[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 126 (Wednesday, October 11, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10188-S10210]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION ACT OF 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT--
Continued
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I thank you as well as the chairman of
our committee, Mr. Hatch, and the ranking member, Mr. Leahy, for
yielding me a brief amount of time to talk on the Violence Against
Women Act.
I commend our leader on Judiciary, Senator Leahy, for his diligent
work on so many of the issues contained here. I know there are some
differences on a few. I commend Senator Biden, who has worked long and
hard on this issue for many years. We all owe him a debt of gratitude
for his strenuous efforts. I also thank the Senator from California,
Mrs. Boxer. When Senator Biden first introduced the bill in the Senate,
Senator Boxer, then Congress Member Boxer, was the House sponsor; I was
the cosponsor. When she moved on to the Senate, I became the lead House
sponsor and managed the bill as it was signed into law.
When it was first enacted in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act
signaled a sea change in our approach to the epidemic of violence
directed at women. Until the law, by and large it had been a dirty
little secret that every night hundreds of women showed up at police
precincts, battered and bruised, because they were beaten by their
spouse or their boyfriend or whatever. All too often they were told by
that law enforcement officer, who really had no education, no training,
or no place to send the battered woman: Well, this is a domestic
matter. Go home and straighten it out with your husband.
So deep were the traditions ingrained that it was very hard to remove
them. In fact, the expression ``rule of thumb'' comes from the medieval
law that said a husband could beat his wife with a stick provided that
stick was no wider than his thumb.
The Violence Against Women Act took giant strides to take this
terrible, dirty secret, bring it above ground, and begin really to
cleanse it. The new law acknowledged that the ancient bias showed
itself not just in the virulence of the perpetrators of violence but in
the failure of the system and the community to respond with sufficient
care and understanding. Shelters grew, police departments were
educated, the VAWA hotline--which we added to the law as an
afterthought, I remember, in the conference--got huge numbers of calls
every week, far more than anybody ever expected. The increased
penalties for repeat sex offenders did a great deal of good.
In my State alone, for instance, the act provided $92 million for
purposes such as shelter, such as education, such as rape crisis
centers, and such as prevention education for high school and college
students, and victims' services. But, as impressive as the advances
were under the original VAWA, we still have a long way to go; this
horrible activity is ingrained deeply in our society. Building on the
success of VAWA I, VAWA II--the Violence Against Women Act II--is now
before us. It is still the case that a third of all murdered women die
at the hands of spouses and partners and a quarter of all violent
crimes against women are committed by spouses and partners. Indeed, the
latest figures from the Bureau of Justice Statistics actually show an
increase of 13 percent in rape and sexual assault.
So we have a long way to go. The battle continues. It is why the
Violence Against Women Act is so important and will make such a
difference in the lives of women across America. I will not catalog its
provisions. That has been done by my colleagues before me. I urge my
colleagues to vote for this legislation.
In conclusion, let us hope this law will hasten the time when
violence against women is not a unique and rampant problem requiring
the attention of this body. Let us pray for the time when women no
longer need to live in fear of being beaten.
I yield my time and thank my colleagues.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I see my good friend, the Senator from
Iowa, on the floor. I yield him 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I thank my good friend from Vermont for
yielding me this time to voice my support for the reauthorization of
the Violence Against Women Act. It is an important act that should be
passed forthwith.
I was a proud cosponsor of this bill when it passed in 1994, and I am
an original cosponsor of the reauthorization bill. This is a law that
has helped hundreds of thousands of women and children in my State of
Iowa and across the Nation. Iowa has received more than $8 million
through grants of VAWA. These grants fund the domestic violence hotline
and keep the doors open at domestic violence shelters, such as the
Family Violence Center in Des Moines.
VAWA grants to Iowa have provided services to more than 2,000 sexual
assault victims just this year, and more than 20,559 Iowa students this
year have received information about rape prevention through this
Federal funding.
The numbers show that VAWA is working. A recent Justice report found
that intimate partner violence against women decreased by 21 percent
from 1993 to 1998. This is strong evidence that State and community
efforts are indeed working. But this fight is far from over. The
reauthorization of this important legislation will allow these efforts
to continue without having to worry that this funding will be lost from
year to year. I commend the Democratic and Republican leadership for
working to get this bill done before we adjourn.
I believe my friends on the Republican side of the aisle are
suffering from a split personality. They are willing to reauthorize the
Violence Against Women Act, but they are not willing to put a judge on
the Federal bench who knows more about this law, has done more to
implement this law than any other person in this country, and that is
Bonnie J. Campbell, who right now heads the Office of Violence Against
Women that was set up by this law in 1994. In fact, Bonnie Campbell has
been the head of this office since its inception, and the figures bear
out the fact that this office is working, and it is working well.
Bonnie Campbell's name was submitted to the Senate in March. She had
her hearing in May. All the paperwork is done. Yet she is bottled up in
the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Yesterday, the Senator from Alabama appeared on the CNN news show
``Burden of Proof'' to discuss the status of judicial nominations. I
want to address some of the statements he made on that show.
Senator Sessions said Bonnie Campbell has no courtroom experience.
The truth: Bonnie Campbell's qualifications are exemplary. The American
Bar Association has given her their stamp of approval. She has had a
long history in law starting in 1984 with her private practice in Des
Moines where she
[[Page S10189]]
worked on cases involving medical malpractice, employment
discrimination, personal injury, real estate, and family law.
She was then elected attorney general of Iowa, the first woman to
ever hold that office. In that position, she gained high marks from all
ends of the political spectrum as someone who was strongly committed to
enforcing the law to reducing crime and protecting consumers.
As I said, in 1995, she led the implementation of the Violence
Against Women Act as head of that office under the Justice Department.
Her strong performance in this role is reflected in last month's House
vote to reauthorize VAWA--415-3.
Senator Sessions from Alabama says she has no courtroom experience. I
will mention a few of the judicial nominees who have been confirmed who
were criticized for having little or no courtroom experience.
Randall Rader--my friend from Utah might recognize that name--was
appointed to the U.S. Claims Court in 1988 and then to the Federal
circuit in 1990. Before 1988, Mr. Rader had never practiced law, had
only been out of law school for 11 years, and his only post-law-school
employment had been with Congress as counsel to Senator Hatch from
Utah. Yet today, he sits on a Federal bench. But Senator Sessions from
Alabama says Bonnie Campbell has no courtroom experience; that is why
she does not deserve to be on the Federal court.
Pasco Bowman serves on the Eighth Circuit. He was confirmed in 1983.
Before his nomination--
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARKIN. He was criticized for his lack of experience because he
had been in private practice for 5 years out of law school, and the
rest of that time he was a law professor. Now he is on the Eighth
Circuit.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield? I want to agree with that.
Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
Mr. HATCH. I agree with the Senator. I do not think it is critical
that a person have prior trial experience to be nominated to the
Federal bench.
Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that.
Mr. HATCH. There are many academics who have not had 1 day of trial
experience. There have been a number of Supreme Court Justices who have
not had 1 day of trial experience. I do criticize the Senator in one
regard, and that is for bringing up the name of Randall Rader because
Randy happened to be one of the best members of our Senate Judiciary
Committee. He is now one of the leading lights in all intellectual
property issues as a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals judge. The fact
is, he has a great deal of ability in that area. I agree with that.
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield on that point? I am not
criticizing Randall Rader.
Mr. HATCH. I didn't think you were.
Mr. HARKIN. I am saying here is a guy on the court, probably doing a
great job for all I know, but he didn't have any courtroom experience
either.
Mr. HATCH. I agree with the Senator.
Let me just say this. I am in agreement with my friend and colleague
from Iowa. I believe it is helpful to have trial experience, especially
when you are going to be a trial judge. I do not think it is absolutely
essential, however. I also believe some of the greatest judges we have
had, on the trial bench, the appellate bench, and on the Supreme Court,
never stepped a day into a courtroom other than to be sworn into law to
practice.
Mr. HARKIN. I agree with that.
Mr. HATCH. That isn't the situation.
Now, I have to say, I appreciate my two colleagues from Iowa in their
very earnest defense, and really offense, in favor of Bonnie Campbell.
She is a very nice woman and a very good person. Personally, I wish I
could have gotten her through. But it isn't all this side's fault. As
the Senator knows, things exploded here at the end because of continual
filibusters on motions to proceed and misuse of the appointments
clause, holds by Democrats, by the Democrat leader, on their own
judges, and other problems that have arisen that always seem to arise
in the last days.
