[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 126 (Wednesday, October 11, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10164-S10188]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION ACT OF 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now proceed to the conference 
report accompanying H.R. 3244.
  The clerk will report the conference report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Committee of Conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate on the bill, H.R. 
     3244, an act to combat trafficking of persons, especially 
     into the sex trade, slavery, and slavery-like conditions, in 
     the United States and countries around the world through 
     prevention, through prosecution and enforcement against 
     traffickers, and through protection and assistance to victims 
     of trafficking, having met, have agreed that the House recede 
     from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, and 
     agree to the same with an amendment, and the Senate agree to 
     the same, signed by a majority of the conferees on the part 
     of both Houses.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration 
of the conference report.
  (The report was printed in the House proceedings of the Record of 
October 5, 2000.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I believe under the uniform unanimous 
consent agreement that we have, time has been allocated to several 
different Members of the Senate to speak on this conference report; is 
that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, let me start this debate and discussion 
with the story of Irina. Irina's story appeared in the New York Times 
not that long ago, and it is similar to the story of a number of women 
with whom I have met and who have been caught in this situation of sex 
trafficking--young ladies I met with in Nepal, and several testified in 
committee. I think Irina's story tells in graphic detail why this is a 
problem and why the Senate needs to act.

       Irina always assumed that her beauty would somehow rescue 
     her from the poverty and hopelessness of village life. A few 
     months ago, after answering a vague ad in a small Ukrainian 
     newspaper, she slipped off a tour boat when it put in at 
     Haifa, hoping to make a bundle dancing naked on the tops of 
     tables.
       She was 21, self-assured and glad to be out of Ukraine. 
     Israel offered a new world, and for a week or two everything 
     seemed possible. Then, one morning, she was driven to a 
     brothel, where her boss burned her passport before her eyes.
       ``I own you,'' she recalled his saying. ``You are my 
     property and you will work until you earn your way out. Don't 
     try to leave. You have no papers and you don't speak Hebrew. 
     You will be arrested and deported. Then we will get you and 
     bring you back.''

  That was her master. The article goes on.

       It happens every single day. Not just in Israel, which has 
     deported nearly 1,500 Russian and Ukrainian women like Irina 
     in the past three years. But throughout the world, where 
     selling naive and desperate young women into sexual bondage 
     has become one of the fastest-growing criminal enterprises in 
     the robust global economy.
       . . . Many end up like Irina. Stunned and outraged by the 
     sudden order to prostitute herself, she simply refused. She 
     was beaten and raped before she succumbed. Finally she got a 
     break. The brothel was raided and she was brought here [to 
     another place], the only women's prison in Israel. Now, like 
     hundreds of Ukrainian and Russian women with no documents or 
     obvious forgeries, she is waiting to be sent home.

  This is a quote from Irina:

       ``I don't think the man who ruined my life will even be 
     fined,'' she said softly, slow tears filling her enormous 
     green eyes. ``You can call me a fool for coming here. That's 
     my crime. I am stupid. A stupid girl from a little village. 
     But can people really buy and sell women and get away with 
     it? Sometimes I sit here and ask myself if that really 
     happened to me, if it can really happen at all.''
       Then, waving her arm toward a muddy prison yard, where 
     Russian is spoken more commonly than Hebrew, she whispered 
     one last thought: ``I am not the only one, you know. They 
     have ruined us all.''

  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the full text 
of this article.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               Traffickers' New Cargo: Naive Slavic Women

                          (By Michael Specter)

       Ramle, Israel.--Irina always assumed that her beauty would 
     somehow rescue her from the poverty and hopelessness of 
     village life. A few months ago, after answering a vague ad in 
     a small Ukrainian newspaper, she slipped off a tour boat when 
     it put in at Haifa, hoping to make a bundle dancing naked on 
     the tops of tables.
       She was 21, self-assured and glad to be out of Ukraine. 
     Israel offered a new world, and for a week or two everything 
     seemed possible. Then, one morning, she was driven to a 
     brothel, where her boss burned her passport before her eyes.
       ``I own you,'' she recalled his saying. ``You are my 
     property and you will work until you earn your way out. Don't 
     try to leave. You have no papers and you don't speak Hebrew. 
     You will be arrested and deported. Then we will get you and 
     bring you back.''
       It happens every single day. Not just in Israel, which has 
     deported nearly 1,500 Russian and Ukrainian women like Irina 
     in the past three years. But throughout the world, where 
     selling naive and desperate young women into sexual bondage 
     has become one of the fastest-growing criminal enterprises in 
     the robust global economy.
       The international bazaar for women is hardly new, of 
     course. Asians have been its basic commodity for decades. But 
     economic hopelessness in the Slavic world has opened what 
     experts call the most lucrative market of all to criminal 
     gangs that have flourished since the fall of Communism: white 
     women with little to sustain them but their dreams. Pimps, 
     law enforcement officials and relief groups all agree that 
     Ukrainian and Russian women are now the most valuable in the 
     trade.
       Because their immigration is often illegal--and because 
     some percentage of the women choose to work as prostitutes--
     statistics are difficult to assess. But the United Nations 
     estimates that four million people throughout the world are 
     trafficked each year--forced through lies and coercion to 
     work against their will in many types of servitude. The 
     International Organization for Migration has said that as 
     many as 500,000 women are annually trafficked into Western 
     Europe alone.
       Many end up like Irina. Stunned and outraged by the sudden 
     order to prostitute herself, she simply refused. She was 
     beaten and raped before she succumbed. Finally she got a 
     break. The brothel was raided and she was brought here to 
     Neve Tirtsa in Ramle, the only women's prison in Israel. Now, 
     like hundreds of Ukrainian and Russian women with no 
     documents or obvious forgeries, she is waiting to be sent 
     home.
       ``I don't think the man who ruined my life will even be 
     fined,'' she said softly, slow tears filling her enormous 
     green eyes. ``You can call me a fool for coming here. That's 
     my crime. I am stupid. A stupid girl from a little village. 
     But can people really buy and sell women and get away with 
     it? Sometimes I sit here and ask myself if that really 
     happened to me, if it can really happen at all.''
       Then, waving her arm toward the muddy prison yard, where 
     Russian is spoken more commonly than Hebrew, she whispered 
     one last thought: ``I'm not the only one, you know. They have 
     ruined us all.''


         traffic patterns: russia and ukraine supply the flesh

       Centered in Moscow and the Ukrainian capital, Kiev, the 
     networks trafficking women run east to Japan and Thailand, 
     where thousands of young Slavic women now work against their 
     will as prostitutes, and west to the Adriatic Coast and 
     beyond. The routes are controlled by Russian crime gangs 
     based in Moscow. Even when they do not specifically move the 
     women overseas, they provide security, logistical support, 
     liaison with brothel owners in many countries and, usually, 
     false documents.
       Women often start their hellish journey by choice. Seeking 
     a better life, they are lured by local advertisements for 
     good jobs in foreign countries at wages they could never 
     imagine at home.
       In Ukraine alone, the number of women who leave is 
     staggering. As many as 400,000 women under 30 have gone in 
     the past decade, according to their country's Interior 
     Ministry. The Thai Embassy in Moscow, which processes visa 
     applications from Russia and Ukraine, says it receives nearly 
     1,000 visa applications a day, most of these from women.
       Israel is a fairly typical destination. Prostitution is not 
     illegal here, although brothels are, and with 250,000 foreign 
     male workers--most of whom are single or here without their 
     wives--the demand is great. Police officials estimate that 
     there are 25,000 paid sexual transactions every day. Brothels 
     are ubiquitous.
       None of the women seem to realize the risks they run until 
     it is too late. Once they cross the border their passports 
     will be confiscated, their freedoms curtailed and what little 
     money they have taken from them at once.
       ``You want to tell these kids that if something seems too 
     good to be true it usually is,'' said Lyudmilla Biryuk, a 
     Ukrainian psychologist who has counseled women who have 
     escaped or been released from bondage. ``But you can't 
     imagine what fear and real ignorance can do to a person.''
       The women are smuggled by car, bus, boat and plane. Handed 
     off in the dead of night, many are told they will pick 
     oranges, work

[[Page S10165]]

     as dancers or as waitresses. Others have decided to try their 
     luck at prostitution, usually for what they assume will be a 
     few lucrative months. They have no idea of the violence that 
     awaits them.
       The efficient, economically brutal routine--whether here in 
     Israel, or in one of a dozen other countries--rarely varies. 
     Women are held in apartments, bars and makeshift brothels; 
     there they service, by their own count, as many as 15 clients 
     a day. Often they sleep in shifts, four to a bed. The best 
     that most hope for is to be deported after the police finally 
     catch up with their captors.
       Few ever testify. Those who do risk death. Last year in 
     Istanbul, Turkey, according to Ukrainian police 
     investigators, two women were thrown to their deaths from a 
     balcony while six of their Russian friends watched.
       In Serbia, also last year, said a young Ukrainian woman who 
     escaped in October, a woman who refused to work as a 
     prostitute was beheaded in public.
       In Milan a week before Christmas, the police broke up a 
     ring that was holding auctions in which women abducted from 
     the countries of the former Soviet Union were put on blocks, 
     partially naked, and sold at an average price of just under 
     $1,000.
       ``This is happening wherever you look now,'' said Michael 
     Platzer, the Vienna-based head of operations for the United 
     Nations' Center for International Crime Prevention. ``The 
     mafia is not stupid. There is less law enforcement since the 
     Soviet Union fell apart and more freedom of movement. The 
     earnings are incredible. The overhead is low--you don't have 
     to buy cars and guns. Drugs you sell once and they are gone. 
     Women can earn money for a long time.''
       ``Also,'' he added, ``the laws help the gangsters. 
     Prostitution is semilegal in many places and that makes 
     enforcement tricky. In most cases punishment is very light.''
       In some countries, Israel among them, there is not even a 
     specific law against the sale of human beings.
       Mr. Platzer said that although certainly ``tens of 
     thousands'' of women were sold into prostitution each year, 
     he was uncomfortable with statistics since nobody involved 
     has any reason to tell the truth.
       ``But if you want to use numbers,'' he said, ``think about 
     this. Two hundred million people are victims of contemporary 
     forms of slavery. Most aren't prostitutes, of course, but 
     children in sweatshops, domestic workers, migrants. During 
     four centuries, 12 million people were believed to be 
     involved in the slave trade between Africa and the New World. 
     The 200 million--and many of course are women who are 
     trafficked for sex--is a current figure. It's happening now. 
     Today.''


          distress calls: far-flung victims provide few clues

       The distress call came from Donetsk, the bleak center of 
     coal production in southern Ukraine. A woman was screaming on 
     the telephone line. Her sister and a friend were prisoners in 
     a bar somewhere near Rome. They spoke no Italian and had no 
     way out, but had managed, briefly, to get hold of a man's 
     cell phone.
       ``Do you have any idea where they are, exactly?'' asked 
     Olga Shved, who runs La Strada in Kiev, Ukraine's new center 
     dedicated to fighting the trafficking of women in Eastern 
     Europe and the countries of the former Soviet Union.
       The woman's answer was no. Ms. Shved began searching for 
     files and telephone numbers of the local consul, the police, 
     anybody who could help.
       ``Do they know how far from Rome they are?'' she asked, her 
     voice tightening with each word. ``What about the name of the 
     street or bar? Anything will help,'' she said, jotting notes 
     furiously as she spoke. ``We can get the police on this, but 
     we need something. If they call back, tell them to give us a 
     clue. The street number. The number of a bus that runs past. 
     One thing is all we need.''
       Ms. Shved hung up and called officials at Ukraine's 
     Interior Ministry and the Foreign Ministry. Her conversations 
     were short, direct and obviously a routine part of her job.
       That is because Ukraine--and to a lesser degree its Slavic 
     neighbors Russia and Belarus--has replaced Thailand and the 
     Philippines as the epicenter of the global business in 
     trafficking women. The Ukrainian problem has been worsened by 
     a ravaged economy, an atrophied system of law enforcement, 
     and criminal gangs that grow more brazen each year. Young 
     European women are in demand, and Ukraine, a country of 51 
     million people, has a seemingly endless supply. It is not 
     that hard to see why.
       Neither Russia nor Ukraine reports accurate unemployment 
     statistics. But even partial numbers present a clear story of 
     chaos and economic dislocation. Federal employment statistics 
     in Ukraine indicate that more than two-thirds of the 
     unemployed are women. The Government also keeps another 
     statistic: employed but not working. Those are people who 
     technically have jobs, and can use company amenities like 
     day-care centers and hospitals. But they do not work or get 
     paid. Three-quarters are women. And of those who have lost 
     their jobs since the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, more 
     than 80 percent are women.
       The average salary in Ukraine today is slightly less than 
     $30 a month, but it is half that in the small towns that 
     criminal gangs favor for recruiting women to work abroad. On 
     average, there are 30 applicants for every job in most 
     Ukrainian cities. There is no real hope; but there is 
     freedom.
       In that climate, looking for work in foreign countries has 
     increasingly become a matter of survival.
       ``It's no secret that the highest prices now go for the 
     white women,'' said Marco Buffo, executive director of On the 
     Road, an anti-trafficking organization in northern Italy. 
     ``They are the novelty item now. It used to be Nigerians and 
     Asians at the top of the market. Now it's the Ukrainians.''
       Economics is not the only factor causing women to flee 
     their homelands. There is also social reality. For the first 
     time, young women in Ukraine and Russia have the right, the 
     ability and the willpower to walk away from their parents and 
     their hometowns. Village life is disintegrating throughout 
     much of the former Soviet world, and youngsters are grabbing 
     any chance they can find to save themselves.
       ``After the wall fell down, the Ukrainian people tried to 
     live in the new circumstances,'' said Ms. Shved. ``It was 
     very hard, and it gets no easier. Girls now have few and 
     opportunities yet great freedom. They see `Pretty Woman,' or 
     a thousand movies and ads with the same point, that somebody 
     who is rich can save them. The glory and ease of wealth is 
     almost the basic point of the Western advertising that we 
     see. Here the towns are dying. What jobs there are go to men. 
     So they leave.''
       First, however, they answer ads from employment agencies 
     promising to find them work in a foreign country. Here again, 
     Russian crime gangs play a central role. They often recruit 
     people through seemingly innocuous ``mail order bride'' 
     meetings. Even when they do not, few such organizations can 
     operate without paying off one gang or another. Sometimes 
     want ads are almost honest, suggesting that the women earn up 
     to $1,000 a month as ``escorts'' abroad. Often they are vague 
     or blatantly untrue.


        recruiting methods: ads make offers too good to be true

       One typical ad used by traffickers in Kiev last year read: 
     ``Girls: Must be single and very pretty. Young and tall. We 
     invite you for work as models, secretaries, dancers, 
     choreographers, gymnasts. Housing is supplied. Foreign posts 
     available. Must apply in person.''
       One young woman who did, and made it back alive, described 
     a harrowing journey. ``I met these guys and they asked if I 
     would work at a strip bar,'' she said. ``Why not, I thought. 
     They said we would have to leave at once. We went by car to 
     the Slovak Republic where they grabbed my passport. I think 
     they got me new papers there, but threatened me if I spoke 
     out. We made it to Vienna, then to Turkey. I was kept in a 
     bar and I was told I owed $5,000 for my travel. I worked for 
     three days, and on the fourth I was arrested.''
       Lately, the ads have started to disappear from the main 
     cities--where the realities of such offers are known now. 
     These days the appeals are made in the provinces, where their 
     success is undiminished.
       Most of the thousands of Ukrainian women who go abroad each 
     year are illegal immigrants who do not work in the sex 
     business. Often they apply for a legal visa--to dance, or 
     work in a bar--and then stay after it expires.
       Many go to Turkey and Germany, where Russian crime groups 
     are particularly powerful. Israeli leaders say that Russian 
     women--they tend to refer to all women from the former Soviet 
     Union as Russian--disappear off tour boats every day. 
     Officials in Italy estimate that at least 30,000 Ukrainian 
     women are employed illegally there now.
       Most are domestic workers, but a growing number are 
     prostitutes, some of them having been promised work as 
     domestics only to find out their jobs were a lie. Part of the 
     problem became clear in a two-year study recently concluded 
     by the Washington-based nonprofit group Global Survival 
     Network: police officials in many countries just don't care.
       The network, after undercover interviews with gangsters, 
     pimps and corrupt officials, found that local police forces--
     often those best able to prevent trafficking--are least 
     interested in helping.
       Gillian Caldwell of Global Survival Network has been deeply 
     involved in the study. ``In Tokyo,'' she said, ``a 
     sympathetic senator arranged a meeting for us with senior 
     police officials to discuss the growing prevalence of 
     trafficking from Russia into Japan. The police insisted it 
     wasn't a problem, and they didn't even want the concrete 
     information we could have provided. That didn't surprise 
     local relief agencies, who cited instances in which police 
     had actually sold trafficked women back to the criminal 
     networks which had enslaved them.''


      official reactions: best-placed to help, but least inclined

       Complacency among police agencies is not uncommon.
       ``Women's groups want to blow this all out of proportion,'' 
     said Gennadi V. Lepenko, chief of Kiev's branch of Interpol, 
     the international police agency. ``Perhaps this was a problem 
     a few years ago. But it's under control now.''
       That is not the view at Ukraine's Parliament--which is 
     trying to pass new laws to protect young women--or at the 
     Interior Ministry.
       ``We have a very serious problem here and we are simply not 
     equipped to solve it by ourselves,'' said Mikhail Lebed, 
     chief of criminal investigations for the Ukrainian Interior 
     Ministry. ``It is a human tragedy, but

[[Page S10166]]

     also, frankly, a national crisis. Gangsters make more from 
     these women in a week than we have in our law enforcement 
     budget for the whole year. To be honest, unless we get some 
     help we are not going to stop it.''
       But solutions will not be simple. Criminal gangs risk 
     little by ferrying women out of the country; indeed, many of 
     the women go voluntarily. Laws are vague, cooperation between 
     countries rare and punishment of traffickers almost 
     nonexistent. Without work or much hope of a future at home, 
     an eager teenager will find it hard to believe that the 
     promise of a job in Italy, Turkey or Israel is almost certain 
     to be worthless.
       ``I answered an ad to be a waitress,'' said Tamara, 19, a 
     Ukrainian prostitute in a massage parlor near Tel Aviv's old 
     Central Bus Station, a Russian-language ghetto for the 
     cheapest brothels. ``I'm not sure I would go back now if I 
     could. What would I do there, stand on a bread line or work 
     in a factory for no wages?''
       Tamara, like all other such women interviewed for this 
     article, asked that her full name not be published. She has 
     classic Slavic features, with long blond hair and deep green 
     eyes. She turned several potential customers away so she 
     could speak at length with a reporter. She was willing to 
     talk as along as her boss was out. She said she was not 
     watched closely while she remained within the garish confines 
     of the ``health club.''
       ``I didn't plan to do this,'' she said, looking sourly at 
     the rich red walls and leopard prints around her. ``They took 
     my passport, so I don't have much choice. But they do give me 
     money. And believe me, it's better than anything I could ever 
     get at home.''

