[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 106 (Monday, July 26, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9309-S9311]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
               AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--Resumed


               amendments nos. 1350 through 1353, en bloc

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that four 
amendments at the desk to S. 1217 be agreed to, and that the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 1350 through 1353) were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 1350

                (Purpose: To make technical corrections)

       On page 21, line 16, delete ``$3,131,895,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof: ``$3,121,774,000''.
       On page 66, line 20, delete ``-$469,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``$9,652,000''.
       On page 66, line 20, delete ``-$3,370,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``$6,751,000''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1351

 (Purpose: To restore funding for United States Sentencing Commission)

       On page 21, line 16, strike ``$3,151,895,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,146,895,000''.
       On page 71, line 22, strike ``$4,743,000'' and insert 
     ``$9,743,000''.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am delighted that the Senate has agreed 
to my amendment to restore funding for the United States Sentencing 
Commission. I am pleased that Senator Kennedy joined me as a cosponsor 
of this amendment in support of the Commission.
  Our amendment to S. 1217 transfers $5 million from the Bureau of 
Prisons account to the U.S. Sentencing Commission account. As a result, 
the Commission will be funded at $9,743,000 for FY 2000 instead of the 
current level of only $4,743,000. This new funding is an increase of 
$300,000 compared to the Commission's FY 1999 appropriation of 
$9,487,000 but still substantially below the President's request of 
$10,800,000 for the Commission.
  I understand the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Commerce, 
Justice, State Appropriations Subcommittee reduced funding for the 
Commission in part because of their frustration over the vacancy of all 
seven Commission members since October 31, 1998. I share that 
frustration, but I am happy to report that the President announced last 
month his intent to nominate seven highly-qualified individuals to 
serve as Members of

[[Page S9310]]