So I apologize to the distinguished Senator I couldn't do a better
job in getting her through. But I agree with him, and I felt obligated
to stand and tell him I agreed with him, that some of our greatest
judges who have ever served have never had a day in court. I might add,
some of the worst who have ever served have never had a day in court
also. I think it is only fair to make that clear. But there are also
some pretty poor judges who have been trial lawyers, as well. So it
isn't necessarily any particular experience.
Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator would yield?
Mr. HARKIN. I am just pointing out what the Senator from Alabama, who
is a member of the Judiciary Committee, said.
Mr. HATCH. I understand.
Mr. HARKIN. I was not saying anything about the Senator from Utah. I
was just pointing out, as he just did, some good judges on the
appellate level never had trial experience.
Mr. HATCH. If the Senator would yield again, if we made that the
criterion, that you have to have a lot of trial experience, I am afraid
we would hurt the Federal Judiciary in many respects because there are
some great people----
Mr. HARKIN. I agree.
Mr. HATCH. Who have served in very distinguished manners who have not
had trial experience. I think it is helpful, but it does not
necessarily mean you are going to be a great judge.
I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, I will note
the big difference between Judge Rader and Bonnie Campbell. I think
Judge Rader is a very good judge. I supported him. Judge Rader got an
opportunity to have a vote on his nomination, and he was confirmed.
Bonnie Campbell, who was nominated way back in March, has never been
given a vote. There is a big difference.
Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
Mr. LEAHY. It is not trial experience. There is a big difference. She
deserved a vote just as much as anybody else. She never got the vote.
Had she gotten the vote, then I think she would have been confirmed. It
is not a question of Judge Rader, whom I happen to like, who is a close
personal friend of mine, and whom I supported; it is a question of who
gets a vote around here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time yielded to the Senator from Iowa has
expired.
Mr. LEAHY. I assumed the time of the Senator from Utah was coming
from his side.
Mr. HARKIN. I yielded to him.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I yield the Senator 2 more minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized for 2 more
minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. I just point out, J. Harvie Wilkinson is another judge in
the Fourth Circuit. Again, he never had any courtroom experience
either.
I am just pointing out, the Senator from Alabama yesterday, on the
same TV show, said Bonnie Campbell was nominated too late. Nonsense.
Gobbledy-gook.
Bonnie Campbell was nominated on March 2 of this year. The four
judicial nominees who were confirmed just last week were nominated
after Bonnie Campbell. Why didn't Senator Sessions from Alabama stop
them from going out of committee? They were nominated after Bonnie
Campbell. Three of them were nominated, received their hearings, and
were reported out of the committee during the same week in July. Bonnie
Campbell had her hearing in May, and she has since been bottled up in
committee.
I keep pointing out, in 1992 President Bush nominated 14 circuit
court judges. Nine had their hearing, nine were referred, and nine were
confirmed--all in 1992. I guess it was not too late when the
Republicans had the Presidency, but it is too late if there is a
Democrat President.
Here is the year: 2000. Seven circuit court judges have been
nominated; two have had their hearing, one has been referred, and one
has been confirmed--one out of seven.
So who is playing politics around this place?
The Senator from Alabama said the Judiciary Committee is holding
hearings, just as they did in the past.
In 1992, there were 15 judicial hearings; this year, there have been
8.
The Senator from Alabama also said some Republican Senators claim
Bonnie Campbell is too liberal.
But Bonnie Campbell has bipartisan support. Senator Grassley, law
enforcement people, and victims services
[[Page S10190]]
groups also all support her. Is that the test?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes have expired.
Mr. HARKIN. May I have 2 more minutes?
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, how much time remains for the Senator
from Vermont?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 9 minutes
remaining.
Mr. LEAHY. I yield 1 more minute to the Senator.
Mr. HARKIN. Thirty seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 30 seconds.
Unanimous Consent Request--Nomination Of Bonnie J. Campbell
Mr. HARKIN. Since this may be my only opportunity today, I will do
it, as I will every day we are in session.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee
be discharged from further consideration of the nomination of Bonnie J.
Campbell, that after the two rollcall votes at 4:30----
Mr. HATCH. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. HATCH. I will wait until the Senator finishes.
Mr. HARKIN. I wanted to finish--that the Senate proceed to this
nomination, with debate limited to 2 hours equally divided and,
further, that the Senate vote on this nomination at the conclusion of
the yielding back of time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Who yields time?
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I get a little tired of some of these
comments about judges when we put through 377 Clinton-Gore judges, only
5 fewer than Ronald Reagan, the all-time high. I get a little tired of
the anguishing.
There has never been, to my recollection, in my 24 years here, a time
where we have not had problems at the end of a Presidential year.
Whether the Democrats are in power or we are in power, there is always
somebody, and others--quite a few people--who foul up the process. But
that is where we are. And to further foul it up is just not in the
cards.
Senator Harkin has spoken at length about one nominee: Bonnie J.
Campbell. Let me respond.
It always is the case that some nominations ``die'' at the end of the
Congress. In 1992, when Democrats controlled the Senate, Congress
adjourned without having acted on 53 Bush nominations. I have a list
here of the 53 Bush nominees whose nominations expired when the Senate
adjourned in 1992, at the end of the 102nd Congress. By comparison,
there are only 40 Clinton nominations that will expire when this
Congress adjourns. My Democratic colleagues have discussed at length
some of the current nominees whose nominations will expire at the
adjournment of this Congress, including Bonnie Campbell. I ask
unanimous consent that this list of 53 Bush nominations that Senate
Democrats permitted to expire in 1992 be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
53 BUSH NOMINATIONS RETURNED BY THE DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED SENATE IN 1992
AT THE CLOSE OF THE 102D CONGRESS
Nominee Court
Sidney A. Fitzwater of Texas.............. Fifth Circuit.
John G. Roberts, Jr. of Maryland.......... D.C. Circuit.
John A. Smietanka of Michigan............. Sixth Circuit.
Frederico A. Moreno of Florida............ Eleventh Circuit.
Justin P. Wilson of Tennessee............. Sixth Circuit.
Franklin Van Antwerpen of Penn............ Third Circuit.
Francis A. Keating of Oklahoma............ Tenth Circuit.
Jay C. Waldman of Pennsylvania............ Third Circuit.
Terrance W. Boyle of North Carolina....... Fourth Circuit.
Lillian R. BeVier of Virginia............. Fourth Circuit
James R. McGregor......................... Western District of
Pennsylvania.
Edmund Arthur Kavanaugh................... Northern District of New
York.
Thomas E. Sholts.......................... Southern District of
Florida.
Andrew P. O'Rourke........................ Southern District of New
York.
Tony Michael Graham....................... Northern District of
Oklahoma.
Carlos Bea................................ Northern District of
California.
James B. Franklin......................... Southern District of
Georgia.
David G. Trager........................... Eastern District of New
York.
Kenneth R. Carr........................... Western District of Texas.
James W. Jackson.......................... Northern District of Ohio.
Terral R. Smith........................... Western District of Texas.
Paul L. Schechtman........................ Southern District of New
York.
Percy Anderson............................ Central District of
California.
Lawrence O. Davis......................... Eastern District of
Missouri.
Andrew S. Hanen........................... Southern District of Texas.
Russell T. Lloyd.......................... Southern District of Texas.
John F. Walter............................ Central District of
California.
Gene E. Voigts............................ Western District of
Missouri.
Manual H. Quintana........................ Southern District of New
York.
Charles A. Banks.......................... Eastern District of Arizona.
Robert D. Hunter.......................... Northern District of
Alabama.
Maureen E. Mahoney........................ Eastern District of
Virginia.
James S. Mitchell......................... Nebraska.
Ronald B. Leighton........................ Western District of
Washington.
William D. Quarles........................ Maryland.
James A. McIntyre......................... Southern District of
California.
Leonard E. Davis.......................... Eastern District of Texas.
J. Douglas Drushal........................ Northern District of Ohio.
C. Christopher Hagy....................... Northern District of
Georgia.
Louis J. Leonatti......................... Eastern District of
Missouri.
James J. McMonagle........................ Northern District of Ohio.
Katharine J. Armentrout................... Maryland.
Larry R. Hicks............................ Nevada.
Richard Conway Casey...................... Southern District of New
York.
R. Edgar Campbell......................... Middle District of Georgia.
Joanna Seybert............................ Eastern District of New
York.
Robert W. Kostelka........................ Western District of
Louisiana.
Richard E. Dorr........................... Western District of
Missouri.
James H. Payne............................ Oklahoma.
Walter B. Prince.......................... Massachusetts.
George A. O'Toole, Jr..................... Massachusetts.
William P. Dimitrouleas................... Southern District of
Florida.
Henry W. Saad............................. Eastern District of
Michigan.