                           *   *   *   *   *

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, Irina's story is told all too often and 
is reenacted all too often around the world today. Our Government 
estimates that between 600,000 and 2 million women are trafficked each 
year beyond international borders. They are trafficked for the purpose 
of sexual prostitution by organized crime units and groups that are 
aggressively out making money off the trafficking of human flesh. It is 
wrong. This bill seeks to deal with that wrong and that tragedy that 
has occurred and is occurring around the world today.
  This is significant human rights legislation that this body is going 
to pass. I hope, predict, and pray that it will pass today. It is 
significant human rights legislation for those poor young victims who 
are trafficked and who are caught sometimes with the view that, ``I am 
just stupid, I got caught in this,'' but who live this horrible, 
hellish life they have been put into and trafficked into and can't find 
their way out.
  The conference report is entitled ``The Victims of Trafficking and 
Violence Protection Act of 2000.'' As I mentioned previously, it passed 
the House of Representatives on Friday, October 6, by a vote of 371-1.
  The Senate will vote on this conference report today, with the lead 
underlying bill being the Brownback-Wellstone anti-trafficking 
legislation. Senator Wellstone and I have been working for the last 
year on this legislation, which is a companion to the Smith-Gejdenson 
bill in the House known as the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 
2000.
  I want to thank and recognize my staff, Sharon Payt and Karen 
Knutson, two people who have worked tirelessly and endlessly to deal 
with this particular issue.
  Our anti-trafficking bill is the first complete legislation to 
address the growing practice of international ``trafficking'' 
worldwide. This is one of the largest manifestations of modern-day 
slavery internationally. Notably, this legislation is the most 
significant human rights bill of the 106th Congress, if passed today, 
as hoped for. This is also the largest anti-slavery bill that the 
United States has adopted since 1865 and the demise of slavery at the 
end of the Civil War. Therefore, I greatly anticipate this vote today 
in the Senate on this legislation.
  Senator Wellstone's and my trafficking bill, which passed in the 
Senate on July 27 of this year, was conferenced to reconcile the 
differences with the House bill, and the conference report was filed on 
October 5, Thursday, of last week. The final conference package 
contains four additional pieces of legislation which are substantially 
appropriate to our bill. Most significant among those bill amendments 
is the Violence Against Women Act, known as VAWA, which provides relief 
and assistance to those who suffer domestic violence in America. Thus, 
the additional four bills included in this conference report include 
the Violence Against Women Act. This is a reauthorization of the 
initial bill which was passed in 1994 as part of the Omnibus Crime 
Control Act; this legislation renews several grant programs to assist 
law enforcement officers, social service providers, and others dealing 
with sexual crime and domestic violence.
  Also in this package is Aimee's law, which provides for interstate 
compensation for the costs of incarceration of early-release sex 
offenders who commit another sex crime in a second State. It is based 
on the circumstances of what happened in a Pennsylvania case where a 
murderer was released early out of a Nevada prison, went to 
Pennsylvania, and kidnapped and brutally raped and murdered a young 
girl there who was in the very flower of life and coming forth. This 
law is built upon that terrible crime that took place in Pennsylvania.
  Also in this package is the 21st Amendment Enforcement Act, which 
allows for State attorneys general to enforce their State alcohol 
control laws in Federal court, including laws prohibiting sales to 
minors, which strengthens the grant of authority to States under the 
21st amendment to the Constitution; and the Justice for Victims of 
Terrorism Act, which authorizes the payment of foreign seized assets to 
American victims of international terrorism.
  The last step to adopting this legislative package in Congress rests 
with the Senate today.
  Before I continue describing this urgently needed legislation, I 
would like to take a few moments to thank some key people who have 
brought us to this point today. Some of them are in the Galleries as I 
speak. They are people of heart, courage, and intelligence whose 
advocacy made a way for this bill--whose dedication pried open the 
doors and let the light shine into this darkness. Among them is Senator 
Wellstone who started this work long before I came on board. He and his 
wife, most notably, 3 years ago started advocating on this particular 
issue. I know he stands firmly and strongly today as one of the 
principal advocates to set this aside, and he brought this forward and 
seeks to go forward from here to help those who are victims of these 
crimes.

  I also thank Congressmen Chris Smith and Sam Gejdenson. I would also 
like to thank Gary Haugen of the International Justice Mission and Dr. 
Laura Lederter of the Protect Project at Johns Hopkins University. Dr. 
Laura Lederter of the Protect Project at Johns Hopkins University is 
the foremost authority in the country on tracking from where and to 
where these victims are trafficked.
  I have up here one of the maps she introduced of women who have been 
trafficked out of Russia and Ukraine with the fall of the Soviet Union. 
With the increased travel out of there to freedom, we have seen a huge 
amount of trafficking also taking place. These are the routes out of 
Russia and Ukraine and where they go--to Canada, to the United States, 
to Mexico, to Europe, to Africa and Asia, to Australia and New Zealand. 
This is the work of her project.
  I also want to thank Michael Horowitz of the Hudson Institute, and 
Gloria Steinem, whom I am not noted to thank, is part of this 
coalition; Chuck Colson, Jessica Neuworth, William Bennett, the 
National Association of Evangelicals, the Southern Baptist Convention, 
among others I'm sure I'm forgetting. I would also like to thank the 
staff for both the Senate and House, including Joseph Rees, David 
Abramowitz, Charlotte Oldham-Moore, Jill Hickson, Mark Lagon, and my 
staff Karen Knutson and Sharon Payt. Thank you all. We are here today 
at final passage because of all your efforts.

  This legislation is our best opportunity to challenge the largest 
manifestation of slavery worldwide, known as ``trafficking.'' This 
practice of trafficking involves the coercive transportation of persons 
into slavery-like conditions, primarily involving forced prostitution, 
among other forms of slavery-like conditions.
  Trafficking is the new slavery of the world. These victims are 
routinely forced against their will into the sex trade, transported 
across international borders, and left defenseless in a foreign 
country. This bill also addresses the insidious practice known as 
``debt bondage,'' wherein a person can be enslaved to the money lender 
for an entire lifetime because of a $50 debt

[[Page S10167]]

taken by the family for an emergency. This is a common practice in 
countries throughout the South Asian region.
  People of conscience have fought against the different manifestations 
of slavery for centuries. This anti-slavery legislation is in the 
tradition of William Wilberforce and Amy Carmichael of England, who 
were ardent abolitionists against different forms of slavery. Amy 
Carmichael was a British missionary to India at the turn of last 
century, in the early 1900's. Upon arrival, she was mortified to 
discover the routine practice of forced temple prostitution. This was 
and continues to be a practice wherein young girls, from age six 
onward, are dedicated to the local temple, and are then forced into 
prostitution against their will to generate income. Upon this morbid 
discovery, Amy Carmichael began to physically steal the young girls 
away from this incredibly degrading form of slavery, hiding the girls 
to escape the inevitable backlash of violence. Eventually, the 
government outlawed this practice of forced temple prostitution, as a 
result of her efforts. However, it bears noting that this terrible 
practice continues today, in a lesser degree, in rural villages 
throughout South Asia, including India.
  This bill challenges the myriad forms of slavery including sex 
trafficking, temple prostitution, and debt bondage, among other forms.
  This new phenomenon of sex trafficking is growing exponentially. Some 
report that it is, at least, $7 billion per year illicit trade, 
exceeded only by the international drug and arms trade. Its victims are 
enslaved into a devastating brutality against their will, with no hope 
for release or justice, while its perpetrators build criminal empires 
on this suffering with impunity. Our legislation will begin to 
challenge these injustices.
  This is the new slavery of the world, Dr. Kevin Bales of the 
University of Surrey in England recently testified for us before the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He astutely observed that the new 
slavery has a peculiar quality which does not look like the old forms 
associated with lifetime bondage as a chattel slave, but it is slavery 
nonetheless.
  Sex trafficking is among the most common forms of the new slavery and 
typically entails shorter periods of bondage, usually asking for 5 to 6 
years, or whenever something like AIDS or tuberculosis is contracted, 
after which the victim is thrown out on the street, broken, without 
community or resources, left to die. I have met with people caught in 
that condition.
  Women and children are routinely forced against their will. Sex 
traffickers favor girls aging in the range of 10 to 13.
  I have a number of other things I could say, but my time is limited. 
I know a number of people want to speak on this bill. I ask to reserve 
the remainder of my time. I will turn the floor over to Senator 
Wellstone.
  I ask unanimous consent on any quorum calls that might be called 
during the discussion of this conference report, that time be allotted 
and assessed against all allocated time to speak under the bill, 
including myself and Senator Wellstone, along with Senator Biden, 
Senator Hatch, and Senator Leahy, who have all been allocated time. I 
ask the quorum calls be equally divided between those who have time 
under the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I finally note to others who seek to speak on this 
bill, I invite Members to come to the floor to make comments. At the 
conclusion of our presentation, a vote will occur on this conference 
report.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  I thank my colleague, Senator Brownback, for his very gracious 
remarks. It has been an honor to work with him on this legislation. I 
think a very strong friendship has come out of this effort. There are 
some times when we can work and reach out and have the most interesting 
and I hope important coalition. Working with Senator Brownback, Sharon 
Payt, and Karen Knutson has been the best legislative work. At the end 
of the day, I believe today we will pass this legislation. Members can 
feel they have done something really good. They can make a positive 
difference. I thank Senator Brownback for his great leadership and his 
great work for each step along the way. In all the negotiations, all 
the work that has been done, the Senator has been there. I thank the 
Senator.
  I want to talk about Charlotte Oldham-Moore and Jill Hickson, who 
have worked with me and our staff, who have done a great job. There are 
other people who will be on the floor who put this together--especially 
the Violence Against Women Act--Senator Leahy, Senator Biden, Senator 
Hatch, and others, and Sam Gejdenson and Chris Smith have been 
phenomenal. I thank them for their yeoman work on the House side. I 
also thank Frank Loy and Harold Koh at the State Department for their 
work.
  The trafficking of human beings for forced prostitution and sweatshop 
labor is a rapidly growing human rights abuse. It is one of the 
greatest aspects of the globalization of the world economy. The Victims 
of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 is the first piece 
of legislation to address the widespread practice of the trafficking of 
men, women, and children into sweatshop labor and sexual bondage.
  My wife Sheila urged me to do something about this problem several 
years ago. Consequently, she and I spent time with women trafficked 
from the Ukraine to work in brothels in Western Europe and the United 
States. They told us after the breakup of the Soviet Union and the 
ascendancy of the mob, trafficking in women and girls became a booming 
industry that destroyed the lives of the youngest and most vulnerable 
in their home countries.

  We began work on the bill then, and 3 years later, after 
extraordinary bipartisan effort, tremendous leadership from Senators 
Brownback and Leahy, and Sam Gejdenson and Chris Smith, and others, it 
passed the House with a vote of 371-1. Now it is poised to pass the 
Senate.
  Our Government estimates that 2 million people are trafficked each 
year. Of those, 700,000 women and children, primarily young girls, are 
trafficked from poor countries to rich countries and sold into slavery, 
raped, locked up, physically and psychologically abused, with food and 
health care withheld. Of those, as many as 50,000 immigrants are 
brought into the United States each year, and they wind up trapped in 
brothels, sweatshops, and other types of forced labor, abused and too 
fearful to seek help.
  Traffickers exploit the unequal status of women and girls, including 
harmful stereotypes of women as property and sexual objects to be 
bought and sold. Traffickers have also taken advantage of the demand in 
our country and others for cheap, unprotected labor. For the 
traffickers, the sale of human beings is a highly profitable, low-risk 
enterprise as these women are viewed as expendable and reusable 
commodities.
  Overall, profit in the trade can be staggering. It is estimated that 
the size of this business is $7 billion annually, only surpassed by 
that of the illegal arms trade. Trafficking has become a major source 
of new income for criminal rings. It is coldly observed that drugs are 
sold once while a woman or a child can be sold 10 or 20 times a day.
  In the United States, Thai traffickers who incarcerated Thai women 
and men in sweatshops in El Monte, CA, are estimated to have made $8 
million in 6 years. Further, Thai traffickers who enslaved Thai women 
in a New York brothel made about $1.5 million over 1 year and 3 months.
  Last year, Albanian women were kidnapped from Kosovo refugee camps 
and trafficked to work in brothels in Turkey and Europe. Closer to 
home, organized crime has trafficked Russian and Ukranian women into 
sexually exploitive work in dozens of cities in the United States of 
America. Just next door, law enforcement authorities suspected mafia 
involvement in the gruesome murder of a Russian woman trafficked to 
Maryland.
  All of these cases reflect a new condition: Women whose lives have 
been disrupted by civil wars or fundamental changes in political 
geography, such as the disintegration of the Soviet Union or the 
violence in the Balkans, have fallen prey to traffickers.
  Seeking financial security, many innocent persons are lured by 
traffickers'

[[Page S10168]]

false promises of a better life and lucrative jobs abroad. Seeking this 
better life, they are lured by local advertisements for good jobs in 
foreign countries at wages they could never imagine at home. However, 
when they arrive, these victims are often stripped of their passports, 
held against their will, some in slave-like conditions, in the year 
2000.
  Rape, intimidation, and violence are commonly employed by traffickers 
to control their victims and to prevent them from seeking help. Through 
physical isolation and psychological trauma, traffickers and brothel 
owners imprison women in a world of economic and sexual exploitation 
that imposes a constant threat of arrest and deportation, as well as 
violent reprisals by the traffickers themselves to whom the women must 
pay off ever-growing debts. That is the way this works.
  Many brothel owners actually prefer foreign women, women who are far 
from help and from home, who do not speak the language, precisely 
because of the ease of controlling them. Most of these women never 
imagined they would enter such a hellish world, having traveled abroad 
to find better jobs or to see the world.
  Many in their naivete believe nothing bad can happen to them in the 
rich and comfortable countries such as Switzerland or Germany or the 
United States. Others are less naive, but they are desperate for money 
and opportunity. But they are no less hurt by the trafficker's brutal 
grip.
  Trafficking rings are often run by criminals operating through 
nominally reputable agencies. In some cases overseas, police and 
immigration officials of other nations participate and benefit from the 
trafficking. Lack of awareness or complacency among government 
officials such as border control and consular offices contributes to 
the problem. Furthermore, traffickers are rarely punished, as official 
policies often inhibit victims from testifying against their 
traffickers, making trafficking a highly profitable, low-risk business 
venture for some.
  Trafficking abuses are occurring not just in far-off lands but here 
at home in America as well. The INS has discovered 250 brothels in 26 
different cities which involve trafficking victims. This is from a CIA 
report. This is the whole problem of no punishment--being able to do 
this with virtual impunity.
  In a 1996 trafficking case involving Russian and Ukrainian women who 
answered ads to be au pairs, sales clerks and waitresses, and were 
forced to provide sexual services and live in a massage parlor in 
Bethesda, MD, the Russian-American massage parlor owner was fined. He 
entered a plea bargain and charges were dropped with the restriction 
that he would not operate a business again in Montgomery County. The 
women, who had not been paid any salary and were charged $150 for their 
housing, were deported or left the United States voluntarily. There was 
no charge at all.
  Teenage Mexican girls were held in slavery in Florida and the 
Carolinas, and they were forced to submit to prostitution.
  Russian and Latvian women were forced to work in nightclubs in the 
Midwest. According to charges filed against the traffickers, the 
traffickers picked the women up upon their arrival at the airport, 
seized their documents and return tickets, locked them in hotels and 
beat them. This is in our country. The women were told that if they 
refused to work in sexually exploitive conditions, the Russian Mafia 
would kill their families. Furthermore, over a 3-year period, hundreds 
of women from the Czech Republic who answered advertisements in Czech 
newspapers for modeling were ensnared in an illegal prostitution ring.
  Trafficking in persons for labor is an enormous problem as well. The 
INS has also worked on cases involving South Asian children smuggled 
into the United States to work in slavery-like conditions. In one case, 
about 100 Indian children, some of them as young as 9 or 10, were 
brought into New York and shuffled around the country to work in 
construction and restaurants--ages 9 and 10, in the United States; 
today, in the United States--2000.
  Some of the children appear to have been sold by their parents to the 
traffickers. In Woodbine, MD, a pastor bought Estonian children, ages 
14 to 17, promising them they would attend Calvery Chapel Christian 
Academy, but then forcing them to clean roach-invested apartments and 
to do construction. The children worked 15 hours a day. The children 
were threatened and punishments included denial of food and being 
forced to stand in one spot for prolonged periods.

  The bitter irony is that quite often victims are punished more 
harshly than the traffickers because of their illegal immigration 
status, their serving as prostitutes, or their lack of documents, which 
the traffickers have confiscated in order to control the victims.
  A review of the trafficking cases showed that the penalties were 
light and did not reflect the multitude of human rights abuses 
perpetrated against these women.
  In a Los Angeles case, traffickers kidnapped a Chinese woman, raped 
her, forced her into prostitution, posted guards to control her 
movements, and burned her with cigarettes. Nevertheless, the lead 
defendants received 4 years and the other defendants received 2 and 3 
years. That is what they received.
  In a tragic case involving over 70 Thai laborers who had been held 
against their will, systematically abused, and made to work 20-hour 
shifts in a sweatshop, the seven defendants received sentences ranging 
from 4 to 7 years with one defendant receiving 7 months.
  In another case where Asian women were kept physically confined for 
years with metal bars on the windows, guards, and an electronic 
monitoring system, and were forced to submit to sex with as many as 400 
customers to repay their smuggling debt, the traffickers received 4 
years and 9 years--in the United States of America, in the year 2000.
  I thank Senator Brownback for his work. It is important.
  A review of the trafficking cases showed that the penalties were 
light and they did not reflect the multitude of the human rights abuses 
perpetrated against these women. The statutory minimum for sale into 
involuntary servitude is only 10 years, whereas the maximum for dealing 
in small quantities of certain drugs is life.
  Let me repeat that. The statutory minimum for sale into involuntary 
servitude is only 10 years, whereas the maximum for dealing in small 
quantities of certain drugs is life.
  Few State and Federal laws are aimed directly at people who deliver 
or control women for the purpose of involuntary servitude or slavery in 
sweatshops or brothels. Consequently, prosecutors are forced to 
assemble cases using a hodgepodge of laws, such as document fraud and 
interstate commerce, and accept penalties that they believe are too 
light for the offense. Up until this legislation, there was no way for 
the prosecutors to go after these traffickers.
  The Victims of Violence and Trafficking Protection Act of 2000 
establishes, for the first time, a bright line between the victim and 
the perpetrator. It punishes the perpetrator and provides a 
comprehensive approach to solving the root problems that create 
millions of trafficking victims each year.
  This legislation aims to prevent trafficking in persons, provide 
protection and assistance to those who have been trafficked, and 
strengthen prosecution and punishment for those who are responsible for 
the trafficking. It is designed to help Federal law enforcement 
officials expand antitrafficking efforts here and abroad, to expand 
domestic antitrafficking and victim assistance efforts, and to assist 
nongovernment organizations, governments and others worldwide, who are 
providing critical assistance to victims of trafficking. It addresses 
the underlying problems which fuel the trafficking industry by 
promoting public antitrafficking awareness campaigns and initiatives in 
other countries to enhance economic opportunity, such as microcredit 
lending programs and skills training, for those who are most 
susceptible to trafficking, and have an outreach so women and girls as 
young as 10 and 11 know what they might be getting into.

  It also increases protections and services for trafficking victims by 
establishing programs designed to assist in the safe reintegration of 
victims into their communities and ensure that such programs address 
both the physical and mental health needs of trafficking victims.