the Commission--Judge Diana E. Murphy, Judge Ruben Castillo, Judge 
Sterling Johnson, Jr., Judge Joe Kendall, Professor Michael O'Neill, 
Judge William K. Sessions, III, and Mr. John R. Steer. I am proud to 
note that Judge Sessions is a Vermonter and dear friend.
  The Senate should act promptly to consider and confirm the nominees 
to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. This Commission has been struggling 
without a full slate of commissioners for more than a year. We should 
not only put the Sentencing Commission back into business but we should 
restore full funding so the Commission is able to fulfill its statutory 
mandate.
  The Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations bill had significantly 
cut funding for the U.S. Sentencing Commission. In reducing funding for 
this important commission, the Appropriations Subcommittee stated in 
its report that ``the carriage of justice has continued unabated in the 
absence of commissioners.'' However, that is in direct contradiction to 
what the Chief Justice of the United States recently stated in his 
year-end report for the federal judiciary. He stated, ``the fact that 
no appointments have been made to fill any one of these seven vacancies 
is paralyzing a critical component of the federal criminal justice 
system.''
  The Sentencing Commission is such a critical component of the federal 
criminal justice system because it establishes and maintains mandatory 
sentencing guidelines for over 51,000 criminal cases sentenced in the 
federal courts each year. The Commission's most critical responsibility 
today is to adjust the guidelines to implement the important crime 
legislation we enact every year. Let me emphasize this point: when we 
enact legislation that calls for increased criminal penalties, it is 
the Commission's job to make sure that convicted defendants suffer the 
impact. With no Commissioners since last year, the Commission has been 
unable to do this job, nor will it next year without new Commissioners 
and sufficient funding.
  Let me give you a few examples of increased penalties we enacted 
that, to this day, have not caused even one convicted defendant to stay 
in jail even one more day. Last year, in the Protection of Children 
from Sexual Predators Act, we required increased penalties for heinous 
sex abuse against our nation's young. To date, not one sexual predator 
has been imprisoned for even one day longer. Why? Because the 
Commission cannot do its job. Nor will it next year without new 
commissioners and sufficient funding.
  Last year, we also passed legislation that required increased 
penalties for fraudulent telemarketers who prey upon another vulnerable 
segment of our population, the elderly. Although the outgoing 
Commission did enact some temporary measures, they are scheduled to 
expire this Fall. If they do, fraudulent telemarketers, once again, 
will escape the intended consequences of our legislation. Why? Because 
the Commission cannot do its job. Nor will it next year without new 
Commissioners and sufficient funding.
  Last Congress, we also passed legislation that required increased 
penalties for copyright and trademark offenses to protect affected 
industries from the rampant piracy that threatens job creation and 
continued economic growth. Once again, not one convicted offender has 
suffered any increased punishment. Why? Because the Commission cannot 
do its job. Nor will it next year without new Commissioners and 
sufficient funding.
  So long as the Commission cannot do its job, convicted defendants 
will also escape the impact of criminal laws we have enacted to combat 
other serious crimes: methamphetamine trafficking, firearms, phone 
cloning, and identity theft, just to name a few.
  Recently, the Senate approved the juvenile justice legislation, S. 
254, that would require the Sentencing Commission to develop 
comprehensive guidelines for juvenile offenders, so that we can stem 
the rising tide of juvenile crime. How can the Commission accomplish 
this vital and historic undertaking without Commissioners and 
sufficient funding?
  We face other unintended, and potentially very costly, consequences 
of not getting the Commission fully operational soon. I understand that 
defendants across the country are beginning to mount challenges to the 
legality of the guidelines in the absence of Commissioners. Regardless 
of the merits, one can only imagine the paralyzing effects on the 
criminal justice system if 51,000 defendants start raising this issue. 
There are better ways to spend limited judicial and prosecutorial 
resources in fighting crime and enforcing the law than in defending 
against these claims.
  Even in the absence of Commissioners, we should ensure that the 
Commission is fully funded so that the staff of the Commission may 
continue to perform its important work. The Commission has an ongoing 
statutory obligation to amend the sentencing guidelines as necessary to 
respond to enacted crime legislation, court decisions, and other 
developments coming to its attention. While the Commission cannot vote 
to promulgate amendments to the guidelines without commissioners, even 
in their absence it is essential that Commission staff systematically 
continue to prepare all supporting material necessary so that incoming 
commissioners may act to implement the will of Congress in short order.
  Apart from the policy decision-making that only Commissioners may 
perform, the Commission has numerous routine statutory obligations on 
which Commission staff typically take the lead even when there is a 
complete slate of Commissioners. The Commission has an ongoing 
statutory obligation to receive--and federal judges have a 
corresponding statutory obligation to send--a report from the 
sentencing court with respect to every sentence imposed under the 
guidelines, to analyze and share the data in those reports, and use 
that data to improve the guideline system. Commission staff analyze and 
enter into our comprehensive database over 50,000 of such cases and 
extract more than 260 pieces of information from each case annually. 
Next year, more than 50,000 cases that contain valuable information 
regarding sentencing practices, offenders, and deterrence will go 
without analysis if the Commission is not sufficiently funded for 
fiscal year 2000.
  The Commission also has an ongoing statutory obligation to serve as 
the lead instrumentality for training newly appointed judges and 
probation officers, as well as prosecuting and defense attorneys, 
regarding application of the sentencing guidelines and related 
sentencing issues. Similarly, the Commission has an ongoing 
responsibility to provide needed continuing education for all those who 
use the sentencing guidelines to ensure that they are sufficiently 
informed of recent amendments to the guidelines and significant court 
decisions. Commission staff served as lead trainers to more than 2,500 
individuals at 47 training programs across the country in fiscal year 
1998. Next year, this need for training will go unmet if the Commission 
is not sufficiently funded for fiscal year 2000.
  The Commission also has an ongoing statutory obligation to serve as a 
clearinghouse of information on sentencing-related topics and to stay 
current on advancements in the knowledge of human behavior and the 
degree to which the guidelines are achieving the purposes of sentencing 
such as deterrence and rehabilitation. Ongoing research on important 
topics such as federal sentencing for crimes involving firearms, 
associations between federal appellate decisions and offender race, 
trends in sentences and offender characteristics in drug trafficking 
cases, and differing sentencing practices of federal immigration 
offenders by judicial district will not be completed if the Commission 
is not sufficiently funded for fiscal year 2000.
  Finally, I would like to emphasize what the Chief Justice said. If we 
are going to have guidelines and require federal judges to impose 
guideline sentences, the Sentencing Commission must be empowered to do 
its work. And that means it needs both Commissioners and sufficient 
funding to fulfill its critical role in the federal criminal justice 
system.
  I appreciate the support of my colleagues to restore funding for the 
U.S. Sentencing Commission for the next fiscal year.