Mr. HATCH. I would note that the Reagan and Bush nominations that
Senate Democrats allowed to expire Congresses included the nominations
of minorities and women, such as Lillian BeVier, Frederic Moreno, and
Judy Hope.
I do not have any personal objection to the judicial nominees who my
Democratic colleagues have spoken about over the last few weeks. I am
sure that they are all fine people. Similarly, I do not think that my
Democratic colleagues had any personal objections to the 53 judicial
nominees whose nominations expired in 1992, a the end of the Bush
presidency.
Many of the Republican nominees whose confirmations were blocked by
the Democrats have gone on to great careers both in public service and
the private sector. Senator Jeff Sessions, Governor Frank Keating, and
Washington attorney John Roberts are just a few examples that come to
mind.
I know that it is small comfort to the individuals whose nominations
are pending, but the fact of the matter is that inevitably some
nominations will expire when the Congress adjourns. I happens every two
years. I personally believe that Senate Republicans should get some
credit for keeping the number of vacancies that will die at the end of
this Congress relatively low. As things now stand, 13 fewer nominations
will expire at the end this year than expired at the end of the Bush
Presidency.
Madam President, I rise today to express my pride and gratitude that
the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 will pass the Senate today and
soon become law. This important legislation provides tools that will
help women in Utah and around the country who are victims of domestic
violence break away from dangerous and destructive relationships and
begin living their lives absent of fear.
I commend all of my fellow Senators and colleagues in the House of
Representatives with whom I worked to ensure the Violence Against Women
Act is reauthorized through the year 2005. The Republican and
Democratic Senators and Representatives who worked to make sure that
this legislation passed understood and understand that violence knows
no boundaries and it can affect the lives of everyone.
This has been a truly bipartisan effort of which everyone can be
extremely proud. Specifically, I thank Senator Joseph Biden for his
unyielding commitment to this bill. His leadership and dedication has
ensured VAWA's passage. I must say, though, that all along I remained
more optimistic than he that we would pass this bill I promised him we
would.
I want to take a moment to briefly summarize some of the important
provisions in this legislation. First, the bill reauthorizes through
fiscal year 2005 the key programs included in the original Violence
Against Women Act, such as the STOP and Pro-Arrest grant programs. The
STOP grant program has succeeded in bringing police and prosecutors,
working in close collaboration with victim services providers, into the
fight to end violence against women. The STOP grants were revised to
engage State courts in fighting violence against women by targeting
funds to be used by these courts for the training and education of
court personnel, technical assistance, and technological improvements.
The Pro-Arrest grants have helped to develop and strengthen programs
and policies that mandate and encourage police officers to arrest
abusers who commit acts of violence or violate protection orders. These
grants have been expanded to include expressly the enforcement of
protection orders as a focus for the grant program funds. The
[[Page S10191]]
changes also make the development and enhancement of data collection
and sharing systems to promote enforcement of protection orders a
funding priority. Another improvement requires recipients of STOP and
Pro-Arrest grant funds, as a condition of funding, to facilitate the
filing and service of protection orders without cost to the victim in
both civil and criminal cases.
Additionally, the legislation reauthorizes the National Domestic
Violence Hotline and rape prevention and education grant programs. It
also contains three victims of child abuse programs, including the
court-appointed special advocate program. The Rural Domestic Violence
and Child Abuse Enforcement Grants are reauthorized through 2005. This
direct grant program, which focuses on problems particular to rural
areas, will specifically help Utah and other states and local
governments with large populations living in rural areas.
Second, the legislation includes targeted improvements that our
experience with the original Act has shown to be necessary. For
example, VAWA authorizes grants for legal assistance for victims of
domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault. It provides funding
for transitional housing assistance, an extremely crucial complement to
the shelter program, which was suggested early on by persons in my home
state of Utah. It also improves full faith and credit enforcement and
computerized tracking of protection orders by prohibiting notification
of a batterer without the victim's consent when an out-of-state order
is registered in a new jurisdiction. Another important addition to the
legislation expands several key grant programs to cover violence that
arises in dating relationships. Finally, it makes important revisions
to the immigration laws to protect battered immigrant women.
There is no doubt that women and children in my home state of Utah
will benefit from the improvements made in this legislation. Mr.
President, this is the type of legislation that can effect positive
changes in the lives of all Americans. It provides assistance to
battered women and their children when they need it the most. It
provides hope to those whose lives have been shattered by domestic
violence.
I am proud to have worked with the women's groups in Utah and
elsewhere in seeing that VAWA is reauthorized. With their help, we have
been able to make targeted improvements to the original legislation
that will make crucial services better and more available to women and
children who are trapped in relationships of terror. I am proud of this
achievement and what it will do to save the lives of victims of
domestic violence.
In closing, I again want to thank Senators Biden and Abraham,
Congressman Bill McCollum, and Congresswoman Connie Morella for their
leadership on and dedication to the issue of domestic violence.
Legislators from both sides of the aisle in both Houses of Congress
have been committed to ensuring that this legislation becomes law. I am
proud to have worked with my fellow legislators to achieve this goal,
which will bring much needed assistance to the victims of domestic
violence.
Madam President, I am not just talking about violence against women
legislation and the work that Senator Biden and I have done through the
years to make it a reality. I actually worked very hard in my home
State to make sure we have women-in-jeopardy programs, battered women
shelters, psychiatric children programs, and other programs of
counseling, so that they can be taken care of in conjunction with the
Violence Against Women Act and the moneys we put up here. In fact, we
hold an annual charitable golf tournament that raises between $500,000
and $700,000 a year, most of which goes for seed money to help these
women-in-jeopardy programs, children's psychiatric, and other programs
in ways that will help our society and families.
I believe in this bill. I believe it is something we should do. I
think everybody ought to vote for it, and I hope, no matter what
happens today, we pass this bill, get it into law, and do what is right
for our women and children--and sometimes even men who are also covered
by this bill because it is neutral. But I hope we all know that it is
mostly women who suffer. I hope we can get this done and do it in a way
that really shows the world what a great country we live in and how
much we are concerned about women, children, families, and doing
something about some of the ills and problems that beset us.
How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes 15 seconds
remaining.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, let me use 1 more minute, and I will make
a couple more comments. I want to express my strong support for the
underlying bill in this conference report dealing with victims of sex
trafficking. I am proud to have worked with my colleagues on the
Foreign Relations Committee, led by Senators Brownback and Wellstone
for much of this past summer, on the significant criminal and
immigration provisions in this legislation. This is an important
measure that will strengthen the ability of law enforcement to combat
international sex trafficking and provide needed assistance to the
victims of such trafficking. I think we can all be very proud of this
effort.
Before I conclude, Mr. President, I want to thank all of the
committed staff members on both sides of the aisle and on several
committees for their talented efforts to get this legislation done.
First, on Senator Biden's staff, I thank Alan Hoffman, chief of Staff
for his tireless commitment, as well as current counsel Bonnie Robin-
Vergeer and former counsel Sheryl Walters. They are truly
professionals.
On Senator Abraham's staff, I'd like to thank Lee Otis, and her
counterpart on Senator Kennedy's staff, Esther Olavarria.
On the Foreign Relations Committee, I'd like to express my thanks to
staff Director Biegun and the committed staffs of Senator Brownback and
Wellstone, including Sharon Payt and Karen Knutson.
And finally, Mr. President, there are many dedicated people on my own
staff who deserve special recognition. I thank my chief counsel and
staff director, Manus Cooney, as well as Sharon Prost, Maken Delrahim,
and Leah Belaire.
I ask unanimous consent that a joint managers' statement be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Mr. President, we are very pleased that the Senate has
taken up and passed the Biden-Hatch Violence Against Women
Act of 2000 today. We have worked hard together over the past
year to produce a bipartisan, streamlined bill that has
gained the support of Senators from Both sides of the aisle.
The enactment of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994
signaled the beginning of a national and historic commitment
to the women and children in this country victimized by
family violence and sexual assault. Today we renew that
national commitment.
The original Act changed our laws, strengthened criminal
penalties, facilitated enforcement of protection orders from
state to state, and committed federal dollars to police,
prosecutors, battered women shelters, a national domestic
violence hotline, and other measures designed to crack down
on batterers and offer the support and services that victims
need in order to leave their abusers.
These programs are not only popular, but more importantly,
the Violence Against Women Act is working. The latest
Department of Justice statistics show that overall, violence
against women by intimate partners is down, falling 21
percent from 1993 (just prior to the enactment of the
original Act) to 1998.
States, counties, cities, and towns across the country are
creating a seamless network of services for victims of
violence against women--from law enforcement to legal
services, from medical care and crisis counseling, to
shelters and support groups. The Violence Against Women Act
has made, and is making, a real difference in the lives of
millions of women and children.