[[Page S10169]]

  Imagine what it would be like to be age 12 or 13, a young girl, to go 
through this. We have, in Minnesota, the Center for the Treatment of 
Torture Victims. It is a holy place. I have had an opportunity to meet 
with staff and meet with many men and women who have been helped by 
this center. These girls, these women, have gone through the same 
living hell.
  This legislation also increases protections and services for 
trafficking victims by providing community support. Furthermore, the 
bill seeks to stop the practice--and this is so important. I am sitting 
next to Senator Kennedy who has done so much with the immigration work. 
This bill seeks to stop the practice of immediately deporting the 
victims back to potentially dangerous situations by providing them with 
some interim immigration relief. Victims of ``severe forms of 
trafficking,'' defined as people who were held against their will--
``for labor or services through the use of force, fraud, or coercion 
for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt 
bondage or slavery''--would be eligible for a special visa letting them 
stay in the country at least through the duration of their captors' 
prosecution, and perhaps permanently.*****-*****- -Name: -Payroll No. -
Folios: -Date: -Subformat:
  Right now, if you are a Ukrainian girl or woman in a massage parlor 
in Bethesda, and you step forward to get some help, you are deported. 
The trafficker is hardly prosecuted. The victim is automatically 
deported. This provides temporary visa protection.
  I will give an example. In a 1996 trafficking case involving Russian 
and Ukrainian women who had answered ads to be au pairs, sales clerks, 
and waitresses but were forced to provide sexual services and live in a 
massage parlor in Bethesda, MD, 2 miles from here, the Russian American 
massage parlor owner was fined. He entered a plea bargain and charges 
were dropped with the restriction that he would not operate his 
business again in Montgomery County. The women, who had not been paid 
any salary, were forced into prostitution, and were charged for their 
housing, were deported.
  This legislation toughens current Federal trafficking penalties, 
criminalizing all forms of trafficking in persons and establishing 
punishment commensurate with the heinous nature of this crime. The bill 
establishes specific laws against trafficking. Violators can be 
sentenced to prison for 20 years to life, depending on the severity of 
the crime. Yes, if you are trafficking a young girl and forcing her 
into prostitution, you can face a life sentence. They can also be 
forced to make full restitution to their victims, paying them the 
salary that would have been due for their months or years of 
involuntary service.
  This bill requires expanded reporting on trafficking, including a 
separate list of countries which are not meeting minimum standards for 
the elimination of trafficking.
  It requires the President to suspend ``nonhumanitarian and nontrade'' 
assistance to only the worst violators on the list of countries which 
do not meet these minimum standards and who actively condone this human 
rights abuse. This is a major piece of human rights legislation. This 
is a major human rights bill.
  These are the rare governments which are openly complicit in 
trafficking people across their borders. It allows the Congress to 
monitor closely the progress of countries in their fight against 
trafficking, and it gives the administration flexibility to couple its 
diplomatic efforts to combat trafficking with targeted enforcement 
action. Finally, the bill provides three generous waivers.
  By passing the Victims of Violence and Trafficking Act today, this 
Chamber will take a historic step toward the elimination of trafficking 
in persons.
  Thanks to the partnership of Jewish and Evangelical groups, women and 
human rights organizations, and others, we will take a historic and 
effective step against organized crime rings and corrupt public 
officials who each year traffic more than 2 million people into 
desperate, broken lives of bondage and servitude.
  Something important is in the air when such a broad coalition of 
people, including Bill Bennett, Gloria Steinem, Rabbi David 
Sapperstein, Ann Jordan, and Chuck Colson work together for the passage 
of this legislation. I am thankful for their support, I am thankful for 
the support of the administration, and I am thankful for your support 
today in seeking to end this horrible, widespread, and growing human 
rights abuse.
  By way of conclusion, I say to my colleagues, starting with Senator 
Brownback, I believe with passage of this legislation--I believe it 
will pass today and the President will sign it--we are lighting a 
candle. We are lighting a candle for these women and girls and sometime 
men forced into forced labor. I also think because of the work of so 
many in the House and the Senate, this can be a piece of legislation 
that other governments in other parts of the world can pass as well. 
This is the beginning of an international effort to go after this 
trafficking, to go after this major, god-awful human rights abuse, this 
horrible exploitation of women, sometimes men, and of girls.

  I am very proud of this legislation. I thank my colleague from 
Kansas. I thank other colleagues as well.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator has 36 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. The 
other part of this legislation that is so significant, and I know 
colleagues are here to speak about it, is the reauthorization of the 
Violence Against Women Act. I want to reserve time to speak about that 
very important piece of legislation. For me, to see both of these bills 
pass and to see it happen today is one of the best days I can have in 
the Senate. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator from Massachusetts will 
withhold for a moment, is my understanding correct that the Senator 
from Vermont has 3 hours?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for the information of colleagues, I do not 
intend to use all that time. At some point, I am going to yield back a 
considerable amount of time. I know there are Senators on both sides of 
the aisle who have commitments tonight, some connected with the debates 
of the two parties' Presidential nominees. It is my hope we will be 
voting fairly early this afternoon--a vote on the Thompson point of 
order and final passage.
  I yield such time as the Senator from Massachusetts needs, and I ask 
unanimous consent that I then be able to yield to the Senator from 
California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I greatly appreciate the absolutely 
splendid presentation by my friend and colleague, Senator Wellstone. I 
agree with him on so many issues. His statement today was one of his 
very best. We can certainly understand the extraordinary work he has 
done, along with Senator Brownback and others, to make sure this 
legislation is considered. All of us will forever be grateful to him 
for his leadership in this extremely important area. I certainly am. I 
thank him for an absolutely splendid presentation.
  Mr. President, I'm pleased that the Senate is finally about to pass 
the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act. The current 
authorization for the Act expired on September 30, and it has taken far 
too long to bring this important extension to the Senate floor.
  A woman is beaten every 15 seconds as a result of domestic violence. 
Every year, one-third of the women who are murdered are killed by their 
husbands or partners, and approximately one million women are stalked. 
Conservative estimates indicate that 60 percent of disabled women, up 
to 25 percent of pregnant women, and 1 out of 25 elderly people have 
suffered domestic violence.
  This isn't a problem that only affects adults. Each year, 3.3 million 
children are exposed to domestic violence. In homes where abuse of 
women occurs, children are 1,500 times more likely to be abused as 
well. Whether they witness the violence or are actually assaulted by 
the abuser, many children learn shocking behavior from adults. 12 
percent of high school dating couples

[[Page S10170]]

have suffered abuse in their relationships, and often these teenagers 
are themselves victims of abuse at home.
  Eighteen year-old Tanyaliz Torres and her mother were stabbed to 
death by her father in Springfield, Massachusetts. Fifty-eight-year-old 
Mabel Greineder of Wellesley, Massachusetts was stabbed and bludgeoned 
to death by her husband. From October 1999 through September 2000, 24 
Massachusetts women and children were killed as a result of domestic 
violence. It is a national epidemic that touches every community in the 
country.
  The Violence Against Women Act was enacted in 1994 to address this 
problem and provide greater safety and peace of mind for millions of 
women and their families. The act creates a partnership between the 
public sector and the private sector at every level--Federal, State, 
and local. Its goal is to establish a safety net of new programs and 
policies, including community-based services for victims, a National 
Domestic Violence Hotline, needed technological assistance, and larger 
numbers of well-trained law enforcement officers and prosecutors.
  The national Hotline gives women across the country immediate access 
to the help they need. Since its initiation in 1996, it has received 
over 500,000 calls. When a Spanish-speaking woman in Arizona needed 
shelter for herself and her three children, the Hotline called a 
shelter in Phoenix, found a Spanish-speaking counselor, and gave the 
caller the counselor's name and directions to the shelter. In the 
countless cases, the Hotline is an invaluable resource, and we must do 
all we can to support it.
  In Massachusetts, $20 million under the Violence Against Women Act 
has been awarded to advocacy organizations, law enforcement personnel, 
and State and local governments. The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head 
received funding to develop and strengthen tribal justice strategies to 
remedy violent crimes against Indian women and to develop and 
strengthen services for victims.
  The act also supports HarborCOV--Harbor Communities Overcoming 
Violence--a Massachusetts program serving Chelsea and Greater Boston. 
In addition to its core services, HarborCOV has an economic development 
component which helps survivors move from welfare to work. Employment 
training and employment referrals are also provided to help domestic 
violence victims find jobs.
  The reauthorization will ensure that support for these programs and 
others will continue. It also includes important new measures, such as 
transitional housing assistance and a $175 million authorization for 
shelters, which will be significant additional tools in the battle 
against domestic violence.
  One of the most important provisions in the bill is the Battered 
Immigrant Protection Act. This provision helps battered immigrants by 
restoring access to a variety of legal protections undermined by the 
1996 immigration laws. The Violence Against Women Act passed in 1994 
included provisions that allowed battered immigrants to apply for legal 
status without the cooperation of their abusers, and enabled victims to 
seek protective orders and cooperate with law enforcement officials to 
prosecute crimes of domestic violence.
  Unfortunately, the subsequent changes in immigration laws have 
reduced access to those protections. Thousands of battered immigrants 
are again being forced to remain in abusive relationships, out of fear 
of being deported or losing their children. The pending bill removes 
obstacles currently hindering the ability of battered immigrants to 
escape domestic violence safely and prosecute their abusers.
  It restores and expands vital legal protections like 245(i) relief. 
This provision will assist battered immigrants, like Donna, who have 
been in legal limbo since the passage of the 1996 immigration laws. 
Donna, a national of Ethiopia, fled to the U.S. in 1992 after her 
father, a member of a prominent political party, was murdered. In 1994, 
Donna met Saul, a lawful permanent resident and native of Ethiopia. 
They married and moved to Saul's home in Massachusetts. Two years 
later, Saul began drinking heavily and gradually became physically and 
verbally abusive. The abuse escalated and Donna was forced to flee from 
their home. She moved in with close family friends who helped her seek 
counseling. She also filed a petition for permanent residence under the 
provisions of the Violence Against Women Act.
  Unfortunately, with the elimination of 245(i), the only way for Donna 
to obtain her green card is to return to Ethiopia, the country where 
her father was murdered. The possibility of returning there terrifies 
her. This legislation will enable her to obtain her green card here, 
where she has the support and protection of family and access to the 
domestic violence counseling she needs.
  Under this act, battered immigrants will also have up to one year 
from the entry of an order of removal to file motions to reopen prior 
deportation orders. The Attorney General may waive the one year 
deadline on the basis of extraordinary circumstances or hardship to the 
battered immigrant's child.
  This Act will also expand remedies for battered immigrants living 
abroad with spouses and parents serving in the United States military 
or other federal positions. Current law only allows battered immigrants 
residing in the United States to request this relief. This bill will 
make it easier for these immigrants and their children to escape 
abusive relationships and obtain the help they deserve.
  The legislation also grants the Attorney General the discretion to 
waive certain bars to immigration relief for qualified applicants. For 
example, battered immigrant women acting in self-defense are often 
convicted of domestic violence crimes. Under the 1996 immigration law, 
they became deportable and are denied relief under the Violence Against 
Women Act. The Attorney General will be able to use the waiver 
authority to help battered immigrants who otherwise qualify for relief.
  Also, recently divorced battered immigrants will be able to file 
self-petitions. Current law allows only battered immigrant women 
currently married to their abusive spouses to qualify for relief. As a 
result, many abusers have successfully rushed to the court house to 
obtain divorces, in order to deny relief to their immigrant spouse. 
This provision will prevent this unfair result and ensure that victims 
are not wrongly deprived of the legal protection they need.

  These and other important measures will do a great deal to protect 
battered immigrants and their children from domestic violence and free 
them from the fear that often prevents them from prosecuting these 
crimes. Congress enacted the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 to help 
all victims of domestic violence, regardless of their citizenship. It 
is long past time to restore and expand these protections.
  I am also pleased that the legislation includes authorization for 
increased funds for the National Domestic Violence Hotline. Consistent 
with last year's funding, the bill authorizes $2 million a year for the 
hotline and ensures that the Hotline will be an effective source of 
assistance, providing vital services to women, children, and their 
families.
  A second, equally important part of the bill we are considering today 
is the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which condemns and combats 
the trafficking of persons into forced prostitution or forced labor, a 
practice that is tantamount to modern day slavery.
  Enactment of this legislation will strengthen laws that punish 
traffickers and ensure protection for their victims--most of whom are 
women and children.
  One of the most important of these provisions expands assistance and 
protection to victims of severe forms of trafficking, ensuring that 
they receive appropriate shelter and care, and are able to remain in 
the United States to assist in the prosecution of traffickers. Relief 
from deportation is also critical for victims who could face 
retribution or other hardship if removed from the United States.
  Sara, a native of Sri Lanka, was promised a lucrative job as a 
housekeeper. Upon arrival in the U.S., Sara was virtually imprisoned in 
her employer's Massachusetts home, and subjected to physical and sexual 
assault. She bore three children as a result of rape. After 5 years of 
living in captivity and isolation, she was finally

[[Page S10171]]

able to escape. This legislation will provide persons like Sara with 
the protection and rights they need to assist in the prosecution of 
these despicable crimes.
  Finally, this legislation also includes an important provision to 
provide compensatory damages to Frank Reed and other American citizens 
who were victims of Iranian terrorism.
  In 1986, Frank Reed, of Malden, MA, was kidnapped in Lebanon. At the 
time, he was a private citizen and president of the Lebanese 
International School. During his 44-month captivity, he was 
blindfolded, chained, tortured, and held in solitary confinement for 2 
years. His captors periodically fed him arsenic, from which his health 
still suffers.
  In 1990, he was released to Syrian Army intelligence officers in 
Beirut, who took him to the U.S. Embassy in Damascus. I met him when he 
returned to the United States after his tragic and traumatic ordeal.
  A U.S. judge ordered the Iranian Government to provide Frank Reed and 
his wife with $26 million in compensatory damages, but the Government 
has refused to comply.
  Under the legislation we are approving today, the U.S. Government 
will provide the funding. The amount will be recovered in turn by the 
U.S. Government from the Iranian Government through a Foreign Military 
Sales Account that holds $400 million.
  Frank Reed suffered immensely at the hands of his brutal captors, and 
so did his family, and he deserves this compensation.
  I strongly support the Violence Against Women Act of 2000, the 
Trafficking Victims Protection Act, and the Justice for Victims of 
Terrorism Act. This legislation will ensure that we are doing much more 
to protect women from violence and abuse, and it deserves to be enacted 
as soon as possible.


                 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT

  Mr. President, I want to also address the Senate for just a few 
moments on another matter of importance to families all across this 
country which is central to their concerns, and that is, what has 
happened to this Senate's commitment to passing and reauthorizing the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act? That legislation is the 
backbone of Federal participation in helping local communities 
strengthen academic achievement and accomplishment. We are now going 
into the final days of this Congress and we still have not reauthorized 
that central piece of legislation even though we have had strong 
commitment by the majority party that this was a priority and that we 
were going to have consideration of this legislation.
  We heard a great deal during the recent debates of our two candidates 
for President and our two candidates for Vice President about 
education. But our American families are wondering, whatever happened 
to the Senate of the United States on this issue? The fact is, we are 
basically AWOL, we are A-W-O-L on this issue. It is the first time in 
35 years that we have failed to reauthorize this legislation.
  I understand, as we remain here for these final days, that we will 
have a conference report for agriculture, that we will have a series of 
appropriations conference reports, but there is no reason in the world 
we can't go back and complete this legislation in the time that we are 
in here waiting for the various appropriations bills.

  We continue to challenge the Republican leadership to bring this 
back. There is still unfinished business in education and in the area 
of minimum wage. There is unfinished business on the Patients' Bill of 
Rights and on the prescription drug issue.
  I want to reemphasize exactly where we are on the issue of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. These are statements that have 
been made by the Republican leader, Senator Lott's promise on 
education, going back to January 6, 1999. He said:

       Education is going to be a central issue this year. . . . 
     For starters, we must reauthorize the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act. That is important.

  Remarks to U.S. Conference of Mayors, January 29, 1999:

       But Education is going to have a lot of attention, and it's 
     not going to be just words. . . .

  Press conference, June 1999:

       Education is number one on the agenda for Republicans in 
     the Congress this year. . . .

  Remarks to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in February of 2000:

       We're going to work very hard on education. I have 
     emphasized that every year I've been Majority Leader. . . . 
     And Republicans are committed to doing that.

  A speech to the National Conference of State Legislatures, February 
3, 2000:

       We must reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act. . . . Education will be a high priority in this 
     Congress.

  On the Senate floor, May 1, 2000:

       This is very important legislation. I hope we can debate it 
     seriously and have amendments in the education area. Let's 
     talk education.

  Press stakeout, May 2, 2000:

       Question: Senator, on ESEA, have you scheduled a cloture 
     vote on that?
       Senator Lott: No, I haven't scheduled a cloture vote. . . . 
     But education is number one in the minds of the American 
     people all across this country and every State, including my 
     own State. For us to have a good, healthy, and even a 
     protracted debate and amendments on education, I think is the 
     way to go.

  We agree with that statement. We still have some time, while we are 
waiting for the appropriators to conclude their work, where we ought to 
be bringing this back and having a full debate. We are prepared to do 
that. We think it can be done.
  Senate floor, July 10, 2000:

       I, too, would very much like to see us complete the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act. . . . I feel very 
     strongly about getting it done. . . . We can work day and 
     night for the next 3 weeks.

  Senate floor, July 25, 2000:

       We will keep trying to find a way to go back to this 
     legislation this year and get it completed.

  That was on July 25, and we are still waiting.
  The fact is, we are failing to meet this central challenge. Our 
Presidential candidates are talking about the issue of education, but 
they are talking about it in a vacuum because the Senate of the United 
States is failing to take up this particular issue which makes such a 
difference to families, and that is strengthening academic achievement 
and accomplishment. The fact is that we are in a new world of 
technology and it is demanding. We have to refocus and re-prioritize 
the whole issue of education to make sure that it addresses the needs 
of today's economy and society. This is going to be central in terms of 
our national debate and discussion. That is what this debate is all 
about.
  What is going to be our involvement in terms of helping families? The 
fact is that we are absent in this debate because we are refusing to 
conclude action.

  This is what is happening in America. More students are now taking 
the SATs. 83 percent of four-year colleges use SAT scores as a factor 
in admission. Increasing numbers of students are recognizing that a 
college education is the key to success in America. Families understand 
the importance of taking those tests; children understand it. We want 
to make sure we are helping those families who have children taking the 
SATs and those who would like their children to take the SATs.
  As depicted on this chart, this is what has happened. From 1995, 42 
percent of the children were taking SATs, and it is up to 44 percent in 
2000.
  More students are also taking advanced math and science classes 
because they understand that in a highly technological world, with new 
kinds of demands in terms of technology, they are going to have to do 
more in terms of math and science courses. We see increases in the 
number of students taking advanced classes in pre-calculus, calculus, 
and physics. Young people are doing their share. The real question is 
whether we in the Congress are going to do ours. The answer comes back 
that, no, we are not. Look at what has been happening with the SAT math 
scores. They are higher now than in the last 30 years, and they are 
continuously moving up. The indicators are all positive. You would not 
know that listening to Governor Bush last week. We know we are facing 
challenges across the country, but look at the SAT math scores; they 
are the highest in 30 years. More kids are taking the SAT, and still 
the scores are moving up. I think we ought to understand what is 
happening out there. Some progress is being made.