[[Page S9311]]

                           amendment no. 1352

 (Purpose: To modify the circumstances under which attorneys' fees in 
                Federal capital cases can be disclosed)

       On page 73, between line 12 and 13, insert the following:
       Sec. 306.--
       (A) Section 3006A(d)(D)(vi) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding after the word ``require'' the 
     following: ``, except that the amount of the fees shall not 
     be considered a reason justifying any limited disclosure 
     under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3006A(d)(4)''
       (B) Effective Date.--
       This Act shall apply to all disclosures made under 3006A(d) 
     of title 18, United States Code, related to any criminal 
     trial or appeal involving a sentence of death where the 
     underlying alleged criminal conduct took place on or after 
     April 19, 1995.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1353

  (Purpose: To ensure that current Federal family violence prevention 
programs are sensitive to the needs of all Americans including seniors 
                           and the disabled)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. PROTECTION OF SENIORS AND THE DISABLED IN FEDERAL 
                   FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAMS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) of the estimated more than 1,000,000 persons age 65 and 
     over who are victims of family violence each year, at least 
     \2/3\ are women;
       (2) national statistics are not available on the incidence 
     of domestic or family violence and sexual assault against 
     disabled women, although several studies indicate that abuse 
     of disabled women is of a longer duration compared to abuse 
     suffered by women who are not disabled;
       (3) in almost 9 out of 10 incidents of domestic elder abuse 
     and neglect, the perpetrator is a family member, and adult 
     children of the victims are the largest category of 
     perpetrators and spouses are the second largest category of 
     perpetrators;
       (4) the number of reports of elder abuse in the United 
     States increased by 150 percent between 1986 and 1996 and is 
     expected to continue increasing;
       (5) it is estimated that at least 5 percent of the Nation's 
     elderly are victims of moderate to severe abuse and that the 
     rate for all forms of abuse may be as high as 10 percent;
       (6) elder abuse is severely underreported, with 1 in 5 
     cases being reported in 1980 and only 1 in 8 cases being 
     reported today;
       (7) many older and disabled women fail to report abuse 
     because of shame or as a result of prior unsatisfactory 
     experiences with individual agencies or others who lack 
     sensitivity to the concerns or needs of older or disabled 
     individuals;
       (8) many older or disabled individuals also fail to report 
     abuse because they are dependent on their abusers and fear 
     being abandoned or institutionalized;
       (9) disabled women may fear reporting abuse because they 
     are fearful of losing their children in a custody case;
       (10) public and professional awareness and identification 
     of violence against older or disabled Americans may be 
     difficult because these persons are not integrated into many 
     social networks (such as schools or jobs), and may become 
     isolated in their homes, which can increase the risk of 
     domestic abuse; and
       (11) older and disabled Americans would greatly benefit 
     from policies that develop, strengthen, and implement 
     programs for the prevention of abuse, including neglect and 
     exploitation, and provide related assistance for victims.
       (b) In General.--Part T of title I of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 is amended--
       (1) in section 2001 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg)--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) by inserting ``, including older women and women with a 
     disability'' after ``combat violent crimes against women''; 
     and
       (ii) by inserting ``, including older women and women with 
     a disability'' before the period; and
       (B) in subsection (b)--
       (i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting ``, 
     including older women and women with a disability'' after 
     ``against women'';
       (ii) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (iii) in paragraph (7), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (iv) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) developing a curriculum to train and assist law 
     enforcement officers, prosecutors, and relevant officers of 
     the Federal, State, tribal, and local courts in identifying 
     and responding to crimes of domestic violence and sexual 
     assault against older individuals and individuals with a 
     disability and implementing that training and assistance.'';
       (2) in section 2002(c)(2) (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-1) by inserting 
     ``and service programs tailored to the needs of older and 
     disabled victims of domestic violence and sexual assault'' 
     before the semicolon; and
       (3) in section 2003 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2)--
       (A) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) in paragraph (8), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) both the term `elder' and the term `older individual' 
     have the meaning given the term `older individual' in section 
     102 of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3002); and
       ``(10) the term `disability' has the meaning given the term 
     in section 3(3) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 
     1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102(3)).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to any grant made beginning with fiscal year 
     2000.

                          ____________________