Not surprisingly, the support for the bill is overwhelming.
The National Association of Attorneys General has sent a
letter calling for the bill's enactment signed by every state
Attorney General in the country. The National Governors'
Association support the bill. The American Medical
Association. Police chiefs in every state Sheriffs. District
Attorneys. Women's groups. Nurses, Battered women's shelters.
The list goes on and on.
For far too long, law enforcement, prosecutors, the courts,
and the community at large treated domestic abuse as a
``private family matter,'' looking the other way when women
suffered abuse at the hands of their supposed loved ones.
Thanks in part to the original Act, violence against women is
no longer a
[[Page S10192]]
private matter, and the time when a woman has to suffer in
silence because the criminal who is victimizing her happens
to be her husband or boyfriend has past. Together--at the
federal, state, and local levels--we have been steadily
moving forward, step by step, along the road to ending this
violence once and for all. But there is more that we can do,
and more that we must do.
The Biden-Hatch Violence Against Women Act of 2000
accomplishes two basic things:
First, the bill reauthorizes through Fiscal Year 2005 the
key programs included in the original Violence Against Women
Act, such as the STOP, Pro-Arrest, Rural Domestic Violence
and Child Abuse Enforcement, and campus grants programs;
battered women's shelters; the National Domestic Violence
Hotline; rape prevention and education grant programs; and
three victims of child abuse programs, including the court-
appointed special advocate program (CASA).
Second, the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 makes some
targeted improvements that our experience with the original
Act has shown to be necessary, such as--
(1) Authorizing grants for legal assistance for victims of
domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault;
(2) Providing funding for transitional housing assistance;
(3) Improving full faith and credit enforcement and
computerized tracking of protection orders;
(4) Strengthening and refining the protections for battered
immigrant women;
(5) Authorizing grants for supervised visitation and safe
visitation exchange of children between parents in situations
involving domestic violence, child abuse, sexual assault, or
stalking; and
(6) Expanding several of the key grant programs to cover
violence that arises in dating relationships.
Although this Act does not extend the Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund, it is the managers' expectation that if
the Trust Fund is extended beyond Fiscal Year 2000, funds for
the programs authorized or reauthorized in the Violence
Against Women Act of 2000 would be appropriated from this
dedicated funding source.
Several points regarding the provisions of Title V, the
Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 2000, bear special
mention. Title V continues the work of the Violence Against
Women Act of 1994 (``VAWA'') in removing obstacles
inadvertently interposed by our immigration laws that many
hinder or prevent battered immigrants from fleeing domestic
violence safely and prosecuting their abusers by allowing an
abusive citizen or lawful permanent resident to blackmail the
abused spouse through threats related to the abused spouse's
immigration status. We would like to elaborate on the
rationale for several of these new provisions and how that
rationale should inform their proper interpretation and
administration.
First, section 1503 of this legislation allows battered
immigrants who unknowingly marry bigamists to avail
themselves of VAWA's self-petition procedures. This provision
is also intended to facilitate the filing of a self-petition
by a battered immigrant married to a citizen or lawful
permanent resident with whom the battered immigrant believes
he or she had contracted a valid marriage and who represented
himself or herself to be divorced. To qualify, a marriage
ceremony, either in the United States or abroad, must
actually have been performed. We would anticipate that
evidence of such a battered immigrant's legal marriage to the
abuser through a marriage certificate or marriage license
would ordinarily suffice as proof that the immigrant is
eligible to petition for classification as a spouse without
the submission of divorce decrees from each of the abusive
citizen's or lawful permanent resident's former marriages.
For an abused spouse to obtain sufficient detailed
information about the date and the place of each of the
abuser's former marriages and the date and place of each
divorce, as INS currently requires, can be a daunting,
difficult and dangerous task, as this information is under
the control of the abuser and the abuser's family members.
Section 1503 should relieve the battered immigrant of that
burden in the ordinary case.
Second, section 1503 also makes VAWA relief available to
abused spouses and children living abroad of citizens and
lawful permanent residents who are members of the uniformed
services or government employees living abroad, as well as to
abused spouses and children living abroad who were abused by
a citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent in
the United States. We would expect that INS will take
advantage of the expertise the Vermont Service Center has
developing in deciding self-petitions and assign it
responsibility for adjudicating these petitions even though
they may be filed at U.S. embassies abroad.
Third, while VAWA self-petitioners can include their
children in their applications, VAWA cancellations of removal
applicants cannot. Because there is a backlog for
applications for minor children of lawful permanent
residents, the grant of permanent residency to the applicant
parent and the theoretical available of derivative status to
the child at that time does not solve this problem. Although
in the ordinary cancellation case the INS would not seek to
deport such a child, an abusive spouse may try to bring about
that result in order to exert power and control over the
abused spouse. Section 1504 directs the Attorney General to
parole such children, thereby enabling them to remain with
the victim and out of the abuser's control. This directive
should be understood to include a battered immigrant's
children whether or not they currently reside in the United
States, and therefore to include the use of his or her parole
power to admit them if necessary. The protection offered by
section 1504 to children abused by their U.S. citizen or
lawful permanent resident parents is available to the abused
child even though the courts may have terminated the parental
rights of the abuser.
Fourth, in an effort to strengthen the hand of victims of
domestic abuse, in 1996 Congress added crimes of domestic
violence and stalking to the list of crimes that render an
individual deportable. This change in law has had unintended
negative consequences for abuse victims because despite
recommended procedures to the contrary, in domestic violence
cases many officers still makes dual arrests instead
of determining the primary perpetrator of abuse. A
battered immigrant may well not be in sufficient control
of his or her life to seek sufficient counsel before
accepting a plea agreement that carries little or no jail
time without understanding its immigration consequences.
The abusive spouse, on the other hand, may understand
those consequences well and may proceed to turn the abuse
victim in to the INS.
To resolve this problem, section 1505(b) of this
legislation provides the Attorney General with discretion to
grant a waiver of deportability to a person with a conviction
for a crime of domestic violence or stalking that did not
result in serious bodily injury and that was connected to
abuse suffered by a battered immigrant who was not the
primary perpetrator of abuse in a relationship. In
determining whether such a waiver is warranted, the Attorney
General is to consider the full history of domestic violence
in the case, the effect of the domestic violence on any
children, and the crimes that are being committed against the
battered immigrant. Similarly, the Attorney General is to
take the same types of evidence into account in determining
under sections 1503(d) and 1504(a) whether a battered
immigrant has proven that he or she is a person of good moral
character and whether otherwise disqualifying conduct should
not operate as a bar to that finding because it is connected
to the domestic violence, including the need to escape an
abusive relationship. This legislation also clarifies that
the VAWA evidentiary standard under which battered immigrants
in self-petition and cancellation proceedings may use any
credible evidence to prove abuse continues to apply to all
aspects of self-petitions and VAWA cancellation as well as to
the various domestic violence discretionary waivers in this
legislation and to determinations concerning U visas.
Fifth, section 1505 makes section 212(i) waivers available
to battered immigrants on a showing of extreme hardship to,
among others, a ``qualified alien'' parent or child. The
reference intended here is to the current definition of a
qualified alien from the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, found at 8 U.S.C.
1641.
Sixth, section 1506 of this legislation extends the
deadline for a battered immigrant to file a motion to reopen
removal proceedings, now set at 90 days after the entry of an
order of removal, to one year after final adjudication of
such an order. It also allows the Attorney General to waive
the one year deadline on the basis of extraordinary
circumstances or hardship to the alien's child. Such
extraordinary circumstances may include but would not be
limited to an atmosphere of deception, violence, and fear
that make it difficult for a victim of domestic violence to
learn of or take steps to defend against or reopen an order
of removal in the first instance. They also include failure
to defend against removal or file a motion to reopen within
the deadline on account of a child's lack of capacity due to
age. Extraordinary circumstances may also include violence or
cruelty of such a nature that, when the circumstances
surrounding the domestic violence and the consequences of the
abuse are considered, not allowing the battered immigrant to
reopen the deportation or removal proceeding would thwart
justice or be contrary to the humanitarian purpose of this
legislation. Finally, they include the battered immigrant's
being made eligible by this legislation for relief from
removal not available to the immigrant before that time.
Seventh, section 1507 helps battered immigrants more
successfully protect themselves from ongoing domestic
violence by allowing battered immigrants with approved self-
petitions to remarry. Such remarriage cannot serve as the
basis for revocation of an approved self-petition or
rescission of adjustment of status.