[[Page S10172]]

  Now, this doesn't mean that progress is being made in all of the 
States. That is very important, indeed. Looking at the State SAT 
averages and progress made since 1997, some States have done much 
better than others. I am glad my own State of Massachusetts has moved 
up some 8 points, from an average total SAT score of 1,016 in 1997 to 
1,024 in 2000. We have had major educational reforms. We have done many 
things in our State in terms of smaller class sizes, better trained 
teachers, and afterschool programs. We are not doing all the things we 
need to be doing, but we have done a lot. We have also taken advantage 
of Net Day to try, in a voluntary way, to get good computers in 
classrooms with well-trained teachers.
  We also have found out in this discussion and debate that not all the 
States--including the State of Texas--have made progress. It is 
interesting that actually the State of Texas has declined some 2 points 
in their average total SAT score since 1997. They dropped from an 
average score of 995 in 1997 to 993 in 2000. They are also below the 
national SAT total score average. The national average has gone up 3 
points from 1997 to 2000, but the State of Texas has gone down 2 
points. That is a 5-point spread. So I think when we listen to these 
debates about what ought to be done, we ought to try to take with a 
grain of salt what has been happening in Texas over the period of these 
last 3 years.
  In addition, looking back at the trend over the last 10 years, as I 
understand it, in SAT verbal scores since 1990, Texas has been 10 
points below the national average. By 2000, the gap had grown to 12 
points. In math, Texas has been 12 points below the national average. 
By 2000, the gap has grown to 14 points.
  I think we want to have leadership at the national level that is 
going to bring continued improvement. We know we have challenges. We 
know we have challenges in urban areas and we have challenges in rural 
areas. But we also know some of the things that work. The STARS 
Program, as we have seen in Tennessee, has been very important in terms 
of enhancing children's academic achievement and accomplishment.
  We know what has happened when we focus on getting better teachers in 
schools, such as in the State of Connecticut. Much of the progress 
there has been under Republican as well as Democratic Governors. We 
want to try to find out what has worked in these States and then have 
an opportunity to try to give general national application to it. But 
we are effectively being closed out by the Republican leadership from 
having this debate. That is what families ought to understand across 
this country.
  We are basically being told we can't have a debate here in the Senate 
on the issue of education. We had 6 days when the measure was before 
the Senate, and 2 days were for debate only. We had eight votes and one 
was a voice vote. So that meant seven rollcalls and three of them were 
virtually unanimous. So we really didn't have much debate and 
discussion. We had 16 days of debate on the bankruptcy legislation and 
55 different amendments on it. So it is a matter of prioritizing.
  I dare say we are failing to meet the responsibilities to families 
across this country who want to have investment in the kinds of 
educational programs that are going to work and who understand their 
children are living in a new age of technological challenges. They want 
to see their children move ahead academically. We have seen that 
children are prepared to do that. We have seen them taking more 
difficult courses. They are taking the challenges of SATs. They are 
prepared to move ahead.
  Some of the States are moving ahead boldly, such as North Carolina, 
in terms of their efforts. But we have to ask ourselves: Where in the 
world are the Congress and Senate in terms of helping and assisting 
families in this area? The fact of the matter is that we are AWOL. We 
have failed to do our homework. If we were students with this behavior, 
we would be in the principal's office for several hours in discipline.
  We are going to continue to talk about this. I see that we now are 
going to have a continuing resolution that will go into next week. We 
may go even further. There is no reason in the world we can't use these 
interludes to take on one of the really important issues for families; 
that is, the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act.
  I thank the Senator from Vermont for yielding time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I believe under the unanimous consent 
agreement that I can now yield to the distinguished Senator from 
California. I ask the Senator from California how much time she would 
like.
  Mrs. BOXER. Between 10 and 15 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
California.
  So many have worked so hard on this. The distinguished Senators from 
Massachusetts and Minnesota have spoken already, but especially 
Senators Boxer, Mikulski, Lincoln, Landrieu, Murray, and Feinstein have 
worked so hard.
  I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from California.
  I ask the Chair how much time is remaining for the Senator from 
Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 hours 35 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, thank you very much. I thank my friend 
from Vermont for all his hard work. I thank my friend, Senator 
Wellstone. I thank Senator Brownback. I thank Senator Biden and Senator 
Hatch.
  We have a very important bill before us. I think the Trafficking 
Victims Protection Act sort of stands on its own. I would love to have 
seen that come on its own because it is a landmark piece of 
legislation. I felt the same way about the Violence Against Women Act.
  That is a landmark piece of legislation. Unfortunately, I think we 
have issues and pieces of legislation that shouldn't be in here. But 
that is the way it goes. How you would ever get to the point where you 
would put an issue that deals with sales of wine on the Internet is 
beyond me. I don't think people really get what we do here when we take 
these issues and blend them together. But let's call it the way it is.
  The Trafficking Victims Protection Act and the Violence Against Women 
Act are so important that Members are willing to say, even if they 
didn't agree with all the appendages, they are willing to go along with 
them. I am going to make some comments about each piece that is in this 
legislation.
  The Violence Against Women Act is very near and dear to my heart 
because in 1990 I was over in the House, where I served very proudly 
for about 10 years, and Senator Biden came to me and said: Would you be 
willing to offer the Violence Against Women Act in the House? He had 
authored it in the Senate. I was extremely pleased to agree.
  The whole issue of domestic violence in our country up until that 
time was never discussed. It was swept under the rug. Even though we 
knew it was brutalizing women and children, we didn't have the courage 
to act. In those early years, it was very hard to get attention paid to 
violence against women.
  I was able in the House to get through just a couple of pieces of 
that legislation. But it wasn't until I came to the Senate with Senator 
Biden that we really orchestrated tremendous support for the bill. In 
1994, we got it through as part of the Crime Act. It has proven itself.
  In this particular reauthorization, we will provide $3.3 billion in 
funding over the next 5 years to protect victims of domestic abuse and 
violence. We have made tremendous progress. We have seen a reduction of 
about 21 percent in domestic violence. But still to this day, we have a 
national crisis that shatters the lives of millions of women across the 
country and tears at the very fabric of our society.
  Reauthorizing these programs sends a much needed message to those who 
even think about lifting a hand to a spouse or think about lifting a 
hand to an innocent child that we will not stand silently by and that 
we in fact will protect those victims of domestic violence.
  We know that nationwide nearly one in every three adult women 
experiences at least one physical assault by an intimate partner. We 
know for a fact that domestic violence is the leading cause

[[Page S10173]]

of injury to women age 15 to 44, with nearly one-third of women who are 
murdered being murdered by a husband or a boyfriend.
  Although domestic violence affects both men and women, the 
overwhelming majority of domestic violence victims happen to be women. 
That is why a majority of the services authorized under the Violence 
Against Women Act focus on the unique circumstances of women in abusive 
relationships.
  Again, we have made progress. Since 1994, when the bill passed and 
President Clinton signed it into law, there has been a 21-percent 
decrease in intimate partner violence and we have increased battered 
women's shelters by 60 percent.
  I remember in those years when we were battling for this bill, we 
originally pointed out that there were more shelters for animals than 
there were for battered women. I am proud to say today we have seen an 
increase in the number of shelters so we can in fact address the 
critical needs of victimized women and their children, many of whom 
have absolutely no place to go and therefore sometimes they are forced 
to stay in these abusive relationships. Where are they going to go? 
They will go out on the street if they don't have a loving family to go 
home to. It is a tragic situation indeed.
  The bill ensures that we will be funding a continued increase in 
these shelters. But we also want to stop the violence before it gets to 
that. We have STOP grants that provide moneys for rape prevention, and 
education grants, and a 24-hour national domestic violence hotline 
which is so important. Women in these circumstances need to have a 
reassuring voice. They believe sometimes that no one cares about them; 
they are all alone. If they can dial that hotline and get professional 
help, it makes all the difference in the world.
  This bill will strengthen law enforcement efforts to reduce domestic 
violence by requiring the enforcement of other States' protection 
orders as a condition of funding for some of the grants. In other 
words, if you have a batterer who tries to escape prosecution by going 
across State lines, we address this issue.
  This is very important. I want to talk about the children. We talk 
about battered women, but we know--this is an incredible fact as we 
look at the causes of violence in society, and we are right to look 
everywhere in the society--we need to understand if a young boy sees 
his father beat his mother, that child is twice as likely to abuse his 
own wife than the son of a nonviolent parent. If a child, particularly 
a young boy, sees a father beat a mother, he is twice as likely to 
abuse his own spouse.
  We know 10 million children every year are exposed to domestic 
violence. More alarming even than that is the fact that 50 percent to 
70 percent of those men who abuse their female partners also abuse 
their children. It becomes a way of life and a way of communicating for 
which we should have zero tolerance. These abused children are at high 
risk for violent, delinquent behavior. The National Institute for 
Justice reports that being abused as a child increases a child's 
likelihood of arrest as a juvenile by 53 percent. We know even when 
they are young they are more apt to be arrested and get in trouble. We 
know when they are adult and they marry they are more likely to abuse a 
spouse.

  When we talk about the Violence Against Women Act, we are not talking 
only about women. We are also talking about the children. If there is 
anything we can do in this hallowed hall of the Senate, it is to 
protect children. We have the Safe Havens for Children Pilot Program; 
we have victims of child abuse programs funded; we have rural domestic 
violence and child abuse enforcement grants. This package also includes 
training for judges and court personnel. We also, for the first time, 
look at battered immigrants, which is a very important issue, because 
we sometimes have people coming here who don't understand their rights. 
They need to understand their rights, that their bodies don't belong to 
anyone else, and they have a right to cry out if they are abused.
  There are many other programs reauthorized by the Violence Against 
Women Act, such as those to combat sexual assault and rape, 
transitional housing, and civil, legal assistance. Again, a lot of 
these folks don't understand their legal rights. We provide grants to 
counsel them. We include protection for older and disabled women.
  It is hard to even imagine an older woman in our society or a 
disabled person being victimized. Is there no rule that would say to 
every human being that there has to be respect? Unfortunately, in some 
cases, these rules don't penetrate. So we have to get tough and make 
sure that we prevent this. However, if it happens, we will crack down.
  Again, I thank Senator Joe Biden for his work. It is very important.
  Also, a judgeship that is being held up is the nomination of Bonnie 
Campbell to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. One might 
ask what it has to do with the Violence Against Women Act. The fact is, 
Bonnie Campbell has been the first and only Director of the Violence 
Against Women Office in the Department of Justice, and her nomination 
is being held up because of partisan politics in the Senate. Here is a 
woman who paved the way for the Violence Against Women Act, ensuring it 
was successful, and she is a perfect person to be a judge. She was the 
attorney general in Iowa for many years. Her achievements and 
qualifications are obvious. If we really care about the Violence 
Against Women Act, and I believe we do, then I believe we will have an 
overwhelming vote, hopefully a unanimous vote. Then we ought to look at 
one of the people who has made this act such a success. What a 
wonderful tribute it would be to the women of America to make Bonnie 
Campbell a judge.
  I join with Senator Harkin on this because I know he has been quite 
distressed that such an excellent nominee has had a hearing, but her 
nomination has not come out of committee. We know of no one who is 
opposed to Bonnie Campbell. I think it would be a fitting tribute to 
the women of America to bring her nomination quickly to the floor.
  I appreciate the work of Senator Wellstone and Senator Brownback on 
the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. We know that some of these 
victims have been subjected to the most horrific lives, including rape, 
sexual abuse, torture, starvation, and imprisonment. The selling of 
naive and desperate women into sexual bondage has become one of the 
fastest growing criminal enterprises in the global economy. It is hard 
to understand how this could happen. But when people are in a strange 
land and are frightened, they look to others to protect them when they 
really want to hurt and harm them. This legislation authorizes $94 
million over 2 years to stop this abhorrent practice.
  At the beginning of my remarks, I talked about sometimes attaching 
bills to other bills that make no sense. I am sad to say this has the 
alcoholic beverage sales attached to it. I am very sorry for the small 
wineries in my State. I tried to protect them. I will have some kind of 
a colloquy with Senator Hatch on this. Half of our 900 wineries in 
California are run by families. They don't have big, elaborate 
distributors; they don't have a big distribution. Because of this they 
will need to sell their product on the Internet. I have nothing against 
the way wine is distributed, but the new technologies will make it 
possible for our many wine sellers to sell directly to consumers 
without the need to go through a middleman or middle person. I think it 
is sad that we have attached this because these very small family-owned 
wineries may well suffer.
  I am going to be working with my colleagues. I know Senator Leahy is 
quite sympathetic to this. We want to make sure there are no negative 
impacts from this legislation. We think there will be. But we are going 
to follow this very closely.
  The excuse given is, we will stop kids from buying on the Internet. 
That is a legitimate point. But we recommended a solution dealing 
directly with preventing underage drinking, and it was not accepted. In 
my heart of hearts, I believe this is a special interest piece of 
legislation to protect the distributors. It doesn't do anything to 
protect young people from buying liquor. I think it is a sad day for 
our small wineries that are trying hard to survive in California.

[[Page S10174]]

  In conclusion, I again thank Senator Leahy for this time. It is a 
wonderful day. We finally got this Violence Against Women Act 
reauthorized. We are going to put an end, hopefully, to the sex 
trafficking. It is a good day for the Senate.
  I only hope we will heed the words of Senator Kennedy now and get on 
with education, get on with prescription drugs, and get on with the 
real Patients' Bill of Rights. Let's do our work. We can do our work. 
The American people want us to do it. The way the procedure is going 
now, we have no chance to offer amendments on education or health care. 
It is a shame.
  I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I agree with the distinguished Senator from 
California on Bonnie Campbell. As the one who has brought life into the 
Violence Against Women Act, it is remarkable that she cannot even get a 
vote in this Chamber on her judicial nomination.
  I have said on the floor, although we are different parties, I have 
agreed with Gov. George Bush, who has said that in the Senate a nominee 
ought to get a vote, up or down, within 60 days. I urge in the time 
remaining in this session that he, as the head of his party, as their 
Presidential nominee, call the Republican leader of the Senate and say 
that all of these women, all of these minorities, in fact, all of the 
people who have been sitting here for well over 60 days waiting for a 
vote on their nomination, let them have a vote. Vote for them or vote 
against them. Bonnie Campbell deserves a vote. My guess is the reason 
she has not been brought for a vote is they know at least 80 of the 100 
Senators would vote for her. It would be impossible to justify a vote 
against her because of her extraordinary qualifications.
  Again, if Governor Bush is serious when he says have a vote within 60 
days, pick up the phone, call the Senate majority leader, reach him at 
the switchboard, 202-224-3121, and ask him to bring her to a vote. It 
is a very easy thing to do.
  I agree with the Senator on the Internet alcohol bill. That was 
included over my objection. It is unnecessary. It is dangerous to e-
commerce. Adding Internet sales on alcohol demeans the issue of 
violence against women and sex trafficking that this bill is all about. 
It is demeaning to what is a good bill.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend for his comments on all fronts. 
Regarding his last comment, he is so right. When I first learned there 
was a move to attach this bill to the Violence Against Women Act, I was 
absolutely stunned. People have to watch what we do here. They 
understand, unfortunately, that the special interests still have a lot 
of influence. This is one case where they had too much influence. As my 
friend knows, we tried to work this so we could address the issue of 
juveniles buying liquor from the Internet, which everyone agrees is a 
terrible thing. This hurts our small wineries--let's call it the way it 
is--in favor of the big distributors.

  But on the Bonnie Campbell point, I particularly want to say to my 
friend how much I have appreciated his leadership on these judicial 
nominations. I say today we would not have had even the meager number 
that we have had without his leadership and his pointing out, over and 
over again, that women and minorities are getting second-class 
treatment here.
  I ask my friend if he would recount, briefly, the study he had quoted 
many times, showing that women and minorities take about 3 months 
longer, on average, to get through; just his comments on how it always 
seems we are here fighting for women or a minority. It does not seem as 
if we have to fight that hard for the white male.
  Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield, the study was done by the non-
partisan Citizens for Independent Courts. In fact, the former 
Republican Congressman from Oklahoma, Mickey Edwards, co-chaired that 
study. They found, without taking sides and without taking political 
stands, that women and minorities took longer to be confirmed by the 
Senate. Unfortunately, a lot of those women and minorities are not even 
getting a vote.
  Again I say if Governor Bush means it, pick up the phone and call 
202-224-3121; ask the Senate switchboard to connect him to the 
Republican leader and say: You know, I have made it a tenet of my 
campaign that the Senate should vote on a nomination within 60 days. 
You can bring every one of these people to the floor for a vote, up or 
down, today. Let's do so. Who knows. We will find out how the Senate 
feels about them. Are they for them or are they against them? Right 
now, instead of voting yes or no, we vote ``maybe,'' by having one or 
two Senators in the dark of night put holds on these people.
  I see the distinguished Senator from Washington State, who has been 
one of the great leaders on the issue of violence against women, on sex 
trafficking, and on these other issues. I ask her, how much time does 
the Senator from Washington require?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Ten minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. We yield 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for his 
comments. I am looking forward, hopefully, to him chairing the 
Judiciary Committee next year; so that women such as Bonnie Campbell 
are not held up for months on end and we actually have a chance to put 
good, qualified women and minorities into judiciary positions in this 
country.
  I also thank the Senator from Vermont for his tremendous work on the 
Violence Against Women Act, bringing us to a point today where we are 
finally going to have a vote on this bill, despite the fact there are 
other parts of this bill that I do not believe should be attached to 
it. I appreciate his efforts because this is an extremely important 
bill.
  I have come to the floor to express my strong support for 
reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act and to endorse the pending 
conference report. In communities across America, the Violence Against 
Women Act has been an overwhelming success. It has empowered women and 
children to escape violent relationships, and it has helped to put 
abusers behind bars. On every account, the Violence Against Women Act 
deserves to be reauthorized. I urge my colleagues to support this vital 
legislation.
  It is unfortunate that reauthorization was allowed to lapse this past 
month, but I am pleased the Republican leadership has finally agreed 
that reauthorization must be a priority. I wish we had reached the 
conclusion earlier in this session.
  This subject deserves a much more open and extended debate than has 
been allowed, but I want to take full advantage of the opportunity 
before us, the chance to reauthorize and strengthen the Violence 
Against Women Act. VAWA has been nothing short of historic.
  Not long ago, domestic violence was considered a private family 
matter. That perception made it very difficult for women to get help 
and for communities to confront domestic violence. But all of that 
changed in 1994. I am very proud to have worked to pass the Violence 
Against Women Act because, for the first time, our Nation recognized 
domestic violence for what it is--a violent crime and a public health 
threat.
  Through the Violence Against Women Act, we created a national 
strategy for dealing with violence against women. Today, looking back, 
it is very clear just how revolutionary the act was. For the first 
time, it established a community-wide response, bringing together cops 
and prosecutors, shelters and advocates and others on the front lines 
of domestic violence. It authorized programs to give financial and 
technical support to police departments to focus on domestic violence 
and to encourage arrests. It recognized and supported the essential 
role of the courts in ensuring justice. It provided funding for 
battered women's shelters and for programs that address the public 
health impact of domestic violence.
  VAWA authorized funding for the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, for Rape Prevention and Education, and it helped establish 
a national toll-free hotline for victims of domestic violence. Today, 
1-800-799-SAFE offers battered women immediate help. In fact, every 
month, that hotline receives more than 13,000 calls. Back in 1994, some 
people wondered whether this unprecedented national strategy would 
work. Today, 6 years

[[Page S10175]]

later, the facts are in and it is clear that the Violence Against Women 
Act has been a success. Arrests and convictions are up. We have more 
than doubled funding for battered women's shelters. Since 1994, we have 
appropriated close to $2 billion for VAWA-related programs.
  As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, one of my highest 
priorities has always been increasing funding for the Violence Against 
Women Act programs. In communities throughout my State and others, the 
need is overwhelming, and funding makes a dramatic difference. Working 
with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, and Education of 
the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have seen funding for shelters 
climb from $10 million to more than $100 million. I know Senator 
Specter has been a strong advocate for the Violence Against Women Act 
programs. I am pleased that VAWA has always been a bipartisan issue in 
appropriations.
  While we have much to be proud of today, we cannot forget that abuse 
is still too common. In Washington State, my home State, the toll-free 
domestic violence hotline received more than 37,000 calls between July 
1998 and July 1999. We cannot forget that there are still too few 
resources for women in need. In my State during that same period, 
23,806 women and children were turned away from shelters--turned away 
as they sought help because the resources were not there.
  We cannot forget that not all communities offer a full range of 
services, and not all police departments are equipped to handle a life-
threatening domestic violence call.
  The truth is, while the Violence Against Women Act was a historic 
first step, it was just that, a first step. The time has come for us to 
build on the foundation created by that act. VAWA offered an immediate 
response to the threat of violence. Now it is time to address the long-
term issues. It is time to confront the long-range economic barriers 
that trap women and children in violent relationships.
  I have worked with Senators Wellstone and Schumer to write and 
introduce the Battered Women's Economic Security Act. This legislation 
tears down economic barriers and breaks the cycle of violence. Our bill 
deals with employment discrimination, insurance discrimination, housing 
assistance, legal help, and child care. It addresses the punitive 
elements of the welfare system that can penalize women who are fleeing 
dangerous situations. It provides additional help to shelters and 
providers to meet the overwhelming needs of battered women and 
children.
  I had hoped we would have been able to reauthorize the Violence 
Against Women Act in a timely manner and move to addressing those 
economic issues that I have outlined. Unfortunately, we cannot have 
that debate today or in this session of Congress. But let me assure my 
colleagues we will be back in the 107th Congress to fight to put these 
powerful tools in the hands of victims and their advocates.
  Before I conclude, I want to say a special word of thanks to the many 
people who have helped us reach this point today.
  I thank, again, Senator Leahy and Senator Biden for their leadership. 
They worked very hard to bring a bipartisan bill to the floor today.
  I also thank all of the advocates who fought so hard to ensure the 
success of the Violence Against Women Act and who have been aggressive 
in urging this Congress to act. Without their support in our 
communities, VAWA would never have been a success.
  I thank the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence for 
its dedicated work.
  I thank all of the advocates, police officers, and community leaders 
with whom I have worked since 1994 to implement VAWA and to strengthen 
this important act.
  I thank the many shelters and organizations that have opened their 
facilities to me during this session of Congress, including the Tacoma-
Pierce County YWCA, Kitsap Special Assault Victims Investigative 
Services in Bremerton, the Bellingham YWCA, the Vancouver YWCA Domestic 
Violence Day Care Shelter, the Spokane Domestic Violence Consortium, 
the Spokane Women's Drop-In Center, and the people at Vashon Island 
Domestic Violence Outreach Services.
  As I have visited with them, I have seen firsthand the services they 
offer and the challenges they face. I have spoken personally with women 
who have had their lives changed because of the services offered, and I 
have been impressed by the progress they are making day in and day out. 
Those experiences have strengthened my determination to support their 
work in the Senate.
  In closing, it is clear the Violence Against Women Act has been a 
remarkable success. We cannot delay authorization any longer, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote for this measure. I look forward to working 
with those in the Senate and those in my State to help build on the 
progress of the Violence Against Women Act in the next session of 
Congress.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time is remaining for the Senator 
from Vermont?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 55 minutes 35 
seconds.
  Mr. LEAHY. Out of the 3 hours? We have not been in session 3 hours, 
Mr. President. The Senator from Vermont had a total of 3 hours. We went 
into session less than 3 hours ago.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will indulge, we will 
recalculate.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thought there might be more. You have to watch out for 
that fuzzy math.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 1 hour 55 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LEAHY. That sounds a little closer to it. I am going to be 
reserving time for my own speech, but I have been withholding giving a 
speech because other Members on our side want to speak. I see the 
distinguished Senator from Maryland. I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from Maryland, my good friend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I hope today the Senate will pass 
legislation to improve the lives of women in America and around the 
world and protect them from predators.
  Make no mistake, when people commit crimes, they never commit crimes 
against people who are bigger, stronger, or have more power than they. 
They always go after the weak, the vulnerable. One can be weak either 
in physical strength or weak because one does not have the same size 
weapon.
  Today we have two pieces of legislation pending: One, the 
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, and the other will 
break new ground to protect women and children who are bought and sold 
around the world as if they were commodities. They are victims of 
predatory behavior.
  By passing this legislation, we are going to protect them. Women in 
their own homes are often victims of violence. Mr. President, 900,000 
women last year were battered in their own homes.
  The Violence Against Women Act says we will not tolerate violence, 
whether it is in the home, in the neighborhood, or on a street corner.
  I thank Senator Leahy and Senator Brownback who have been working on 
this legislation, along with Senator Joe Biden. We appreciate the 
support and leadership of the good men here.
  We want to be sure that through this legislation, we are going to not 
only prevent violence but help women rebuild their lives. The Violence 
Against Women Act works through domestic violence programs at the State 
level, works with law enforcement, and works in treatment programs for 
those who were the abusers. I hope we pass this legislation.
  The second part is legislation that will also be a hallmark. It is 
the Sexual Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Girls as young as 10 
years old are kidnapped from their villages and taken to brothels or 
sweatshops where they are imprisoned, forced to work as prostitutes, 
beaten, threatened, and even drugged into submissiveness. They prey 
upon women in the poorest regions of the world.
  In addition, in central and southern Europe, with the collapse of the 
old economy, women from very poor villages are lured by fraudulent scam

