ADJUSTMENT OF DEPENDENT CARE CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 21 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to expenses for 
     household and dependent care services necessary for gainful 
     employment) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(11) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any taxable 
     year beginning in a calendar year after 1996, each dollar 
     amount contained in subsections (c) and (d)(2) shall be 
     increased by an amount equal to--
       ``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable 
     year begins, by substituting `calendar year 1995' for 
     `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1996.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FORD:
  S. 491. A bill to amend the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Administration Act of 1966 to prohibit the United States Fish and 
Wildlife Service from acquiring land to establish a refuge of the 
National Wildlife Refuge System unless at least 50 percent of the 
owners of the land in the proposed refuge favor the acquisition; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.


the national wildlife refuge system administration act amendment act of 
                                  1997

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, last month in western Kentucky, about 200 
citizens of Marshall County packed a junior high school auditorium, 
taking time out from their busy schedules, to learn more about the 
proposed Clarks River Wildlife Refuge. So many people were there 
because it marked the first time they had an opportunity to voice their 
opinions on a refuge that would go, literally, through their backyards. 
Backers of the refuge had crafted a proposal and sought funding without 
any input from the people who owned the land.
  I first called the Senate's attention to this refuge last year, 
during consideration of the omnibus appropriations bill. I made it 
clear that I'm not necessarily opposed to the creation of a

[[Page S2654]]

wildlife refuge in western Kentucky. What concerned me then and 
concerns me now is that those who farm about 7,000 acres within the 
proposed boundaries of the refuge haven't been heard on whether they 
support the refuge. As one farmer said to me in a letter last year, 
``no one seems to listen to what the majority of the landowners and 
farmers, who are directly involved, are saying.''
  Well, Mr. President, I'm listening. During last month's hearing, one 
farmer asked for a show of hands, of the landowners present, who 
supported the refuge. Three hands went up. When he asked how many 
landowners opposed the refuge, about 60 hands went up. What's worse, 
when a farmer asked how many landowners had been contacted to determine 
support for the refuge, the Government officials admitted that not a 
single landowner had been contacted--despite the fact that the creation 
of the refuge will depend solely on the number of willing sellers.
  Today I am introducing legislation to correct this practice. My bill 
would require the Fish and Wildlife Service to contact for an 
independent, non-biased survey of landowners within the boundaries of 
any proposed refuge. If the survey shows that a majority of the 
landowners support the refuge, then the Service would be free to 
proceed with land acquisitions to create it. If not, then the Service 
would be prohibited from taking additional steps.
  Mr. President, my bill is simply common sense: Creating a wildlife 
refuge depends on the willingness of landowners to sell their property 
to the Federal Government. We should first determine if there are 
enough landowners willing to sell enough land to actually create the 
refuge before we begin to make purchases. It doesn't make sense to draw 
up plans for a wildlife refuge if there won't be enough land available 
to create it.
  Mr. President, the people of western Kentucky have asked, repeatedly, 
for their voices to be heard. My legislation will ensure that they will 
be, and that future refuges respect the wishes of affected communities.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 491

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. LANDOWNER REFERENDA ON REFUGES.

       (a) In General.--Section 4 of the National Wildlife Refuge 
     System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Landowner Referenda on Refuges.--
       ``(1) In General.--Before acquiring land to establish a 
     refuge of the System or preparing a final environmental 
     assessment or environmental impact statement on the proposed 
     acquisition under the National Environmental Policy Act of 
     1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) hold a public hearing on the proposed acquisition in 
     the area in which the land proposed to be acquired is 
     located; and
       ``(B) acting through a private, independent entity, conduct 
     a referendum among owners of the land that will be acquired 
     to establish the refuge to determine whether the owners favor 
     the proposed acquisition.
       ``(2) Approval of acquisition.--The Secretary may acquire 
     land to establish a refuge of the System only if a majority 
     of owners of the land voting in the referendum favor the 
     proposed acquisition.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     takes effect on October 1, 1996.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES:
  S. 492. A bill to amend certain provisions of title 5, United States 
Code, in order to ensure equality between Federal firefighters and 
other employees in the civil service and other public sector 
firefighters, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs.

                          ____________________