There is one final issue that has been raised, recently,
which we would like to take this opportunity to address, and
that is the eligibility of men to receive benefits and
services under the original Violence Against Women Act and
under this reauthorizing legislation. The original Act was
enacted in 1994 to respond to the serious and escalating
problem of violence against women. A voluminous legislative
record compiled after four years of congressional hearings
demonstrated convincingly that certain violent crimes, such
as domestic violence and sexual assault, disproportionally
affect women, both in terms of the sheer number of assaults
and the seriousness of the injuries inflicted. Accordingly,
the Act, through several complementary grant programs, made
it
[[Page S10193]]
a priority to address domestic violence and sexual assault
targeted at women, even though women, of course, are not
alone in experiencing this type of violence.
Recent statistics justify a continued focus on violence
targeted against women. For example, a report by the U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics issued in
May 2000 on Intimate Partner Violence confirms that crimes
committed against persons by current or former spouses,
boyfriends or girlfriends--termed intimate partner violence--
is ``committed primarily against women.'' Of the
approximately 1 million violent crimes committed by intimate
partners in 1998, 876,340, or about 85 percent, were
committed against women. Women were victims of intimate
partner violence at a rate about 5 times that of men. That
same year, women represented nearly 3 out of 4 victims of the
1,830 murders attributed to intimate partners. Indeed, while
there has been a sharp decrease over the years in the rate of
murder of men by intimates, the percentage of female murder
victims killed by intimates has remained stubbornly at about
30 percent since 1976.
Despite the need to direct federal funds toward the most
pressing problem, it was not, and is not, the intent of
Congress categorically to exclude men who have suffered
domestic abuse or sexual assaults from receiving benefits and
services under the Violence Against Women Act. The Act
defines such key terms as ``domestic violence'' and ``sexual
assault,'' which are used to determine eligibility under
several of the grant programs, including the largest, the
STOP grant program, in gender-neutral language. Men who have
suffered these types of violent attacks are eligible under
current law to apply for services and benefits that are
funded under the original Act--and they will remain eligible
under the Violence Against Women Act of 2000--whether it be
for shelter space under the Family Violence Protection and
Services Act, or counseling by the National Domestic Violence
Hotline, or legal assistance in obtaining a protection order
under the Legal Assistance for Victims program.
We anticipate that the executive branch agencies
responsible for making grants under the Act, as amended, will
continue to administer these programs so as to ensure that
men who have been victimized by domestic violence and sexual
assault will receive benefits and services under the Act, as
appropriate.
We append to this joint statement a section by section
analysis of the bill and a more detailed section by section
analysis of the provisions contained in Title V.
Thank you.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that two section-
by-section summaries of the Violence Against Women Act be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Division B, The violence Against Women Act of 2000--Section-by-Section
Summary
Sec. 1001. Short Title
Names this division the Violence Against Women Act of 2000.
Sec. 1002. Definitions
Restates the definitions ``domestic violence'' and ``sexual
assault'' as currently defined in the STOP grant program.
Sec. 1003. Accountability and Oversight
Requires the Attorney General or Secretary of Health and
Human Services, as applicable, to require grantees under any
program authorized or reauthorized by this division to report
on the effectiveness of the activities carried out. Requires
the Attorney General or Secretary, as applicable, to report
biennially to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees on
these grant programs.
Title I--Strengthening Law Enforcement to Reduce Violence Against Women
Sec. 1101. Improving Full Faith and Credit Enforcement of
Protection Orders
Helps states and tribal courts improve interstate
enforcement of protection orders as required by the original
Violence Against Women Act of 1994. Renames Pro-Arrest Grants
to expressly include enforcement of protection orders as a
focus for grant program funds, adds as a grant purpose
technical assistance and use of computer and other equipment
for enforcing orders; instructs the Department of Justice to
identify and make available information on promising order
enforcement practices; adds as a funding priority the
development and enhancement of data collection and sharing
systems to promote enforcement or protection orders.
Amends the full faith and credit provision in the original
Act to prohibit requiring registration as a prerequisite to
enforcement of out-of-state orders and to prohibit
notification of a batterer without the victim's consent when
an out-of-state order is registered in a new jurisdiction.
Requires recipients of STOP and Pro-Arrest grant funds, as a
condition of funding, to facilitate filing and service of
protection orders without cost to the victim in both civil
and criminal cases.
Clarifies that tribal courts have full civil jurisdiction
to enforce protection orders in matters arising within the
authority of the tribe.
Sec. 1102. Enhancing the Role of Courts in Combating Violence
Against Women
Engages state courts in fighting violence against women by
targeting funds to be used by the courts for the training and
education of court personnel, technical assistance, and
technological improvements. Amends STOP and Pro-Arrest grants
to make state and local courts expressly eligible for funding
and dedicates 5 percent of states' STOP grants for courts.
Sec. 1103. STOP Grants Reauthorization
Reauthorizes through 2005 this vital state formula grant
program that has succeeded in bringing police and prosecutors
in close collaboration with victim services providers into
the fight to end violence against women. (``STOP'' means
``Services and Training for Officers and Prosecutors'').
Preserves the original Act's allocations of states' STOP
grant funds of 25 percent to police and 25 percent to
prosecutors, but increases grants to victim services to 30
percent (from 25 percent), in addition to the 5 percent
allocated to state, tribal, and local courts.
Sets aside five percent of total funds available for State
and tribal domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions
and increases the allocation for Indian tribes to 5 percent
(up from 4 percent in the original Act).
Amends the definition of ``underserved populations'' and
adds additional purpose areas for which grants may be used.
Authorization level is $185 million/year (FY 2000
appropriation was $206.75 million (including a $28 million
earmark for civil legal assistance)).
Sec. 1104. Pro-Arrest Grants Reauthorization
Extends this discretionary grant program through 2005 to
develop and strengthen programs and policies that mandate and
encourage police officers to arrest abusers who commit acts
of violence or violate protection orders.
Sets aside 5 percent of total amounts available for grants
to Indian tribal governments.
Authorization level is $65 million/year (FY 2000
appropriation was $34 million).
Sec. 1105. Rural Domestic Violence and Child Abuse
Enforcement Grants Reauthorization
Extends through 2005 these direct grant programs that help
states and local governments focus on problems particular to
rural areas.
Sets aside 5 percent of total amounts available for grants
to Indian tribal governments.
Authorization level is $40 million/year (FY 2000
appropriation was $25 million).
Sec. 1106. National Stalker and Domestic Violence Reduction
Grants Reauthorization
Extends through 2005 this grant program to assist states
and local governments in improving databases for stalking and
domestic violence.
Authorization level is $3 million/year (FY 1998
appropriation was $2.75 million).
Sec. 1107. Clarify Enforcement to End Interstate Battery/
Stalking
Clarifies federal jurisdiction to ensure reach to persons
crossing United States borders as well as crossing state
lines by use of ``interstate or foreign commerce language.''
Clarifies federal jurisdiction to ensure reach to battery or
violation of specified portions of protection order before
travel to facilitate the interstate movement of the victim.
Makes the nature of the ``harm required for domestic
violence, stalking, and interstate travel offenses consistent
by removing the requirement that the victim suffer actual
physical harm from those offenses that previously had
required such injury.
Resolves several inconsistencies between the protection
order offense involving interstate travel of the offender,
and the protection order offense involving interstate travel
of the victim.
Revises the definition of ``protection order'' to clarify
that support or child custody orders are entitled to full
faith and credit to the extent provided under other Federal
law--namely, the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1980,
as amended.
Extends the interstate stalking prohibition to cover
interstate ``cyber-stalking'' that occurs by use of the mail
or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, such as by
telephone or by computer connected to the Internet.
Sec. 1108. School and Campus Security
Extends the authorization through 2005 for the grant
program established in the Higher Education Amendments of
1998 and administered by the Justice Department for grants
for on-campus security, education, training, and victim
services to combat violence against women on college
campuses. Incorporates ``dating violence'' into purpose areas
for which grants may be used. Amends the definition of
``victim services'' to include public, nonprofit
organizations acting in a nongovernmental capacity, such as
victim services organizations at public universities.
Authorization level is $10 million/year (FY 2000 STOP grant
appropriation included a $10 million earmark for this use).
Authorizes the Attorney General to make grants through 2003
to states, units of local government, and Indian tribes to
provide improved security, including the placement and use of
metal detectors and other deterrent measures, at schools and
on school grounds.
Authorization level is $30 million/year.