[[Page S10176]]

predators into thinking they are going to work in the West and are 
going to work in the hospitality industry. You bet it's hospitality. It 
is called turning them into whores.
  I say to my colleagues, that is not what the free world and free 
economy should be about. We want to make the trafficking in women and 
children as criminal as the trafficking in illegal drugs. Guess what. 
Often the same scum who traffic in women are also the ones who traffic 
in drugs and traffic in illegal weapons of mass destruction.
  I support and applaud the efforts of the Senator from Kansas who has 
taken the leadership in this area. He has visited Asia and has seen the 
recruitment and despicable circumstances under which young girls and 
children are forced to work. From briefings here, we know this is going 
on in the Balkans, out of Ukraine, and out of Poland. Many are brought 
into this country under false pretenses with phony visas. We have to 
stop the trafficking of women around the world.
  This is very good legislation.
  It will improve the lives of women in America and around the world. 
By passing the Violence Against Women Act, we are helping the victims 
of domestic violence to rebuild their lives. By passing the Trafficking 
Victims Protection Act, we are protecting women and children who are 
bought and sold, and forced into slavery.
  Again every year, more than 900,000 women are victims of violence in 
their own homes. Every second, 20 women are battered. The Violence 
Against Women Act says we will not let violence threaten women, 
families, or communities.
  Violence against women is not just a threat to the health and safety 
of women. It is a threat to the health and safety of families and our 
communities.
  No woman in this country should live in fear. No woman should fear 
walking home at night. No woman should fear leaving a campus library. 
No woman should fear that her husband or boyfriend will hurt her or her 
children.
  We will not tolerate it--not in Maryland, where 41 women were killed 
by domestic violence last year; not anywhere in America, where 4 women 
a day are killed by domestic violence.
  The Violence Against Women Act supports programs that help women to 
rebuild their lives. It strengthens law enforcement's response to 
domestic violence. It gives legal assistance to victims of domestic 
violence, and it creates safe havens for women and children who are 
victims of domestic violence.
  The Violence Against Women Act will protect thousands of woman 
throughout the country. Today we are also taking steps to protect women 
throughout the world--by passing the Sex Trafficking Victims Act.
  The truly repugnant practice of trafficking in human beings affects 
between one and two million women and girls each year. As I have 
stated, girls as young as ten years old are kidnaped from their 
villages. Or unsuspecting families allow their daughters to leave--with 
promises of good jobs and better lives. These women are taken to 
brothels or sweatshops--where they are imprisoned. They are forced to 
work as prostitutes. They are beaten, they are threatened--and many are 
killed. Even if a woman escapes, she is often so afraid of retaliation 
that she will not testify against her abductors.
  Organized, international criminals are responsible for the increase 
in trafficking. They prey on young women in the poorest regions of the 
world. They take advantage of the most vulnerable--who live in 
developing countries with poor economic and uneven law enforcement.
  Most countries have no way of dealing with this sophisticated form of 
international crime. Many countries where trafficking is most prevalent 
lack the laws and law enforcement authority to handle the problem. To 
often, when local authorities catch traffickers, the women get the 
brunt of the punishment for prostitution--while traffickers face minor 
penalties.
  That is why this legislation is so important. It focuses on 
prevention, protection, and support for victims, and prosecution of 
traffickers. It recognizes that trafficking is a global problem that 
requires an international solution.
  To prevent trafficking this legislation raises the awareness of the 
problem in villages and countries. It educates potential victims by 
promoting anti-trafficking awareness campaigns and by authorizing 
educational and training assistance to international organizations and 
foreign governments. It also requires the Secretary of State to report 
on the severe forms of trafficking in persons in the annual country 
reports.
  To strengthen prosecution, this legislation provides local 
authorities with the tools to crack down on traffickers.
  To support the victims of trafficking, this legislation directs funds 
for international organizations that help these women to rebuild their 
lives. They are given a safe haven where they can recover. They are 
provided with education, training, and microloans.
  This legislation also recognizes that trafficking is not just a 
foreign problem. Approximately 50,000 women are brought to the United 
States each year where they are forced into prostitution or other 
servitude. This bill toughens current Federal trafficking penalties by 
doubling the current maximum penalties for traffickers to 20 years 
imprisonment with the possibility of life imprisonment. It also changes 
immigration law to help victims of trafficking. This will stop the 
practice of deporting victims back to potentially dangerous situations.
  We want this century to be one of democracy and human rights. We will 
not achieve this unless everyone, including the worlds' poorest women, 
is able to control their own lives. This means education, economic 
development, family planning and civic institutions that protect the 
rights of women. The legislation we are passing today will take us 
closer to achieving these goals. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
strongly supporting the Violence Against Women Act and the Sex 
Trafficking Victims Act.
  In conclusion, 4 years ago, I was a victim of violence. I was coming 
home from dinner with a wonderful professor who was an economic adviser 
to me and was here for a conference. I got her to her hotel. As I 
stepped out of my car, zam, I was mugged. I lost my handbag. I had a 
severe injury to my hand. I tried to fight him off, but he was over 6 
feet, and I am under 5 feet. Fortunately, I escaped with my life. All I 
had was a broken memory and shattered security in my own neighborhood.
  Thanks to the success of the Baltimore Police Department and the 
pressing of charges and the willingness not to plea bargain, that man 
is doing time while I hope I am out here doing good. I want to be sure 
the streets of America are safe. I have an entire Baltimore community 
on my side, including the informants. Not every woman has that. Let's 
try to get them the resources they need to be safe in their homes and 
communities. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I recall very well the incident of which 
the Senator from Maryland speaks. I am pleased this is a case where the 
perpetrator was arrested and prosecuted.
  One of the things I learned in my years as a prosecutor is that too 
often nobody wanted to pursue those cases. All that meant, of course, 
was that somebody else would be a victim. In this case, it was the 
Senator from Maryland. But from my experience, had the person not been 
apprehended, not been convicted, then someday it would be somebody 
else. So I commend the people of Baltimore who rallied to her. At least 
out of that sorry thing there was adequate prosecution. But we have so 
much violence against women that we never see.
  I recall so many times police officers seeing a badly battered woman, 
and where we would bring prosecution, but as I talked to her, I would 
find this had happened several times before in a domestic situation and 
that they had gone to law enforcement, and others, and had been turned 
back where nothing had been followed up on. We had a very aggressive 
program in my office where we would follow up on it. I have to think 
there are a number of deaths, though, that have occurred and do occur 
in places where it is not followed up on.
  This is something you do not see in the sunny ads and the perfect 
homes and domestic situations that we see on our television. The fact 
is, there are a lot of places in this country where

[[Page S10177]]

there is enormous violence against women.
  I would add to the comments of my colleague, it goes across every 
economic strata, it goes across all social strata. This is not one 
thing that is just in poor neighborhoods or just in one ethnic group or 
another. This goes across the economic strata. It goes across good 
neighborhoods and bad neighborhoods, large families and small families. 
But, unfortunately, many times it never comes to the attention of law 
enforcement. Regrettably, sometimes when it does, it is not followed up 
on. This act, itself, will help focus the attention of law enforcement 
on this.
  Mr. President, the Senator from New Jersey had asked to speak, and I 
know the Senator from Louisiana wishes to speak.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if I could say before my colleague from 
Maryland leaves the floor, I thank her for her leadership on this 
Violence Against Women Act and for her statements on the sex 
trafficking bill. I look forward to working with her on both issues as 
we move forward. Hopefully, this will be cleared through the Senate and 
signed into law and we can take more actions and steps down the road to 
see that people are cared for in these terrible situations. I do 
appreciate her comments and her support. I thank the Senator.
  I apologize for the interruption.
  Mr. LEAHY. The Senator from Kansas does not have to make any 
apologies with all the work he has done on this. I appreciate him being 
here.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I join with the others in thanking our 
colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, for his leadership in this area 
and, of course, Senator Biden and other Senators who have spoken this 
morning on this important subject.
  I want to follow up with what Senator Leahy just said by sharing with 
him, and with all here, an unfortunate story that appeared recently in 
a newspaper out of Maryland where a 44-year-old man was convicted of 
raping an 18-year-old girl who was unconscious from drinking.
  Unfortunately, this judge is one of many judges, or at least too 
many--the number is too high--who are ignorant and uninformed. He said 
on the record in this particular case: ``Finding an unconscious woman 
is a dream come true to a lot of men.''
  Finding an unconscious woman is a dream come true to a lot of men.
  I will submit this judge's name for the Record and will be writing 
him a personal letter, asking him, if he did make this statement which 
was reported, that he resign his seat immediately.
  That is part of the problem we have in this Nation. The Senator from 
Vermont, as a former prosecutor, understands this well, that this 
problem is pervasive. It is a real shame in America--this country of 
freedom and order and democracy--that we still have a severe and 
serious problem of domestic violence.
  Sometimes our Nation takes that extra step and goes that extra mile 
to stop violence on the street and to continue to support our police 
officers. Yet when it comes to stopping violence in our own homes, our 
Government falls short in terms of funding, in terms of research, in 
terms of education.
  That is the hope that this act brings. It is to help move judges such 
as this off the bench; so when he is up for reelection, there is some 
education in the community that would force his either resignation or 
moving him off the bench through the election cycle.
  There are prosecutors around the Nation, some of whom are more 
enlightened than others. But I will tell you of two in my State who are 
doing an outstanding job on this subject: DA Paul Connick from 
Jefferson Parish and DA Walter Reed from St. Tammany Parish.
  We have many excellent DAs. But in the last few years, many of these 
DAs--99 percent of whom, I would imagine, in the Nation are male and 
who perhaps do not come to the subject from a very personal point of 
view--have been really educated because of the good work that has been 
done in this Congress and with groups all around this Nation.
  These two particular DAs have instituted a very progressive policy 
which is basically a no-drop policy, which means that if a battered 
woman comes in to file a charge, the DA takes it upon himself, and 
basically the State and the county and the parish, even if she begins 
to back down because her self-esteem is not as strong as it should be, 
or she is understandably frightened, or she has been threatened if she 
does not drop the charges, to simply tell the abuser, when he comes in 
for his interview: I am sorry, we refuse to drop the charges. This is 
against you and me, buddy, basically, and we are going to see this to 
the end, where you can get the punishment coming to you.
  They are really being very aggressive. I hope if other district 
attorneys or other staffers or folks and other elected officials are 
tuning in today, they will encourage district attorneys all over this 
Nation to take up the no-drop policy, because getting abusers 
convicted, getting them punished, and then getting them the right 
treatment for this is the only way we are going to stop this terrible 
tragedy from occurring.

  There are so many things I could say about this subject, but I do 
think our leaders realize it is about education; it is about district 
attorneys; it is about judges, it is about the court system; it is not 
just about shelters and counseling and aid, which is so important. This 
is the first step, giving women a safe place to go, giving children a 
safe place to go. Our justice system must work for them. That is why 
this bill is so important.
  My colleague from New Jersey is waiting to speak on the same subject. 
I thank Senator Lautenberg for his great leadership in this area. But 
let me just for the record read some recent headlines.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the Senator 2 more minutes.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, let me read some recent headlines from our national 
newspapers because the Senator was making an earlier point that I agree 
with, that this isn't just in poor neighborhoods; this isn't just in 
neighborhoods of people who have recently come to this Nation; this 
isn't about people who have not had a good education; this affects 
everyone in all walks of life.
  ``Popular Romance Novelist Shot and Killed by Estranged Husband,'' an 
AP story from June 1999.
  ``Tommy Lee goes to jail for Wife Abuse,'' from USA Today, in May 
1998.
  ``Colorado Rockies Pitcher Arrested on Suspicion of Punching Pregnant 
Wife in Face,'' from the Washington Post, August 1999.
  ``Number of Women Dying from Domestic Violence Holding Steady Despite 
Drastic Drop in Overall Homicide Rates,'' San Francisco, February 1998.
  Mr. President, we have to do a better job. We have to continue on 
this track. Violence has no place in our society--on our streets, on 
our playgrounds, or in back alleys. But it most certainly has no place 
in our homes where children grow up. If a home can't be safe, if a home 
can't provide peace for a child or a woman, as a person, where can they 
find peace, Mr. President? That is what this bill is about.
  I think it is appropriate that the Violence Against Women Act will be 
passed with the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. It says that we 
understand that violence against women is a world wide problem.
  In passing the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 we seized the 
opportunity to be a world leader--to take the stand that in the 
greatest democracy in the world it is unacceptable that such violence 
occurs.
  We have spent $16 billion on programs on education, assistance and 
prosecution. We must continue.
  Every 5 minutes a woman is raped. Every day four women die as a 
result of domestic violence.
  More women are injured by domestic violence than by automobile 
accidents and cancer deaths combined.
  We have made progress but there is more to be done.
  Here are some of the other statistics from that Tulane study:
  More than eight of ten knew someone who had been murdered;
  More than half had witnessed a shooting;
  43% said they had seen a dead body in their neighborhood; and
  37% of them were themselves victims of physical violence.

[[Page S10178]]

  If we think that violence is something that only affects other 
countries we must think again. If we think that a bill like the 
violence against women's act only affects women we are wrong.
  Studies show that a child's exposure to the father abusing the mother 
is the strongest risk factor for transmitting violent behavior from one 
generation to the next.
  A significant number of young males in the juvenile justice system 
were from homes where violence was the order of the day.
  Family violence costs the nation from $5 to $10 billion annually in 
medical expenses, police and court costs, shelters and foster care, 
sick leave, absenteeism, and non-productivity.
  Last week I told you about a woman from my State, Jacqulene Gersfeld, 
who was gunned down by her husband outside a courthouse just moments 
after she filed for divorce.
  The VAWA reauthorization includes a provision to expand the 
investigation and prosecution of crimes of violence against women.
  The need for this is great 85% of all reported rapes end up with no 
conviction. Almost 90% result in no jail time.
  In Baltimore, MD, a 44 year old man was convicted of raping an 18 
year old girl who was unconscious from drinking. The judge in the case 
said the following on the record: ``Finding an unconscious woman is a 
dream come true for a lot of men.'' And so he sentenced him only to 
probation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished 
senior Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague, Senator 
Leahy, for helping us get an addition to this legislation that we think 
is critically important. I also extend my thanks to Senator Brownback 
of Kansas for his assistance in enabling us to get our particular 
section of this bill into place.
  Mr. President, a light comes as a result of the fact that we have our 
female colleagues with us in this Senate. How hard they work to get 
things done on both sides of the aisle. What a difference it has made 
in the way we operate. Many of us were here before there was a 
reasonable presence of women--and it is not yet ``reasonable''; I will 
strike that word. But that will change in time. We are getting there. 
They have helped to bring to the consciousness of all America the kinds 
of abuses that are perpetrated against women and young children who are 
female--disgusting practices that shock us all; trafficking in young 
women, forcing them into virtual slavery and being sexually exploited, 
and losing their identity in the process. It is a humiliation few can 
imagine. I commend the authors of this bill. Also, I commend them for 
including the section on violence against women.
  Mr. President, 3 years ago, when we were hard at work trying to 
reduce gun violence in our society, I offered a piece of legislation to 
prohibit those who had even as little as a misdemeanor charge proven 
against them from getting guns. It was a tough battle, and we were on 
the losing side a couple of times, with the old song about it which is 
``the camel's nose under the tent, and you will be controlling guns,'' 
and so forth, instead of thinking about how many lives we would save. 
We know that about 150 times a year a woman has a gun pointed at her 
head--and I guess the reverse is also true occasionally--and is told, 
``I will blow your head off'' in front of children. What kind of wounds 
does that leave even if the trigger isn't pulled? It is a terrible 
memory for all of those who are either victims or witnesses.
  With the help of President Clinton, we were finally able to get a 
piece of legislation in a budget bill that had to be done--it is almost 
4 years now, and it had to be done and it passed and was signed into 
law--to prevent spousal and children abusers from getting permits to 
own a gun. The result is that almost 35,000 gun permits have been 
denied to these people--35,000 potential opportunities for a man to put 
a gun against a woman's head and threaten to take her life. So I 
support this bill with these two sections. I have added a section--
myself and Senator Mack of Florida--that talks about helping those who 
have been victims of terrorism, whether on our shores or away from 
America. American citizens are deserving of protection. I am pleased 
the Senate is going to pass this package of worthy legislation.
  The underlying Trafficking Victims Protection Act addresses a very 
serious human rights issue in Europe and elsewhere, where people are 
trafficking particularly for sexual exploitation. Finally, we are 
taking action to combat trafficking and to help these victims. I am 
pleased that this conference report will also reauthorize the Violence 
Against Women Act and expand coverage to include new programs for 
immigrant women, elderly women, and women in the military service.