Sec. 1109. Dating Violence
Incorporates ``dating violence'' into certain purposes
areas for which grants may be used under the STOP, Pro-
Arrest, and Rural Domestic Violence and Child Abuse
Enforcement grant programs. Defines ``dating violence'' as
violence committed by a person:
[[Page S10194]]
(A) who is or has been in a social relationship of a romantic
or intimate nature with the victim; and (B) where the
existence of such a relationship shall be determined based on
consideration of the following factors: (i) the length of the
relationship; (ii) the type of relationship; and (iii) the
frequency of interaction between the persons involved in the
relationship.
Title II--Strengthening Services to Victims of Violence
Sec. 1201. Legal Assistance to Victims of Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault
Building on set-asides in past STOP grant appropriations
since fiscal year 1998 for civil legal assistance, this
section authorizes a separate grant program for those
purposes through 2005. Helps victims of domestic violence,
stalking, and sexual assault who need legal assistance as a
consequence of that violence to obtain access to trained
attorneys and lay advocacy services, particularly pro bono
legal services. Grants support training, technical
assistance, data collection, and support for cooperative
efforts between victim advocacy groups and legal assistance
providers.
Defines the term ``legal assistance'' to include assistance
to victims of domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault
in family, immigration, administrative agency, or housing
matters, protection or stay away order proceedings, and other
similar matters. For purposes of this section,
``administrative agency'' refers to a federal, state, or
local governmental agency that provides financial benefits.
Sets aside 5 percent of the amounts made available for
programs assisting victims of domestic violence, stalking,
and sexual assault in Indian country; sets aside 25 percent
of the funds used for direct services, training, and
technical assistance for the use of victims of sexual
assault.
Appropriation is $40 million/year (FY 2000 STOP grant
appropriation included a $28 million earmark for this use).
Sec. 1202. Expanded Shelter for Battered Women and Their
Children
Reauthorizes through 2005 current programs administered by
the Department of Health and Human Services to help
communities provide shelter to battered women and their
children, with increased funding to provide more shelter
space to assist the tens of thousands who are being turned
away.
Authorization level is $175 million/year (FY 2000
appropriation was $101.5 million).
Sec. 1203. Transitional Housing Assistance for Victims of
Domestic Violence
Authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to
make grants to provide short-term housing assistance and
support services to individuals and their dependents who are
homeless or in need of transitional housing or other housing
assistance as a result of fleeing a situation of domestic
violence, and for whom emergency shelter services are
unavailable or insufficient.
Authorization level is $25 million for FY 2001.
Sec. 1204. National Domestic Violence Hotline
Extends through 2005 this grant to meet the growing demands
on the National Domestic Violence Hotline established under
the original Violence Against Women Act due to increased call
volume since its inception.
Authorization level is $2 million/year (FY 2000
appropriation was $2 million).
Sec. 1205. Federal Victims Counselors Grants Reauthorization
Extends through 2005 this program under which U.S. Attorney
offices can hire counselors to assist victims and witnesses
in prosecution of sex crimes and domestic violence crimes.
Authorization level is $1 million/year (FY 1998
appropriation was $1 million).
Sec. 1206. Study of State Laws Regarding Insurance
Discrimination Against Victims of Violence Against Women.
Requires the Attorney General to conduct a national study
to identify state laws that address insurance discrimination
against victims of domestic violence and submit
recommendations based on that study to Congress.
Sec. 1207. Study of Workplace Effects from Violence Against
Women
Requires the Attorney General to conduct a national survey
of programs to assist employers on appropriate responses in
the workplace to victims of domestic violence or sexual
assault and submit recommendations based on that study to
Congress.
Sec. 1208. Study of Unemployment Compensation For Victims of
Violence Against Women
Requires the Attorney General to conduct a national study
to identify the impact of state unemployment compensation
laws on victims of domestic violence when the victim's
separation from employment is a direct result of the domestic
violence, and to submit recommendations based on that study
to Congress.
Sec. 1209. Enhancing Protections for Older and Disabled Women
from Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault.
Adds as new purposes areas to STOP grants and Pro-Arrest
grants the development of policies and initiatives that help
in identifying and addressing the needs of older and disabled
women who are victims of domestic violence or sexual assault.
Authorizes the Attorney General to make grants for training
programs through 2005 to assist law enforcement officers,
prosecutors, and relevant court officers in recognizing,
addressing, investigating, and prosecuting instances of elder
abuse, neglect, and exploitation and violence against
individuals with disabilities, including domestic violence
and sexual assault, against older or disabled individuals.
Authorization is $5 million/year.
Title III--Limiting the Effects of Violence on Children
Sec. 1301. Safe Havens for Children Pilot Program
Establishes through 2002 a pilot Justice Department grant
program aimed at reducing the opportunity for domestic
violence to occur during the transfer of children for
visitation purposes by expanding the availability of
supervised visitation and safe visitation exchange for the
children of victims of domestic violence, child abuse, sexual
assault, or stalking.
Authorization level is $15 million for each year.
Sec. 1302. Reauthorization of Victims of Child Abuse Act
Grants
Extends through 2005 three grant programs geared to assist
children who are victims of abuse. These are the court-
appointed special advocate program, child abuse training for
judicial personnel and practitioners, and grants for
televised testimony of children.
Authorization levels are $12 million/year for the special
advocate programs, $2.3 million/year for the judicial
personnel training program, and $1 million/year for televised
testimony (FY 2000 appropriations were $10 million, $2.3
million, and $1 million respectively).
Sec. 1303. Report on Parental Kidnapping Laws
Requires the Attorney General to study and submit
recommendations on federal and state child custody laws,
including custody provisions in protection orders, the
Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980, and the Uniform
Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act adopted by the
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in
July 1997, and the effect of those laws on child custody
cases in which domestic violence is a factor. Amends
emergency jurisdiction to cover domestic violence.
Authorization level is $200,000.
Title IV--Strengthening Education & Training To Combat Violence Against
Women
Sec. 1401. Rape Prevention and Education Program
Reauthorization
Extends through 2005 this Sexual Assault Education and
Prevention Grant program; includes education for college
students; provides funding to continue the National Resource
Center on Sexual Assault at the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention.
Authorization level is $80 million/year (FY 2000
appropriation was $45 million).
Sec. 1402. Education and Training to End Violence Against and
Abuse of Women with Disabilities
Establishes a new Justice Department grant program through
2005 to educate and provide technical assistance to providers
on effective ways to meet the needs of disabled women who are
victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
Authorization level is $7.5 million/year.
Sec. 1403. Reauthorization of Community Initiatives to
Prevent Domestic Violence
Reauthorizes through 2005 this grant program to fund
collaborative community projects targeted for the
intervention and prevention of domestic violence.
Authorization level is $6 million/year (FY 2000
appropriation was $6 million).
Sec. 1404. Development of Research Agenda Identified under
the Violence Against Women Act.
Requires the Attorney General to direct the National
Institute of Justice, in consultation with the Bureau of
Justice Statistics and the National Academy of Sciences,
through its National Research Council, to develop a plan to
implement a research agenda based on the recommendations in
the National Academy of Sciences report ``Understanding
Violence Against Women,'' which was produced under a grant
awarded under the original Violence Against Women
Act. Authorization is for such sums as may be necessary to
carry out this section.
Sec. 1405. Standards, Practice, and Training for Sexual
Assault Forensic Examinations
Requires the Attorney General to evaluate existing
standards of training and practice for licensed health care
professions performing sexual assault forensic examinations
and develop a national recommended standard for training; to
recommend sexual assault forensic examination training for
all health care students; and to review existing protocols on
sexual assault forensic examinations and, based on this
review, develop a recommended national protocol and establish
a mechanism for its nationwide dissemination.
Authorization level is $200,000 for FY 2001.
Sec. 1406. Education and Training for Judges and Court
Personnel.
Amends the Equal Justice for Women in the Courts Act of
1994, authorizing $1,500,000 each year through 2005 for
grants for education and training for judges and court
personnel instate courts, and $500,000 each year through 2005
for grants for education and training for judges and court
personnel in federal courts. Adds three areas of training
eligible for grant use.
[[Page S10195]]
Sec. 1407. Domestic Violence Task Force
Requires the Attorney General to establish a task force to
coordinate research on domestic violence and to report to
Congress on any overlapping or duplication of efforts among
the federal agencies that address domestic violence.
Authorization level is $500,000.
Title V--Battered Immigrant Women
Strengthens and refines the protections for battered
immigrant women in the original Violence Against Women Act.
Eliminates a number of ``catch-22'' policies and unintended
consequences of subsequent changes in immigration law to
ensure that domestic abusers with immigrant victims are
brought to justice and that the battered immigrants Congress
sought to help in the original Act are able to escape the
abuse.