  Throughout my career, I have worked to help prevent domestic 
violence. I strongly supported the original Violence Against Women Act, 
which Congress passed in 1994. I am so pleased that we are going to 
take care of those aberrations of behavior that leave women and 
families devastated. But we are getting onto another subject, as well, 
which I think is critical, and that is to provide justice for victims 
of terrorism as part of the trafficking victims protection conference 
report.
  Mr. President, we all talk about our objections and abhorrence of 
terrorist attacks against American citizens, whether abroad or at home, 
and I had an experience that was almost in front of my eyes which 
shocked me and caused me to think about how we might prevent terrorism 
against our citizens at any time, at any place.
  One of those victims was a young woman named Alisa Flatow. She was a 
junior at Brandeis University and she was studying in Israel for a 
time. In 1995, on April 9, she boarded a bus that took her from a place 
called Ashkelon to another destination. She never arrived. Shortly 
after noon, when the bus was in the Gaza Strip, a suicide bomber drove 
a van loaded with explosives into the bus. Seven passengers were 
killed. Alisa Flatow was among those injured. An Israeli Defense Forces 
helicopter rushed her to a hospital in a community nearby. It was the 
same day I arrived in Israel from a trip in the Middle East. When I 
arrived there, our U.S. Ambassador informed me of the terrible tragedy 
that had occurred and that one of them was a constituent from New 
Jersey and that she had been severely injured in that attack. I 
immediately reached her home in West Orange, NJ, an area very familiar 
to me because I lived near that neighborhood.
  I spoke to her mother, Rosalyn, and was informed that Alisa's father, 
Steve, was already on his way to Israel. By the time he arrived, the 
emergency surgery had failed to save his daughter's life. She died on 
April 10. She was 20 years old.
  For any of those who have children, they know that 20 years of age is 
almost the beginning of life.
  I have three daughters and a son. Those were marvelous years as they 
approached the end of their college terms and prepared for life beyond.
  But that didn't prevent a faction of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad 
from claiming responsibility and being proud of what they did with that 
suicide bombing. What good was it going to do their cause to have one 
mission of terrorists to frighten people and prevent them from 
conducting their lives as they would like to without any specific gain 
to be had?
  There was a sponsor who paid something to somebody to have these 
young people assassinated. It was Iran. That is one of the reasons that 
country is still on the State Department's list of terrorist countries.
  I want to tell you, Mr. President, that I am befuddled by some of the 
policy decisions we make.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 10 minutes has expired.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask if I can have 5 more minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield 5 more minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank Senator Leahy.
  There is no stronger advocate for the protection and safety of our 
citizens than President Clinton. But I don't understand why we take a 
country such as Iran and start to deal with them in trade of 
insignificant items. Would you believe--I am almost embarrassed to

[[Page S10179]]

say it--that caviar, pistachio, Persian rugs are vital items for the 
well-being of our society? It is outrageous.
  But there are differences in point of view. I am not a professional 
diplomat. Maybe I fail to understand the longer term value of something 
that looks trivial to me as I express myself.
  For the past five years, I have been proud to stand with Steve Flatow 
in his effort to achieve some measure of justice for the killing of his 
daughter. He and I both want to hold Iran accountable.
  But Alisa Flatow was not Iran's only victim. Matt Eisenfeld of 
Connecticut and Sarah Duker of New Jersey, a young American couple in 
Israel, also were killed in 1996 when a suicide bomb from an Iran-
sponsored group ripped through a bus they had boarded.
  One cannot comprehend what these missions are supposed to accomplish.
  I don't want to bring the situation in Israel and the Middle East up 
to a full-scale debate at this moment. But there can be nothing gained 
by assaults against people or their property.
  I made a speech yesterday in which I pleaded with Mr. Arafat to stop 
the hatred of his people; to stop the inflammation; to stop the 
propaganda that induces this kind of hatred and action; to stop ugly 
cartoons about people who inhabit Israel, the Jewish community; and to 
stop the anti-Semitic diatribes that still occur in Palestine. Stop it; 
stop it.
  Well-known journalist Terry Anderson and others were held hostage in 
Lebanon in the late 1980s by captors funded by Iran.
  They and their families also deserve justice, as do the families of 
those killed when the Cuban government in 1996 deliberately shot down 
two planes used by Brothers to the Rescue.
  Mr. President, The Antiterrorism Act of 1996 gave American victims of 
state-sponsored terrorism the right to sue the responsible state.
  The law carved out a deliberately narrow exception to the sovereign 
immunity protections our laws afford other countries.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes has expired.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Vermont if I 
may have 5 more minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield an extra 5 minutes to the Senator 
from New Jersey, especially because of the tremendous work he has done 
along with the Senator from Florida, Mr. Mack, on this subject. I think 
they have had to overcome so many obstacles and so many mysterious 
holds on their legislation. I, of course, yield 5 more minutes to the 
Senator.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Vermont not only for his 
graciousness in extending to me additional time but for the help and 
guidance that he gave as we tried to put this piece of legislation into 
law.
  Our goal then, and our goal now, is to allow American victims to 
receive some measure of justice in U.S. courts and to make state 
sponsors of terrorism pay for the death and devastation they have 
wrought.
  Victims of terrorism have put the 1996 law to good use. The Flatow 
family won a U.S. court judgment against Iran in 1998. Other victims of 
terrorism won similar cases.
  The Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act helps the victims collect 
compensatory damages they've won fair and square in our nation's 
courts.
  Foreign countries that sponsor terrorism should have to pay for the 
awful toll that terrorist attacks take on families like the Flatows. 
And we hope that making terrorist states pay that price will deter them 
from sponsoring terrorism in the future.
  Let me close, by thanking the many cosponsors and Senators who have 
helped advance this legislation. I particularly would like to thank 
Senator Mack, who has been with me every step of the way, and Gary 
Shiffman on his staff.
  I also want to thank Frederic Baron of my staff who worked so hard on 
this bill.
  I think this bill is a good example of bipartisan cooperation for a 
worthy cause--helping provide justice for American victims of terrorism 
abroad.
  I am sure this legislation will pass overwhelmingly, but I want this 
message to go out across this globe: that if you sponsor terrorism 
against American citizens, you will pay a price. We ought to be 
unrelenting in that. I was proud of our country when we moved against 
Afghanistan to pay for the perpetrators of dastardly acts against 
American citizens and their interests.
  We can never step aside and argue whether or not it is appropriate. 
We have to find out by testing the waters, by making sure that the 
legislation is there. If there is a challenge, so be it. But we have to 
indicate we will not stand by and let this happen without repercussions 
to those who sponsor terrorism.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey and 
the Senator from Florida for their excellent work. I want to take a 
moment to engage in a colloquy with Senator Brownback to clarify a 
phrase in division A of the bill. In order to be eligible for the visa 
provided, the traffic victim would be required to prove she would face 
``extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm.''
  This is a new standard under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Can 
the Senator explain why this new standard was created?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I am happy to respond to the Senator from Minnesota.
  This was raised in conference committee under thorough discussion 
about this new standard of ``extreme hardship involving unusual and 
severe harm.'' There was a fear on the part of some conferees that some 
judicial interpretations over the term ``extreme hardship'' might be 
too expansive; specifically, the conferees objected to an 
interpretation that the applicant could prove ``extreme hardship'' by 
showing he or she would miss American baseball after being deported 
from the United States. So this language should be interpreted as a 
higher standard than some of these expansive interpretations of 
``extreme hardship.''
  At the same time, however, this language should not exclude bona fide 
victims who would suffer genuine and serious harm if they were 
deported. There is no requirement that the harm be physical harm. I 
repeat, there is no requirement that the harm be physical harm or that 
it be caused by the trafficking itself. The harm or the hardship does 
not have to be caused by the trafficking itself. The purpose of 
inserting the phrase ``unusual and severe'' is to require a showing 
that something more than the inconvenience and dislocation that any 
alien would suffer upon removal might occur.

  I wish to make it clear in future interpretations of this act, while 
this is higher than extreme hardship, it doesn't require physical harm; 
it doesn't require the harm be associated with the trafficking, to be 
able to allow an American to qualify under this new definition within 
the act.
  I thank my colleague from Minnesota for allowing me the opportunity 
to clarify this particular issue.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator for his clarification.
  We have been talking about the trafficking legislation. Before a 
final vote, I want to get back to that legislation. I think it is such 
an important human rights effort.
  I will talk about the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women 
Act and make a couple of points. Again, to have a vote on legislation 
that goes after this egregious practice of trafficking of women and 
girls for the purposes of forced prostitution and forced labor is 
important to our country and to the world. Then to have reauthorization 
of the Violence Against Women Act also makes this a doubly important 
bill. I am so pleased to be on the conference committee and to be able 
to be a part of helping to make this happen.
  I thank Senator Biden, I thank Senator Hatch, and I thank Senator 
Leahy and others, for including in this bill authorization for what we 
call safe havens or safety visitation centers. Let me explain by way of 
example from Minnesota. I need to honor these children, and I need to 
honor their mother. Anyone from Minnesota will remember the case of 
Alex and Brandon, seen in this picture; two beautiful boys. It was 
these two boys and what happened to them that made me understand the 
importance of safety visitation centers more than anything else that 
could ever have happened.

[[Page S10180]]

  On July 3, 1996, Brandon, who was 5, and Alex, who was 4, were 
murdered by their father during an unsupervised visit. Their mother, 
Angela, was separated from Kurt Frank, the children's father. During 
the marriage, she was physically and emotionally abused. Angela had an 
order of protection against Kurt Frank, but during the custody hearing 
she requested her husband not be allowed to see the children in 
unsupervised settings. The request he see the children only in 
supervised settings was rejected by the judge. Kirk Frank was able to 
see his sons with no supervision. When he did, and God knows why, he 
killed them. We have a center now, that the community supports, which 
is a safety visitation center.
  The point is this: There are two different examples. Say a woman has 
been battered. And please remember, every 13 seconds a woman is 
battered in the country. Say she has had the courage to get away, to 
end this marriage. There is a separation going on and a divorce; you 
are still not necessarily going to say the father can't see the child, 
but if the father comes to the home to pick up the child, he steps 
inside the home and then battering can start again. There is no 
protection. If you can do it at the safe havens, supervision centers, 
you can protect the woman and you can protect the children.
  Or it might be the case where you are worried about the threat of a 
father to the children, but you cannot say a father can't see the 
child; with a supervised visitation center the father can see the 
children there.

  This is really important. We are working very hard right now with 
Senator Hollings to get some funding. I am pleased this is a part of 
this legislation.
  I say to colleagues, this was the work of Jill Morningstar on my 
staff, who, with my wife Sheila, made a lot of progress. It is so 
important to reauthorize. The hotline is important; the training for 
police is important; the support for law enforcement is important; the 
support for battered women shelters is so important for the people who 
are there in the trenches. All of this matters. The focus on rural 
communities and support in rural communities is important, as well. It 
has made a difference, a big difference.
  In my State of Minnesota, this year already 33 women have been 
murdered. Each case is an example of ``domestic violence.'' Last year, 
in the whole year, it was only 28. The year is only half over and we 
have already had 33 women who have been murdered. Clearly, we are going 
to have to do a lot more. To reauthorize this bill today is a huge 
victory.
  Mr. President, I think it should whet our appetite to do much, much 
more. I am absolutely committed to making sure we do more to provide 
some support for children who witness this violence in their homes. 
These kids run into difficulty in school. These kids, quite often, run 
into trouble. These children are falling between the cracks and there 
is no real support for them.
  There is another piece of legislation--and I hope to get it in the 
bill--I am very excited about Day One in Minnesota where we want to 
make sure all of the shelters are electronically wired so with one call 
to the hotline, a woman will know where she and her children can 
go. Rather than calling, being told there is no space, and then not 
knowing where to go, it should only take one call. That is very 
important.

  Then, there is a whole set of initiatives that would enable women to 
be more independent, to get more support to be more independent--
whether it be affordable housing, whether it be family and medical 
applied to women in this situation, whether it be more job training--
you name it. This will enable women to be put in a position where they 
are not unable or unwilling to leave a very dangerous situation for 
themselves and their children.
  I say to colleagues, I am so pleased we are going to pass this 
conference report with an overwhelming vote. I am pleased to be a part 
of helping to work out this agreement. But I also think clearly, more 
than anything else, this ought to make us more determined to do much 
more. Again, about every 13 seconds a woman is battered in her home 
today in our country.
  I will take a little more time to talk about the trafficking bill, 
since both these bills are linked together, to again make the point for 
all my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, it is critically 
important to vote for this conference report, to keep this conference 
report intact.
  I will keep thanking Senator Brownback. It has been great to work 
with him. I thank him for his fine work.
  We are talking about 50,000 women, girls, trafficked to our country. 
We are talking about 2 million worldwide. We are talking about women, 
sometimes girls as young as 10 or 11, coming from countries where there 
is economic disintegration. They are trying to figure out a way they 
could go somewhere and they are told they could become waitresses. They 
are told there is a job.
  When they arrive, their visas are taken away from them; they are 
beaten; they don't know the language; they don't know their rights; and 
they are forced into prostitution. We had a massage parlor 2 miles from 
here in Bethesda which was staffed mainly by Russian-Ukraine women. 
That is one example. This is one of the grimmest aspects of the new 
global economy. It is, in many ways, more profitable than drugs because 
these women and girls are recyclable. It is that God-awful. In the year 
2000, this legislation is the first of its kind in this country. It is 
a model for many other governments around the world.
  We put a focus on three ``P's'': No. 1, prevention, getting the 
outreach work done to other nations so these young girls and women will 
know what they are getting into and have some understanding what these 
traffickers are about. No. 2, protection, so when a girl steps forward, 
then she is not the one who pays the price. Right now there is no 
temporary visa protection so if you were to try to get out of this you 
are the one who is deported. In the meantime, these traffickers go 
without any punishment, which is something I want to get to in a 
moment. So you want to provide that protection. You also want to 
provide services for these young women to be able to rebuild their 
lives after they have been through this torture. It is torture. And 
finally, No. 3, prosecution. Right now our law enforcement community 
tells us they want to go after them but they do not have the laws. What 
we are saying is, if you are involved in this trafficking, you are 
going to face stiff sentences. If you are involved in the trafficking 
of a girl under the age of 14, you can face a life sentence. So there 
is a very strong part of the provision dealing with punishment.

  We also have a listing of countries where this is happening, with a 
special focus on governments that are complicit in it. The President 
can take action against those governments, but there are also security 
waivers and other waivers. It is a balanced piece of legislation. I am 
proud of it. I think it will make a difference.
  I think it is terribly important. I read some of these examples 
before. Let me give a couple of examples right now of what is happening 
in the year 2000.
  In Los Angeles, where traffickers kidnapped a Chinese woman, raped 
her, forced her into prostitution, posted guards to control her 
movements, and burned her with cigarettes, the lead defendant received 
4 years and the other defendants received 2 to 3 years for this 
offense.
  In another case where Asian women were kept physically confined for 
years, with metal bars on the windows, guards and an electronic 
monitoring system, and were forced to submit to sex with as many as 400 
customers to repay their smuggling debt, the traffickers received 
between 4 and 9 years. This is the year 2000 we are talking about.
  Then I gave the example of a 1996 trafficking case involving Russian 
and Ukrainian women who would answer ads to be au pairs, sales clerks, 
and waitresses but were forced to provide sexual services and live in a 
massage parlor in Bethesda, MD. The Russian-American massage parlor 
owner was fined. He entered a plea bargain, the charges were dropped, 
with the restriction he would not operate a business again in 
Montgomery County. The women, who had not been paid any salary and were 
charged $150 for their housing, were deported or left the country.
  This is what we are dealing with right now. There was a case 
involving

[[Page S10181]]

70 deaf Mexicans that my colleagues may remember, who were held under 
lock and key, forced to peddle trinkets, who were beaten and in some 
cases tortured. The leader received 14 years and the other traffickers 
from 1 to 8 years.
  We intend to take this more seriously. Let me give one other example. 
The United States v. Hou, several Mexican nationals, all illegally in 
the United States, were required to live in one of the chicken sheds at 
an egg ranch. The shed was open to the elements. The defendants, man 
and wife, did not give the men any shelter, but encouraged them to 
build a small room out of cardboard and styrofoam egg cartons.
  The men lived less than 15 feet from the chickens they tended. The 
men had to spread powerful pesticides in and around the chicken sheds, 
and the chemicals and various fuel oils were stored immediately next to 
their cardboard room. Faulty wiring in the rickety building resulted in 
a fire. One of the workers was killed as he tried to escape the shed 
and another suffered horrible burns. Despite the atrocious conditions, 
there was no evidence that the men had been kept in the defendants' 
service through threats of force or violence; the men stayed in the 
shed because Ms. Hou preyed upon their lack of English-speaking ability 
and lack of immigration status, deliberately misleading the victims and 
convincing them there was nowhere else to go.
  Because the labor of the workers was maintained through a scheme of 
nonviolent and psychological coercion, the case did not fall under the 
involuntary servitude statutes--which could have resulted in life 
sentences given the death of one of the victims. Our legislation 
changes that. That is why this legislation is so important. No longer 
in the United States of America are we going to turn our gaze away from 
this kind of exploitation, to this kind of murder of innocent people.
  This is a real commitment by the Senate and the Congress to defend 
human rights. This is a good piece of legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to speak on a couple of other 
provisions in this bill to clarify those for Members. We will be voting 
on it later today. If others of my colleagues desire to speak on this 
bill, I urge them to come to the floor and speak now or forever hold 
their peace on this particular piece of legislation.
  The item I wish to speak on now is Aimee's law. This is a part of 
this overall conference report that has passed the House, as I 
mentioned, by 371-1. Aimee's law was prompted by the tragic death of a 
college senior, Aimee Willard, who was from Brookhaven, PA, near 
Philadelphia. Arthur Bomar is a convicted murderer who was earlier 
paroled from a Nevada prison. Even after he had assaulted a woman in 
prison, Nevada released him early. Bomar traveled to Pennsylvania where 
he found Aimee. He kidnapped, brutally raped, and murdered Aimee. He 
was prosecuted a second time for murder for this terrible crime in 
Delaware County, PA.
  Aimee's mother, Gail Willard, has become a tireless advocate for 
victims' rights and serves as an inspiration on this particular piece 
of legislation.
  This important legislation would use Federal crime-fighting funds to 
create an incentive for States to adopt stricter sentencing laws by 
holding States financially accountable for the tragic consequences of 
an early release which results in a violent crime being perpetrated on 
the citizens of another State. Specifically, Aimee's law will redirect 
Federal crime-fighting dollars from a State which has released early a 
murderer, rapist, child molester, to pay the prosecutorial and 
incarceration costs incurred by a State which has had to reconvict this 
released felon for a similar type of crime.
  More than 14,000 murders, rapes, and sexual assaults on children are 
committed each year by felons who have been released after serving a 
sentence for one of these very same crimes.
  Convicted murderers, rapists, and child molesters who are released 
from prisons and cross State lines are responsible for sexual assaults 
on more than 1,200 people annually, including 935 children, including 
Aimee Willard.
  The reason I point this out is because Aimee's law previously passed 
this body by a vote of 81-17. As I mentioned, it redirects Federal 
crime funds from a State that has released early a murderer, rapist, or 
child molester, to pay the prosecutorial and incarceration costs 
incurred by a State which has had to reconvict this felon for a similar 
crime.
  The formula for early release is if the criminal served less than 85 
percent of his original sentence, and if a State kept a criminal in 
prison less time than the national average for a sentence of the same 
crime.
  To counter concerns raised by the National Governors' Association, 
this does not federalize any crimes. I emphasize that, it does not 
federalize any crimes. It simply upholds State standards regarding 
murder, rape, and child molestation.
  Sex offenders have one of the highest recidivism rates of any crime, 
thus, requiring more stringent standards in amount of the sentence 
served.
  This only affects Federal crime funds which are transferred from 
State 1 to State 2 where a crime has been committed of a similar type 
by the criminal who was released early from State 1.
  The reason I go through this at some length is because some of my 
colleagues have a concern about this. I understand there will be a 
point of order raised against this as being part of the overall 
package. There will be a vote on that point of order.
  If people want to get this bill dealing with sex trafficking, the 
Violence Against Women Act, the international terrorism aspect of this 
bill, the Internet alcohol enforcement of this bill through, they need 
to vote against those who seek to strip this particular provision out 
of the bill because if they strip this provision out, the bill has to 
go back to the House for it to be voted on, and it will have to be 
voted on again in the Senate.
  We do not have the time to do it. It will kill the bill. If people 
vote to strip this provision out of this particular bill and send it 
back to the House, and it has to come back here, it will kill the bill. 
We do not have time to do that.
  While some raise federalism arguments, most of our colleagues have 
already voted in favor of Aimee's law; 81 have voted in favor of it 
already. There are some arguable federalism principles involved. I 
think most of those have been worked out with the National Governors' 
Association. There is a strong advocacy group that has worked to get 
these standards where, if a person has been convicted in one State, 
they should serve their time rather than being released to commit a 
similar crime in another State. That is the direction of this.
  I plead with my colleagues: Do not remove this provision. Do not 
support the point of order because, if you do, it is going to kill 
everything. It will kill the sex trafficking bill. It will kill the 
Violence Against Women Act. Do not do it. Most people have already 
supported this particular provision, Aimee's law.
  I wish to say a couple of things on other issues before we break for 
the policy luncheons. I particularly appreciate my colleagues, Senator 
Lautenberg and Senator Mack, for their provisions on the Justice for 
Victims of Terrorism Act. I understand Senator Hatch will speak later 
about the 21st Amendment Enforcement Act on VAWA. We have had an 
excellent discussion this morning on the importance of this legislation 
protecting women who are subject to domestic violence. This is 
reauthorization of important language and important legislation and 
strengthening of it as well. That is an important feature.

  I appreciate Senate majority leader Trent Lott bringing this issue to 
the floor. It is a good package of protection for both domestic and 
international women and children subject to violence. That is the theme 
that runs through this set of acts. It is protection for women, 
protection for children, protection domestically, and protection 
internationally.
  I am very pleased with this legislation. It is a key piece of 
legislation to pass during this session of Congress to provide that 
level of protection. I am glad it has been done on a bipartisan basis. 
Mostly my colleagues from the other side of the aisle have spoken this 
morning supporting this legislation. Support is similarly strong on our 
side

[[Page S10182]]

of the aisle. It is good to have that support back and forth.
  Rather than using up the rest of my time, I simply say to my 
colleagues who want to speak, please come to the floor. I anticipate we 
will be voting on this legislation by the middle of the afternoon. We 
will be recessing for policy luncheons from 12:30 p.m. until I believe 
2:15 p.m., which is the normal recess time.
  This will be a good time for people to comment on this important 
legislation. I plead with them: Do not strike this particular 
provision, Aimee's law, because it will sink the entire bill. It is a 
good bill. It is good legislation. It previously passed both Houses 
overwhelmingly. Let's get it done.
  I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Vermont is 
recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the distinguished Senator from New 
Mexico time off my time. I yield to him for another purpose, and once 
he speaks, I am sure the Chair will understand the reason. I yield to 
the Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his courtesy in 
yielding me some time. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
speak as in morning business for 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Bingaman are located in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I reiterate something the Senator from 
Kansas and the Republican floor leader on this bill have said, and that 
is that we hope, because of the request of a number of Senators on both 
sides of the aisle, to get these votes on both the Thompson point of 
order and final passage sometime midafternoon today. As one who holds 
the largest bulk of the individual time, I alert my colleagues that 
after the distinguished Senator from Utah and the distinguished Senator 
from Delaware, I will yield back the remaining part of that time which 
will move up somewhat the time of the vote.
  The reason, incidentally, I have reserved the bulk of my time is to 
protect a number of Senators who wished to speak. I think virtually all 
of them have spoken. At least one of the Senators who would have wished 
to speak, the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, has just 
undergone surgery for an accident to her leg and is not going to be 
here, although, of course, any statement by her will be printed in the 
Record. But the others have spoken.
  Mr. President, I am glad that the Senate is finally taking up this 
conference report. Unlike the conference on the Hatch-Leahy juvenile 
justice bill that passed the Senate in May 1999 with a bipartisan 
majority of 73 votes, and so many other matters that are still left 
undone by this Congress, we have an opportunity through this conference 
report to come to conclusion on three items that I have supported and 
tried to pass for many months. Unfortunately, there are two additional, 
extraneous items that were added over my opposition and that should not 
have been added to this conference report at all. I will speak on each 
of these matters.
  At the outset, I want to acknowledge the important work of 
Representative Conyers in the House, who has been a stalwart and 
consistent supporter of the Violence Against Women Act of 2000. Without 
his cooperation and support and the hard work of his staff, we would 
not be standing here today. I also want to pay tribute to the efforts 
of Senators Boxer, Mikulski, Lincoln, Landrieu, Murray and Feinstein. 
Their efforts throughout this Congress, including in the last several 
days, have made the difference in our ability to move forward to begin 
this debate today.
  With Senators Kennedy, Biden, Specter, Smith and so many others, I 
have been urging the Republican leadership to take up and pass the 
Violence Against Women Act of 2000 for some time. I had to urge action 
by the Judiciary Committee for several weeks before we were finally 
able to have it added to the agenda on June 15, 2000. It was reported 
unanimously the same month. Over the last several months since this 
legislation was reported, I have worked and prodded and pushed along 
with our Democratic Leader Senator Daschle, Senator Reid, Senator 
Durbin, Senator Robb, Senator Bingaman and others on both sides of the 
aisle to try to get this matter taken up and passed without further 
delay.
  The President of the United States wrote the Majority Leader back on 
September 27, 2000 urging passage. The First Lady and the Vice 
President had previously called for passage back in June at the time of 
the Judiciary Committee markup. The Violence Against Women Act of 2000 
is a matter upon which we need to act.
  I addressed this matter twice on the Senate floor in late September 
when an effort was being made by some on the Republican side of the 
aisle to try to use VAWA as a vehicle to force consideration of a 
flawed bankruptcy bill or to override Oregon state law. I said that 
playing political games with this important legislation was the wrong 
thing to do and that VAWA should not be used as leverage to enact less 
worthy provisions. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the 
Senate has been adamant in its refusal to take up and consider VAWA as 
a stand alone matter, even after the House passed its bill by a 415 to 
3 vote. While we have been successful in preventing VAWA from being 
used as a vehicle for some measures, thanks in part to the President 
pro tempore Senator Thurmond and Senator Brownback honoring commitments 
they made to me in order to go to conference, we have not been wholly 
successful and two additional and unfortunate riders are included over 
my objection in this conference report.
  Due to their dilatory tactics, VAWA was allowed by the Republican 
leadership to lapse on Saturday, September 30, despite the fact that it 
has served the women of this country well and the measure had passed 
the House by a vote of 415 to 3. Such inaction by the current Senate 
majority is not limited to reauthorization of VAWA. Congressional 
leaders have continued to drag their feet on enacting comprehensive 
juvenile crime prevention and enforcement legislation and reasonable 
gun safety measures, which have been stalled in conference for over a 
year. Judicial vacancies around the country and most acutely in our 
federal courts of appeals remain vacant month after month, year after 
year, while qualified women and men cannot get a hearing or a vote. 
Legislation to extend the Campbell-Leahy program to help provide 
bulletproof vests for local law enforcement officers was the victim of 
a secret hold in the Republican Senate cloakroom. Important 
intellectual property legislation is stalled without explanation by a 
similar anonymous hold on the other side of the aisle. And hate crime 
legislation, the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2000, has 
been dropped in conference in spite of the votes in both the Senate and 
House approving it.

  I am pleased that we will finally be able to reestablish the Violence 
Against Women Act, a law that makes such a profound difference in the 
lives of women and families who fall victim to domestic violence. I 
would not normally support efforts to add extraneous items in a 
conference report. In this case, in light of the unwillingness of the 
Senate Republican leadership to allow the Senate to act on the Violence 
Against Women Act of 2000 and the lapse of its authorization, I joined 
with Senator Biden and Senator Hatch to add it to the sex trafficking 
conference report we now consider.
  I agreed with Senator Biden's assessment that in light of its 
importance and the resistance we have seen from the Senate Republican 
leadership to proceed to the VAWA bill for a straight up or down vote, 
this was the only way we would ever be able to get it considered by the 
Senate this year. I commend Senator Biden for making clear at the 
second and last meeting of the conferees on September 28th that he 
intended to insist on the conference reauthorizing the Violence Against 
Women Act. Indeed, I had raised it at our initial meeting of conferees 
as the one thing we should consider adding to this bill, if anything 
extraneous was to be considered.
  Unfortunately, when we voted on adding VAWA to the conference report,

[[Page S10183]]

only three Senate conferees voted to support it--Senators Biden, Hatch 
and me--and the other four Senate conferees all voted against. I am 
glad that over the ensuing days, the other four Senate conferees and 
the House conferees, whose votes initially seemed to doom this effort, 
have reversed position and joined with us to add VAWA into this 
conference report. I am glad that others agree with us that while we 
need to address the tragic plight of women who are brought to the 
United States, we need to pass reauthorization of VAWA to help battered 
women in this country, as well.
  Although a conferee, I did not sign the conference report that we 
consider today. It may come as a surprise to some who have served in 
this body and remember how conferences are supposed to proceed, that I 
was not given an opportunity to consider the final report or to sign 
before it was filed. Indeed, after a second short meeting of conferees, 
the final meeting, which had been promised so that we could finalize 
our action, never occurred. Side deals were struck and broken and 
revised and implemented without resuming the conference. Legislating 
around here has come to resemble the television program ``Survivor'' 
more than the process intended by the Constitution or our Senate rules. 
We have all become increasingly accustomed to shortcuts in the 
legislative process, but we are now getting to the point that once 
sufficient numbers of signatures are obtained on a conference report, 
once an alliance has formed, conferees from the minority may not even 
be accorded an opportunity to view the final package let alone asked 
for their views. In this matter, after I had worked to ensure that VAWA 
was included in the conference report, I was treated like a member of 
the ill-fated Pagong tribe.

  Had I been consulted we might have avoided the extended debate and 
point of order that Senator Thompson is bringing today. I was able to 
intervene just before the filing of the conference report when I 
obtained a draft that showed the elimination of the small state minimum 
funding level in certain grant programs. These eliminations would have 
been such a disaster for Vermont, New Hampshire, Delaware, Utah, Alaska 
and so many small and rural states that I had raise a strong objection 
and the small state minimum of $600,000 for shelters was restored by a 
last-minute handwritten change to the final conference report.
  Unfortunately, while this conference report contains provisions that 
enjoy broad bipartisan support and will make a positive contribution to 
the well-being of many people, the Republican majority could not resist 
loading this conference report with other legislative proposals that 
are so problematic they could not have passed as stand-alone measures 
in this or any other Congress.
  Let me begin by reviewing the positive parts of this conference 
report. These are the reasons that, last Friday, our colleagues in the 
House passed the Conference Report on Victims of Trafficking and 
Violence Protection Act 371 to 1.
  The trafficking of people for the illicit sex trade or slave labor is 
plainly abhorrent. This conference report partially addresses that 
problem by providing additional authority to law enforcement and 
offering visas to victims of severe trafficking, among other measures. 
Those who have experienced the horror of trafficking and are willing to 
assist law enforcement in prosecuting trafficking should receive the 
option of staying in the United States. The law enforcement and 
immigration measures in this report are the result of compromises 
reached between both Houses and both sides. In some cases, especially 
in the immigration area, these provisions are not as generous as I and 
many other members of this conference would prefer.
  This bill will also insist that information about severe forms of 
trafficking in persons be provided in the annual State Department 
Country Report for each foreign country, an important step forward in 
our attempts to raise consciousness about this issue. It also provides 
for the establishment of an Inter-Agency Task Force to monitor and 
combat trafficking, with annual and interim reports on countries whose 
governments do not comply with the minimum standards. The bill calls 
upon the President to establish initiatives to enhance economic 
opportunity for potential trafficking victims, such as microcredit 
lending programs, training, and education.

  As someone who has been a strong supporter of human rights, both in 
the United States and abroad, I am pleased to be associated with this 
attempt to reduce trafficking and protect its victims. I hope that the 
Senate can also turn its attention to human rights issues that affect 
immigrants who arrive in the United States willingly. In particular, I 
request that the Senate consider S. 1940, the Refugee Protection Act, a 
bill I have introduced with Senator Brownback that would restrict the 
use of expedited removal to times of immigration emergencies. Under 
expedited removal, those who flee persecution in their home countries 
face automatic removal from our country if they are traveling without 
documents, or even with documents that are facially valid but that an 
INS officer suspects are invalid. The limited protections that were 
built into this process when it was adopted in 1996 have proven 
insufficient, and we are receiving continuing reports of people in real 
danger being forced to leave the United States without even a hearing. 
This is simply inappropriate, and does an injustice to our nation's 
reputation as a haven for the oppressed.
  As I already noted, reauthorization of the Violence Against Women 
Act, or VAWA II, was also added to this report with strong bipartisan 
support. This is a particularly appropriate bill to add to this 
conference report. As the conference report states, ``[t]raffickers 
primarily target women and girls, who are disproportionately affected 
by poverty, the lack of access to education, chronic unemployment, 
discrimination, and the lack of economic opportunity in countries of 
origin.'' VAWA II contains a number of important programs to protect 
women and children in this country, and would complement the goals of 
this legislation.
  I witnessed the devastating effects of domestic violence early in my 
career as the Vermont State's Attorney for Chittenden County. In those 
days, long before the passage of the VAWA, Vermont lacked the support 
programs and services to assist victims of domestic violence. Today, 
because of the effort and dedication of people in Vermont and across 
the country who work on these problems every day, an increasing number 
of women and children are receiving help through domestic violence 
programs and shelters around the nation.
  Six years ago, VAWA passed Congress as part of the Violent Crime 
Control and Law Enforcement Act. That Act combined tough law 
enforcement strategies with safeguards and services for victims of 
domestic violence and sexual assault. I am proud to say that Vermont 
was the first State in the country to apply for and receive funding 
under VAWA. Since VAWA was enacted, Vermont has received almost $14 
million in VAWA funds. Since the passage of VAWA in 1994, I have been 
privileged to work with groups such as the Vermont Network Against 
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault and the Vermont Center for Crime 
Victim Services and countless advocates who work to stop to violence 
against women and who provide assistance to victims.
  This funding has enabled Vermont to develop specialized prosecution 
units and child advocacy centers throughout the state. Lori Hayes, 
Executive Director of the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services and 
Marty Levin of the Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual 
Abuse have been especially instrumental in coordinating VAWA grants in 
Vermont. Their hard work has brought grant funding to Vermont for 
encouraging the development and establishment of arrest policies for 
combating rural domestic violence and child abuse. These grants have 
made a real difference in the lives of those who suffer from violence 
and abuse. Reauthorization of these vital programs in VAWA II will 
continue to build on these successes.
  VAWA II continues to move us toward reducing violence against women 
by strengthening law enforcement through the extension of STOP grants, 
which encourage a multi-disciplinary approach to improving the criminal 
justice system's response to violence against women. With support from 
STOP grants, law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, victim advocates and

[[Page S10184]]

service providers work together to ensure victim safety and offender 
accountability.
  The benefits of STOP grants are evident throughout Vermont. With STOP 
grants the Windham County Domestic Violence Unit, the Rutland County 
Women's Network and Shelter and others like them have enhanced victim 
advocacy services, improved safety for women and children, and ensured 
that perpetrators are held accountable. The Northwest Unit for Special 
Investigations in St. Albans, Vermont, established a multi-disciplinary 
approach to the investigation of adult sexual assault and domestic 
violence cases with the help of STOP funds. By linking victims with 
advocacy programs at the time of the initial report, the Unit finds 
that more victims get needed services and support and thus find it 
easier to participate in the investigation and subsequent prosecution. 
The State's Attorney's Office, which has designated a prosecutor to 
participate in the Unit, has implemented a new protocol for the 
prosecution of domestic violence cases. The protocol and multi-
disciplinary approach are credited with an 80 percent conviction rate 
in domestic violence and sexual assault cases.
  Passing VAWA II will continue grants that strengthen pro-arrest 
policies and enforcement of protection orders. In a rural state like 
Vermont, law enforcement agencies greatly benefit from cooperative, 
inter-agency efforts to combat and solve significant problems. Last 
year, approximately $850,000 of this funding supported Vermont efforts 
to encourage arrest policies.
  Vermont will also benefit from the extension of Rural Domestic 
Violence and Child Victimization Enforcement Grants under VAWA II. 
These grants are designed to make victim services more accessible to 
women and children living in rural areas. I worked hard to see these 
provisions included in the original VAWA in 1994, and I am proud that 
its success has merited an increased authorization for funding in VAWA 
II. Rural Domestic Violence and Child Victimization Enforcement Grants 
have been utilized by the Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and 
Sexual Assault, the Vermont Attorney General's Office, and the Vermont 
Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services to increase community 
awareness, develop cooperative relationships between state child 
protection agencies and domestic violence programs, expand existing 
multi disciplinary task forces to include allied professional groups, 
and create local multi-use supervised visitation centers.

  VAWA II also reauthorizes the National Stalker and Domestic Violence 
Reduction Grant. This important grant program assists in the 
improvement of local, state and national crime databases for tracking 
stalking and domestic violence. As we work to prevent violence against 
women, we must not forget those who have already fallen victim to it. 
VAWA II recognizes that combating violence against women extends beyond 
providing assistance to victims, it includes preventing women from 
becoming victims at all.
  The National Domestic Violence Hotline, which has assisted over 
180,000 callers, will continue its crucial operation through the 
reauthorization of VAWA. Much like the state hotline that the Vermont 
Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault helped establish 
in Vermont, the National Hotline reaches victims who may feel they have 
nowhere to turn.
  I am especially pleased to see that VAWA II will authorize a new 
grant program for civil legal assistance. In the past, funding for 
legal services for victims of domestic violence was dependent on a set-
aside in the STOP grant appropriation. This separate grant 
authorization will allow victims of violence, stalking and sexual 
assault, who would otherwise be unable to afford professional legal 
representation, to obtain access to trained attorneys and advocacy 
services. In my State, Vermont Legal Aid, the Vermont Network to End 
Domestic Violence and the South Royalton Legal Clinic of Vermont Law 
School are currently involved in a collaborative project to expand 
civil legal assistance services to domestic violence victims across the 
state. These three organizations are partnering to create Intensive 
Service Teams that will provide coordinated civil legal assistance and 
victim advocacy in Rutland County and the Northeast Kingdom. Grants 
such as this one that support training, technical assistance and 
support for cooperative efforts between victim advocacy groups and 
legal assistance providers will continue to prosper under VAWA II.
  I remain concerned, however, over a highly objectionable provision 
that prohibits any expenditure of the civil legal assistant grant funds 
to support litigation with respect to abortion. Currently, the Legal 
Services Corporation (LSC) operates under two abortion-related 
restriction provisions: The 1974 LSC statute bans the use of federally 
appropriated Corporation funds for legal assistance for any abortion-
related proceeding or litigation. Additionally, an appropriations rider 
to the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill restricts LSC funds 
from use by any person or entity that participates in abortion-related 
litigation.
  The language in VAWA II bill reaches further, in the sense that it 
would ban more organizations than just LSC from spending funds on 
abortion-related litigation. Under the Senate language, grants can be 
made to private, nonprofit entities, Indian tribal governments, and 
publicly funded organizations such as law schools. These grantees are 
certainly worthy and appropriate to provide these services generally; 
the objection is solely that they should not be gagged from providing 
abortion related legal assistance. I am concerned about the precedent 
this provision would set in expanding the restriction on abortion-
related litigation to other programs and organizations. I think this 
kind of language should give us pause as we consider the effect it 
would have on victims who, in the face of domestic violence, sexual 
assault in family relationships, incest or rape, must run a gauntlet of 
congressionally imposed barriers in order simply to obtain full and 
complete information about their comprehensive health-care options.

  The original VAWA authorized funding for programs that provide 
shelter to battered women and children. I am pleased to see that VAWA 
II expands this funding so that facilities such as the Women Helping 
Battered Women Shelter in Burlington, Vermont, and the Rutland County 
Women's Shelter in Rutland, Vermont will continue to serve victims in 
their most vulnerable time of need. As I have noted, at one point I 
obtained a draft conference report that had dropped the $600,000 small 
state minimum funding these grants. I am relieved that my objection was 
heard and the minimum restored.
  As glad as I am that we are finally reauthorizing VAWA, this is not 
the version of VAWA that I cosponsored and supported in the Judiciary 
Committee and urged the Senate to enact. In fact, this is not the VAWA 
II bill that was negotiated among staff at a bipartisan, bicameral 
meeting earlier in this process. The version of VAWA II in this 
conference report was negotiated behind closed doors in the last 
minutes before the conference report was filed. Unfortunately, this 
approach saw additional provisions added and struck that have 
diminished the final product. One provision of particular concern to me 
is that on transitional housing.
  The previous Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act of 
2000, S. 2787, had over 70 co-sponsors. I am one of them. That version 
included better provisions on transitional housing assistance. It would 
have been a significant improvement over the original VAWA. This new 
grant program for short-term housing assistance and support services 
for homeless families who have fled from domestic violence environments 
was a priority for me and Vermont, where availability of affordable 
housing is at an all-time low. Unfortunately, this authorization was 
reduced to one year without my consent. Those involved in the 
discussions attribute the change to ``jurisdictional concerns'' of the 
Health, Labor and Pensions Committee. I look forward to working with 
Senators Jeffords, Gregg and Kennedy next year during reauthorization 
of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to extend the 
authorization of this important program. We should all be concerned 
with providing victims of domestic violence with a safe place to 
recover from their traumatic experiences. In addition, I would like to 
see more support

[[Page S10185]]

for groups that address the need for funding for under-served 
populations.
  There are positive things to come out of the revised version of VAWA 
II. I am pleased that we were able to cover ``dating violence'' in most 
of the provisions and grant programs. The Bureau of Justice Statistics 
report indicates that more than four in every 10 incidents of domestic 
violence involves non-married persons, and further, that the highest 
rate of domestic violence occurs among young people aged 16-24. It is 
crucial that we authorize prosecution of their offenders. We cannot 
ignore this increasingly at risk segment of the population. The House-
passed version of VAWA II had contained such provisions and I support 
them as they have been incorporated into the conference report.