Title VI--Miscellaneous
Sec. 1601. Notice Requirements for Sexually Violent Offenders
Amends the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and
Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act to require sex
offenders already required to register in a State to provide
notice, as required under State law, of each institution of
higher education in that State at which the person is
employed, carries on a vocation, or is a student. Requires
that state procedures ensure that this registration
information is promptly made available to law enforcement
agencies with jurisdiction where the institutions of higher
education are located and that it is entered into appropriate
State records or data systems. These changes take effect 2
years after enactment.
Amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require
institutions of higher education to issue a statement, in
addition to other disclosures required under the Act,
advising the campus community where law enforcement agency
information provided by a State concerning registered sex
offenders may be obtained. This change takes effect 2 years
after enactment.
Amends the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of
1974 to clarify that nothing in that Act may be construed to
prohibit an educational institution from disclosing
information provided to the institution concerning registered
sex offenders; requires the Secretary of Education to take
appropriate steps to notify educational institutions that
disclosure of this information is permitted.
Sec. 1602. Teen Suicide Prevention Study
Authorizes a study by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services of predictors of suicide among at-risk and other
youth, and barriers that prevent the youth from receiving
treatment, to facilitate the development of model treatment
programs and public education and awareness efforts.
Authorization is for such sums as may be necessary.
Sec. 1603. Decade of Pain Control and Research
Designates the calendar decade beginning January 1, 2001,
as the ``Decade of Pain Control and Research.''
____
Title V, the Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 2000--Section-
by-Section Summary
Title V is designed to improve on efforts made in VAWA 1994
to prevent immigration law from being used by an abusive
citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse as a tool to
prevent an abused immigrant spouse form reporting abuse or
living the abusive relationship. This could happen because
generally speaking, U.S. immigration law gives citizens and
lawful permanent residents the right to petition for their
spouses to be granted a permanent resident visa, which is the
necessary prerequisite for immigrating to the United States.
In the vast majority of cases, granting the right to seek the
visa to the citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse makes
sense, since the purpose of family immigration visas is to
allow U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents to live
here with their spouses and children. But in the unusual case
of the abusive relationship, an abusive citizen or lawful
permanent resident can use control over his or her spouse's
visa as a means to blackmail and control the spouse. The
abusive spouse would do this by withholding a promised visa
petition and then threatening to turn the abused spouse in to
the immigration authorities if the abused spouse sought to
leave the abuser or report the abuse.
VAWA 1994 changed this by allowing immigrants who
demonstrate that they have been battered or subjected to
extreme cruelty by their U.S. citizen or lawful permanent
resident spouses to file their own petitions for visas
without the cooperation of their abusive spouse. VAWA 1994
also allowed abused spouses placed in removal proceedings to
seek ``cancellation of removal,'' a form of discretionary
relief from removal available to individuals in unlawful
immigration status with strong equities, after three years
rather than the seven ordinarily required. Finally, VAWA 1994
granted similar rights to minor children abused by their
citizen or lawful permanent resident parent, whose
immigration status, like that of the abused spouse, would
otherwise be dependent on the abusive parent. VAWA 2000
addresses residual immigration law obstacles standing in the
path of battered immigrant spouses and children seeking to
free themselves from abusive relationships that either had
not come to the attention of the drafters of VAWA 1994 or
have arisen since as a result of 1996 changes to immigration
law.
Sec. 1501. Short Title.
Names this title the Battered Immigrant Women Protection
Act of 2000.
Sec. 1502. Findings and Purposes
Lays out as the purpose of the title building on VAWA
1994's efforts to enable battered immigrant spouses and
children to free themselves of abusive relationships and
report abuse without fear of immigration law consequences
controlled by their abusive citizen or lawful permanent
resident spouse or parent.
Sec. 1503. Improved Access to Immigration Protections of the
Violence Against Women Act of 1994 for Battered Immigrant
Women.
Allows abused spouses and children who have already
demonstrated to the INS that they have been the victims of
battery or extreme cruelty by their spouse or parent to file
their own petition for a lawful permanent resident visa
without also having to show they will suffer ``extreme
hardship'' if forced to leave the U.S., a showing that is not
required if their citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse
or parent files the visa petition on their behalf. Eliminates
U.S. residency as a prerequisite for a spouse or child of a
citizen or lawful permanent resident who has been battered in
the U.S. or whose spouse is a member of the uniformed
services or a U.S. government employee to file for his or her
own visa, since there is no U.S. residency prerequisite for
non-battered spouses' or children's visas. Retains current
law's special requirement that abused spouses and children
filing their own petitions (unlike spouses and children for
whom their citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or
parent petitions) demonstrate good moral character, but
modifies it to give the Attorney General authority to find
good moral character despite certain otherwise disqualifying
acts if those acts were connected to the abuse.
Allows a victim of battery or extreme cruelty who believed
himself or herself to be a citizen's or lawful permanent
resident's spouse and went through a marriage ceremony to
file a visa petition as a battered spouse if the marriage was
not valid solely on account of the citizen's or lawful
permanent resident's bigamy. Allows a battered spouse whose
citizen spouse died, whose spouse lost citizenship, whose
spouse lost lawful permanent residency, or from whom the
battered spouse was divorced to file a visa petition as an
abused spouse within two years of the death, loss of
citizenship or lawful permanent residency, or divorce,
provided that the loss of citizenship, status or divorce was
connected to the abuse suffered by the spouse. Allows a
battered spouse to naturalize after three years residency as
other spouses may do, but without requiring the battered
spouse to live in marital union with the abusive spouse
during that period.
Allows abused children or children of abused spouses whose
petitions were filed when they were minors to maintain their
petitions after they attain age 21, as their citizen or
lawful permanent resident parent would be entitled to do on
their behalf had the original petition been filed during the
child's minority, treating the petition as filed on the date
of the filing of the original petition for purposes of
determining its priority date.
Sec. 1504. Improved Access to Cancellation of Removal and
Suspension of Deportation under the Violence Against
Women Act of 1994.
Clarifies that with respect to battered immigrants,
IIRIRA's rule, enacted in 1996, that provides that with
respect to any applicant for cancellation of removal, any
absence that exceeds 90 days, or any series of absences that
exceed 180 days, interrupts continuous physical presence,
does not apply to any absence or portion of an absence
connected to the abuse. Makes this change retroactive to date
of enactment of IIRIRA. Directs Attorney General to parole
children of battered immigrants granted cancellation until
their adjustment of status application has been acted on,
provided the battered immigrant exercises due diligence in
filing such an application.
Sec. 1505. Offering Equal Access to Immigration Protections
of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 for All
Qualified Battered Immigrant Self-Petitioners
Grants the Attorney General the authority to waive certain
bars to admissibility or grounds of deportability with
respect to battered spouses and children. New Attorney
General waiver authority granted (1) for crimes of domestic
violence or stalking where the spouse or child was not the
primary perpetrator of violence in the relationship, the
crime did not result in serious bodily injury, and there was
a connection between the crime and the abuse suffered by the
spouse or child; (2) for misrepresentations connected with
seeking an immigration benefit in cases of extreme hardship
to the alien (paralleling the AG's waiver authority for
spouses and children petitioned for by their citizen or
lawful permanent resident spouse or parent in cases of
extreme hardship to the spouse or parent); (3) for crimes of
moral turpitude not constituting aggravated felonies where
the crime was connected to the abuse (similarly paralleling
the AG's waiver authority for spouses and children petitioned
for by their spouse or parents); (4) for health related
grounds of inadmissibility (also paralleling the AG's waiver
authority for spouses and children petitioned for by their
spouse or parent); and
[[Page S10196]]
(5) for unlawful presence after a prior immigration
violation, if there is a connection between the abuse and the
alien's removal, departure, reentry, or attempted reentry.
Clarifies that a battered immigrant's use of public benefits
specifically made available to battered immigrants in PRWORA
does not make the immigrant inadmissible on public charge
ground.
Sec. 1506. Restoring Immigration Protections under the
Violence Against Women Act of 1994
Establishes mechanism paralleling mechanism available to
spouses and children petitioned for by their spouse or parent
to enable VAWA-qualified battered spouse or child to obtain
status as lawful permanent resident in the United States
rather than having to go abroad to get a visa.
Addresses problem created in 1996 for battered immigrants'
access to cancellation of removal by IIRIRA's new stop-time
rule. That rule was aimed at individuals gaming the system to
gain access to cancellation of removal. To prevent this,
IIRIRA stopped the clock on accruing any time toward
continuous physical presence at the time INS initiates
removal proceedings against an individual. This section
eliminates application of this rule to battered immigrant
spouses and children, who, if they are sophisticated enough
about immigration law and has sufficient freedom of movement
to ``game the system'', presumably would have filed self-
petitions, and more likely do not even know that INS has
initiated proceedings against them because their abusive
spouse or parent has withheld their mail. To implement this
change, allows a battered immigrant spouse or child to file a
motion to reopen removal proceedings within 1 year of the
entry of an order of removal (which deadline may be waived in
the Attorney General's discretion if the Attorney General
finds extraordinary circumstances or extreme hardship to the
alien's child) provided the alien files a complete
application to be classified as VAWA-eligible at the time the
alien files the reopening motion.