  In 1994, we designed VAWA to prevent abusive husbands from using 
control over their wives' immigration status to control them. Over the 
ensuing six years we have discovered additional areas that need to be 
addressed to protect immigrant women from abuse, and have attempted to 
do so in this legislation. VAWA II will ensure that the immigration 
status of battered women will not be affected by changes in the status 
of their abusers. It will also make it easier for abused women and 
their children to become lawful permanent residents and obtain 
cancellation of removal. With this legislation, battered immigrant 
women should not have to choose to stay with their abusers in order to 
stay in the United States.
  I am pleased that we have taken these additional steps to protect 
immigrant women facing domestic abuse in the United States. I would 
also like to point out the difficult situation of immigrant women who 
face domestic violence if they are returned to their home country.
  Numerous cases have arisen recently in which women who fear being 
killed by abusive spouses in their native lands were denied claims for 
asylum, despite the fact that the police in those countries do not 
enforce what limited laws apply to domestic violence. There are 
additional cases in which women who fear for their lives due to 
ingrained social practices--such as ``honor killings'' in Jordan, in 
which families have female relatives killed for ``dishonoring'' them--
have lost asylum claims. The Attorney General is currently reviewing 
the Board of Immigration Appeals decision Matter of R-A-, which is the 
precedent on which these later decisions have been based. I have 
written, along with Senator Landrieu and many other of my colleagues, 
urging the Attorney General to reverse this decision and protect women 
who face persecution. I renew that request today, and hope that the 
passage of this legislation will prompt action on this issue as well.
  The conference report includes a provision that would require 
dissemination of sex registry information to colleges and universities. 
Currently, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 
applies strict restrictions on the dissemination of information in 
``education records,'' but these restrictions are specifically defined 
to exclude ``records maintained by a law enforcement unit'' of the 
school and were created for a law enforcement purpose. Thus, to the 
extent that campus police get information about registered sex 
offenders under State law, they are able to use it as they wish. 
Apparently not satisfied to leave this issue to the States, the 
conference report would mandate that States provide sex registry 
information concerning students to colleges and universities where the 
students are registered.
  I see no need to impose a federal disclosure requirement when the 
States are now free to regulate as they see fit the dissemination of 
sex registry information to schools and campus police, who may use it 
to protect the safety of those on campus. No one is opposed to taking 
adequate safety measures regarding sex offenders on campus. My concern 
has to do with unnecessary federal mandates when the States are 
perfectly capable of addressing the issue.

  VAWA II includes a provision to enhance protections for older women 
from domestic violence and sexual assault. Last year I introduced the 
Seniors Safety Act, S. 751, which would enhance penalties for crimes 
against seniors. This provision in VAWA II is an important complement 
to that legislation and I am pleased this provision has been able to 
generate wide support.
  VAWA II would also help young victims of crime through funding for 
the establishment of safe and supervised visitation centers for 
children in order to reduce the opportunity for domestic violence. 
Grants will also be extended to continue funding agencies serving 
homeless youth who have been or who are at risk of abuse and to 
continue funding for victims of child abuse, including money for 
advocates, training for judicial personnel and televised testimony.
  Many of the most successful services for victims start at the local 
level, such as Vermont's model hotline on domestic violence and sexual 
assault. VAWA II recognizes these local successes and continues grant 
funding of community demonstration projects for the intervention and 
prevention of domestic violence.
  The original VAWA was an important and comprehensive Federal effort 
to combat violence against women and to assist the victims of such 
violence. Passage of VAWA II gives us the opportunity to continue 
funding these successful programs, to improve victim services, and to 
strengthen these laws so that violence against women is eliminated. I 
am pleased that we were able to find a way to get this considered and 
passed. I deeply regret that we have not been able to do so in stand-
alone legislation or before VAWA expired last month.
  The conference report also includes the Justice for Victims of 
Terrorism Act. I commend Senators Lautenberg and Mack for working with 
the Administration on this consensus legislation which addresses 
serious policy concerns raised by prior versions of the bill. This 
measure has been cleared for action and passage by unanimous consent 
for some time by all Democratic Senators. In my view, it should have 
been passed in its own right a long time ago.
  The Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act addresses an issue that 
should deeply concern all of us: the enforcement of court-ordered 
judgments that compensate the victims of state-sponsored terrorism. 
This legislation has the strong support of American families who have 
lost loved ones due to the callous indifference to life of 
international terrorist organizations and their client states, and it 
deserves our support as well.
  One such family is the family of Alisa Flatow, an American student 
killed in Gaza in a 1995 bus bombing. The Flatow family obtained a $247 
million judgment in Federal court against the Iranian-sponsored Islamic 
Jihad, which proudly claimed responsibility for the bombing that took 
her life. But the family has been unable to enforce this judgment 
because Iranian assets in the United States remain frozen.
  The conference report that the Senate passes today will provide an 
avenue for the Flatow family and others in their position to recover 
some of the damages due them under American law. It will permit these 
plaintiffs to attach certain foreign assets to satisfy the compensatory 
damages portion of their judgments against foreign states for personal 
injury or death caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, 
aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or the provision of material support 
or resources for such an act. It will also permit these plaintiffs to 
recover post-judgment interest and, in the case of claims against Cuba, 
certain amounts that have been awarded as sanctions by judicial order.

  I am also pleased that this measure also includes a Leahy-Feinstein 
amendment dealing with support for victims of international terrorism. 
This amendment will enable the Office for Victims of Crime to provide 
more immediate and effective assistance to Americans who are victims of 
terrorism abroad--Americans like those killed or injured in the embassy 
bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and in the Pan Am 103 bombing over 
Lockerbie, Scotland. These victims deserve help, but according to OVC, 
existing programs are failing to meet their needs. Working with OVC, we 
have crafted legislation to correct this problem.
  The Leahy-Feinstein part of this measure will permit the Office for 
Victims of Crime to serve these victims better by expanding the types 
of assistance for which the VOCA emergency

[[Page S10186]]

reserve fund may be used, and the range of organizations to which 
assistance may be provided. These changes will not require new or 
appropriated funds: They simply allow OVC greater flexibility in using 
existing reserve funds to assist victims of terrorism abroad, including 
the victims of the Lockerbie and embassy bombings.
  This provision will also authorize OVC to raise the cap on the VOCA 
emergency reserve fund from $50 million to $100 million, so that the 
fund is large enough to cover the extraordinary costs that would be 
incurred if a terrorist act caused massive casualties, and to replenish 
the reserve fund with unobligated funds from its other grant programs.
  At the same time, the provision will simplify the presently-
authorized system of using VOCA funds to provide victim compensation to 
American victims of terrorism abroad, by permitting OVC to establish 
and operate an international crime victim compensation program. This 
program will, in addition, cover foreign nationals who are employees of 
any American government institution targeted for terrorist attack. The 
source of funding is the VOCA emergency reserve fund, which we 
authorized in an amendment I offered to the 1996 Antiterrorism and 
Effective Death Penalty Act.
  Finally, the provision clarifies that deposits into the Crime Victims 
Fund remain available for intended uses under VOCA when not expended 
immediately. This should quell concerns raised regarding the effect of 
spending caps included in appropriations bills last year and this. I 
understand the appropriations' actions to have deferred spending but 
not to have removed deposits from the Fund. This provision makes that 
explicit.
  I want to thank Senator Feinstein for her support and assistance on 
this initiative. Senator Feinstein cares deeply about the rights of 
victims, and I am pleased that we could work together on some 
practical, pragmatic improvements to our federal crime victims' laws. 
We would have liked to do more. In particular, we would have liked to 
allow OVC to deliver timely and critically needed emergency assistance 
to all victims of terrorism and mass violence occurring outside the 
United States and targeted at the United States or United States 
nationals.

  Unfortunately, to achieve bipartisan consensus on this provision, we 
were compelled to restrict OVC's authority, so that it may provide 
emergency assistance only to United States nationals and employees. It 
seems more than a little bizarre to me that the richest country in the 
world would reserve emergency aid for victims of terrorism who can 
produce a passport or W-2. I will continue to work with OVC and 
victims' organization to remedy this anomaly.
  I regret that we have not done more for victims this year, or during 
the last few years. I have on several occasions noted my concern that 
we not dissipate the progress we could be making by focusing 
exclusively on efforts to amend the Constitution. Regretfully, I must 
note that the pace of victims legislation has slowed noticeably and 
many opportunities for progress have been squandered. I look forward to 
continuing to work with the Administration, victims groups, 
prosecutors, judges and other interested parties on how we can most 
effectively assist victims and provide them the greater voice and 
rights that they deserve.
  This is the third good part of the package that comes before the 
Senate today. The sex trafficking bill, VAWA II and the Justice for 
Victims of Terrorism legislation could each have passed in its own 
right. The are being bundled together because the Republican leadership 
refused to proceed to consideration of VAWA II or the victims 
legislation and this session is drawing to a close. We are already 
passed the sine die adjournment date that had been set by the Majority 
Leader. We are already into the second or third or fourth continuing 
resolution needed to keep the government operating while Congress 
completes appropriations bills that should have been enacted in July 
and September.
  While the conference report contains many provisions which I support, 
it also has been used as a vehicle for some pet Republican legislative 
projects that I do not endorse. I refer specifically to ``Aimee's law'' 
and the ``Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act.''
  The conference report contains a legislative proposal called 
``Aimee's law,'' which, though well intended, will not serve this 
country well. We all shudder when a violent offender is incarcerated 
for an insufficient length of time only to be released and claim 
another victim. Let us be clear: everyone agrees that serious violent 
offenders should serve appropriate and sufficient incarceration. Yet, 
Aimee's law is not the way to pursue this goal. Neither Aimee's law or 
Congress can accurately assess with one hundred percent accuracy which 
offender will be a recidivist and which offender will not. This 
proposal has myriad practical implementation problems that will make 
this law a headache to administer for the States and the Department of 
Justice, without living up to its promise of stopping future tragedies.
  Ironically, Aimee's law will adversely affect the States' ability to 
fight crime. By taking law enforcement funds away from the states, the 
legislation will in effect reduce the states' capacity to fight crime. 
The Pennsylvania Secretary of Corrections has advised that 
``Pennsylvania, along with many other states, plans for the use of 
federal law enforcement money years in advance. Excessive penalties 
have a high potential to interfere with states' abilities to keep 
violent offenders--including those who have committed Aimee's law 
crimes--incarcerated for longer periods of time.''

  Specifically, this proposal would allow a state to apply to the 
Attorney General for reimbursement of the costs for investigation, 
prosecution and incarceration of prisoners who were previously 
convicted in another state for murder, rape or a dangerous sexual 
offense. The source of the reimbursement funds will be from Federal law 
enforcement assistance funds that would otherwise be paid out to the 
state that convicted the individual of the prior offense and released 
that offender.
  Last year, this proposal was adopted as an amendment to S. 254, the 
Juvenile Justice bill. Even then I expressed grave reservations with 
the language and complications contained in the legislation. 
Specifically, I noted that the proposal was ``extremely complicated and 
can create a great deal of problems with some States'' and offered ``to 
work more on the language to see if there are areas of unnecessary 
complication that could be removed.'' (Record, May 19, 2000, p. S5526). 
Unfortunately, the juvenile justice conference, in which the language 
of this proposal could have been refined, has failed to meet for over a 
year. Apparently, the Republican leadership intends to end the Congress 
without ever completing work on the juvenile crime bill.
  By any stretch of the imagination, the costs of Aimee's law outweigh 
its promised benefits:
  First, Aimee's law penalizes states' law enforcement not for their 
own actions, but for the actions taken by judicial and corrections 
officers resulting in the release of a defendant who has not served the 
incarceration period required under Aimee's law. Indeed, defendants who 
escape from jail without serving their full term and commit subsequent 
crimes could subject the state in which they committed their initial 
crimes to decreased federal funds otherwise used to help law 
enforcement.
  Second, Aimee's law requires the annual collection, maintenance and 
reporting of criminal history for violent offenders and covers not just 
those offenders currently in the system but any such offender no matter 
how long ago that offender was convicted, served time and was released. 
This provision alone demands an enormous investment of time and money, 
neither of which the legislation provides, to build the criminal 
history database necessary to implement the new law. As the Department 
of Justice has pointed out, ``[s]ince no time limit is imposed between 
the prior and subsequent convictions, the system would require 
electronic criminal records that do not now exist and would be very 
expensive to accumulate.'' This ``would require the establishment of a 
major national data center to collect and match state records'' and 
constitutes an ``unfunded mandate.''
  During a colloquy in the House on October 6th, Congressman Conyers

[[Page S10187]]

asked a House sponsor of Aimee's law whether it was the drafters' 
intent that Aimee's law shall apply prospectively, that is only to 
offenders whose first sentence for a covered offense occurs on or after 
the effective date of this law, January 1, 2002, and the sponsor 
responded affirmatively. Yet, the law remains murky on this point since 
the effective date may be construed to apply only to the time when 
states may make applications for reimbursement, not to when the 
offenses occurred. We have two years before the effective date to 
clarify this point, and others, in this problematic law.

  Third, while Aimee's law would exempt certain States from application 
of the law, those exemptions are predicated, in part, upon ``the 
average term of imprisonment imposed for that offense in all States.'' 
The Pennsylvania Director of Corrections has pointed out that ``[t]here 
is no record of what the national `average. . .' is for crimes covered 
in this language. Further, if such an average existed, it would 
continually fluctuate, guaranteeing that there would always be some 
states out of compliance.''
  Fourth, Aimee's law adopts offense definitions that are unclear and 
fail to conform to the offense definitions found in the federal 
criminal code or to the standard legal terms used in state codes making 
it difficult to enforce Aimee's law across state lines.
  The National Governors' Association has repeatedly registered its 
disapproval of Aimee's law as ``onerous, impractical and unworkable.'' 
Consequently, States may simply agree among themselves not to file the 
applications with the Attorney General required to obtain 
reimbursement. Indeed, such an application might trigger a retaliatory 
review of the applicant's own record of released defendants and result 
in reduction of important federal funds. As a consequence, states may 
view invocation of Aimee's law reimbursement provisions as a risky 
proposition.
  In short, Aimee's law is an empty promise that may make good fodder 
for 60-second campaign spots but will do nothing to continue the 
progress we have made over the last eight years to reduce the violent 
crime rate or to truly help crime victims.
  Senator Hatch has insisted that the ``Twenty-First Amendment 
Enforcement Act'' be included in the conference report, despite the 
fact that the conference met September 28th, and expressly rejected 
inclusion of this proposal in the conference report. It was rejected by 
the Senate conferees and the House conferees went so far as to adopt 
the position that no extraneous legislation would be added to the sex 
trafficking provisions. Nevertheless, the conference report contains 
Senator Hatch's bill, which amounts to a double whammy--it is 
unnecessary and dangerous to e-commerce. The purported goal of this 
legislation is to enforce state liquor laws. The approach of this 
legislation sets a dangerous precedent by erecting barriers to 
interstate and electronic commerce.
  Specifically, the bill would permit the enforcement of state liquor 
laws in Federal court. This expansion of the jurisdiction of the 
Federal courts is not warranted. State attorneys general are already 
enforcing their state liquor laws in state courts--whether the alcohol 
was brought over the Internet or over the counter at the corner store. 
The Internet has not changed the enforcement of state liquor laws.
  This year, for instance, the Utah Attorney General successfully 
enforced that state's liquor laws against an out-of-state direct sales 
shipper of alcoholic beverages. That case resulted in fines of more 
than $25,000 and guilty pleads by an out-of-state direct shipper to 
state law counts of unlawfully importing alcohol and selling it to a 
minor.
  Indeed, the Utah Attorney General, Jan Graham, declared: ``This case 
represents a significant win for Utah. No longer can retailers claim 
that we have no authority over illegal transactions that occur outside 
of the state. If you're shipping to a Utah resident, we can and will 
prosecute you.''
  This legislation is using the Internet as an excuse to impose a 
Federal fix for a problem that is already being solved at the state 
level. Whatever happened to Federalism? In fact, the National 
Conference of State Legislatures opposes this legislation, calling the 
bill ``an overreaction to a situation which can be reconciled among the 
states and not in a federal court.''
  Skeptics rightly are concerned that some may be using the Internet as 
an excuse to protect the decades-old distribution system for wine and 
other alcoholic beverages. Although the Internet has not changed state 
liquor law enforcement, it has opened up the wine and beer market to 
new consumer choices and competition.
  With the power of electronic commerce, adult consumers now have the 
freedom to choose from a rich assortment of different wine and beer 
products--from small wineries to nationwide brewers in America or any 
other country in the world.
  We should be embracing this free market and open competition. 
Competition in the free market is the American way. But instead some 
wine and beer wholesalers want to use this legislation as a 
protectionist ploy to keep their present distribution system, which 
effectively locks out small wineries and micro-breweries from ever 
getting their products on a store shelf. Mothers Against Drunk Driving 
and the National Conference of State Legislatures have noted that this 
Federal legislation is nothing more than an attempt to use the Federal 
courts in a disagreement between wholesalers and small independent 
wineries and breweries.
  On August 12, 1999, The Wall Street Journal wrote about this 
legislation: ``This is a bad bill, with dangerous consequences not only 
for alcohol but for the future of e-commerce and other cross-state 
transactions.'' I whole-heartedly agree.
  The Department of Justice has warned Congress in relation to 
legislation affecting the Internet that: ``[A]ny prohibitions that are 
designed to prohibit criminal activity on the Internet must be 
carefully drafted to accomplish the legislation's objectives without 
stifling the growth of the Internet or chilling its use.'' This bill 
fails that test. It is not carefully crafted. In fact, it is not even 
needed. It also could chill the use of the Internet as a means of 
promoting interstate commerce.
  I will vote in support of this conference report because the 
provisions on sex trafficking, VAWA and justice for victims are 
proposals I endorse. I do so with profound regret with the process and 
that the majority insisted on including Aimee's law and the internet 
alcohol bill that are not well considered. They are the price that we 
pay for making progress here today. I will work to see if we can limit 
their damage.
  In closing, I wish to thank the conferees and their staffs who showed 
courtesy to me and mine. In particular, I thank Karen Knutsen of 
Senator Brownback's staff and Mark Lagon and Brian McKee of the staff 
of the Foreign Relations Committee. I thank Nancy Zirkin of the 
American Association of University Women and Pat Reuss of the NOW Legal 
Defense and Education Fund for their efforts on behalf of VAWA II. This 
has been a difficult matter at a difficult time that is being concluded 
as best we can under these circumstances in order to enact the sex 
trafficking legislation, VAWA II and the victims bill for all the good 
they can mean.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
distinguished Senator from Kansas be recognized to make a unanimous 
consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes 
occurring relative to the Thompson appeal as provided in the consent 
agreement this body agreed to on October 6, 2000, occur at 4:30 p.m. 
today, with adoption of the conference report to occur immediately 
following that vote as provided in the consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S10188]]

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, for the information of Members, in 
light of this agreement, the next two votes will occur at approximately 
4:30 p.m. with the Thompson appeal vote occurring at 4:30 and the 
conference report vote occurring immediately thereafter.

                          ____________________