Sec. 1507. Remedying Problems with Implementation of the
Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act
of 1994
Clarifies that negative changes of immigration status of
abuser or divorce after abused spouse and child file petition
under VAWA have no effect on status of abused spouse or
child. Reclassifies abused spouse or child as spouse or child
of citizen if abuser becomes citizen notwithstanding divorce
or termination of parental rights (so as not to create
incentive for abuse victim to delay leaving abusive situation
on account of potential future improved immigration status of
abuser). Clarifies that remarriage has no effect on pending
VAWA immigration petition.
Sec. 1508. Technical Correction to Qualified Alien Definition
for Battered Immigrants
Makes technical change of description of battered aliens
allowed to access certain public benefits so as to use
correct pre-IIRIRA name for equitable relief
from deportation/removal (``suspension of deportation''
rather than ``cancellation of removal'') for pre-IIRIRA
cases.
Sec. 1509. Access to Cuban Adjustment Act for Battered
Immigrant Spouses and Children
Allows battered spouses and children to access special
immigration benefits available under Cuban Adjustment Act to
other spouses and children of Cubans on the basis of the same
showing of battery or extreme cruelty they would have to make
as VAWA self-petitioners; relatives them of Cuban Adjustment
Act showing that they are residing with their spouse/parent.
Sec. 1510. Access to the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central
American Relief Act for Battered Spouses and Children
Provides access to special immigration benefits under
NACARA to battered spouses and children similarly to the way
section 509 does with respect to Cuban Adjustment Act.
Sec. 1511. Access to the Haitian Refugee Fairness Act of 1998
for Battered Spouses and Children
Provides access to special immigration benefits under HRIFA
to battered spouses and children similarly to the way section
509 does with respect to Cuban Adjustment Act.
Sec. 1512. Access to Services and Legal Representation for
Battered Immigrants
Clarifies that Stop grants, Grants to Encourage Arrest,
Rural VAWA grants, Civil Legal Assistance grants, and Campus
grants can be used to provide assistance to battered
immigrants. Allows local battered women's advocacy
organizations, law enforcement or other eligible Stop grants
applicants to apply for Stop funding to train INS officers
and immigration judges as well as other law enforcement
officers on the special needs of battered immigrants.
Sec. 1513. Protection for Certain Crime Victims Including
Victims of Crimes Against Women
Creates new nonimmigrant visa for victims of certain
serious crimes that tend to target vulnerable foreign
individuals without immigration status if the victim has
suffered substantial physical or mental abuse as a result of
the crime, the victim has information about the crime, and a
law enforcement official or a judge certifies that the victim
has been helpful, is being helpful, or is likely to be
helpful in investigating or prosecuting the crime. The crime
must involve rape, torture, trafficking, incest, sexual
assault, domestic violence, abusive sexual contact,
prostitution, sexual exploitation, female genital mutilation,
being held hostage, peonage, involuntary servitude, slave
trade, kidnapping, abduction, unlawful criminal restraint,
false imprisonment, blackmail, extortion, manslaughter,
murder, felonious assault, witness tampering, obstruction of
justice, perjury, attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the
above, or other similar conduct in violation of Federal,
State, or local criminal law. Caps visas at 10,000 per fiscal
year. Allows Attorney General to adjust these individuals to
lawful permanent resident status if the alien has been
present for 3 years and the Attorney General determines this
is justified on humanitarian grounds, to promote family
unity, or is otherwise in the public interest.
Mr. HATCH. The sex trafficking conference report also contains
legislation known as ``Aimee's law.'' The purpose of Aimee's law is to
encourage States to keep murderers, rapists, and child molesters
incarcerated for long prison terms. Last year, a similar version of
Aimee's law passed the Senate 81 to 17, and Aimee's law passed the
House of Representatives 412 to 15.
This legislation withholds Federal funds from certain States that
fail to incarcerate criminals convicted of murder, rape, and dangerous
sexual offenses for adequate prison terms. Aimee's law operates as
follows: In cases in which a State convicts a person of murder, rape,
or a dangerous sexual offense, and that person has a prior conviction
for any one of those offenses in a designated State, the designated
State must pay, from Federal law enforcement assistance funds, the
incarceration and prosecution cost of the other State. In such cases,
the Attorney General would transfer the Federal law enforcement funds
from the designated State to the subsequent State.
A State is a designated State and is subject to penalty under Aimee's
law if (1) the average term of imprisonment imposed by the State on
persons convicted of the offense for which that person was convicted is
less than the average term of imprisonment imposed for that offense in
all States; or (2) that person had served less than 85 percent of the
prison term to which he was sentenced for the prior offense. In
determining the latter factor, if the State has an indeterminate
sentencing system, the lower range of the sentence shall be considered
the prison term. For example, if a person is sentenced to 10-to-12
years in prison, then the calculation is whether the person served 85
percent of 10 years.
The purpose of Aimee's law is simple: to increase the term of
imprisonment for murderers, rapists, and child molesters. In this
respect, Aimee's law is similar to the Violent-Offender-and-Truth-in-
Sentencing Program and the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Since 1995,
the Truth-in-Sentencing Program has provided approximately $600 million
per year to States for prison construction. In order to receive these
funds, States had to adopt truth-in-sentencing laws that require
violent criminals to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences. As a
result of such sentencing reforms, the average time served by violent
criminals in State prisons increased more than 12 percent since 1993.
Similarly, the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 created the Federal
sentencing guidelines and increased sentences for Federal inmates. I am
proud to have supported both of these initiatives to increase prison
terms for violent and repeat offenders.
Some will say that Aimee's law violates the principles of federalism,
and in many respects, I am sympathetic to these arguments. However, I
would note that Aimee's law does not create any new Federal crimes, nor
does it expand Federal jurisdiction into State and local matters.
Instead, this law uses Federal law enforcement assistance funds to
encourage States to incarcerate criminals convicted of murder, rape,
and dangerous sexual offenses for adequate prison terms.
In conclusion, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of Senator
Santorum. He has been a tireless champion of Aimee's law. Without his
leadership, Aimee's law would not have been included in the sex
trafficking conference report. The State of Pennsylvania should be
proud to have such an able and energetic Senator.
My friend and colleague, the distinguished ranking member of the
Judiciary Committee, has expressed frustration with certain legislative
items being added to the sex trafficking conference report. I respect
him for voicing his concerns. I too would have preferred to have each
of the measures
[[Page S10197]]
that were included in this sex trafficking conference report considered
on their own. But we have witnessed, during this session of Congress,
dilatory procedural maneuvering of the like I have never witnessed
before in the Senate.
Several bills which have passed both the House and the Senate are
being held up with threats to filibuster the appointment of conferees.
Motions to proceed to legislation are routinely objected to. As
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I was not even given the courtesy
of being told that there was a Democratic hold on my interstate alcohol
bill until after I sought to include it in the sex trafficking
conference report. The public even witnessed the spectacle of the
minority joining with the majority to limit debate on, and the
amendments to, the Hatch H-1B bill and then turning around to
repeatedly try to add non-relevant amendments to the bill in clear
violation of the Senate rules.
Just so the record is clear, there has been--and continues to be--an
effort on the part of the minority to tie the Senate up in procedural
knots and then accuse the majority of being unable to govern. That is
their right under the rules. I do not recall engaging in similar
tactics when Republicans were in the minority but I am confident there
are instances where one could accuse of having engaged in similar
dilatory tactics. But, I believe we eventually reached the point where
our fidelity to the institution and our oaths of office transcended the
short-term interests of ballot box legislating.
The Senate has previously passed the interstate alcohol bill and the
Aimee's law legislation by overwhelming votes. Ironically, the one
piece of legislation included in this bill which my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle do not object to having been added is the
Violence Against Women Act. This legislation has not been considered by
the Senate, although I am confident had it been, it would have passed
overwhelmingly.
In short, no one respects the rules of the Senate more than me, In
the end, I hope the minority will rethink its tired and belabored
efforts to prevent the Senate from doing the public's work. Then we can
adjourn and return to our respective states where the intervening
adjournment can be spent with the real people of America--the workers,
the teachers, and students--instead of the pollsters and spin doctors
which seem to be of paramount attention to too many of my colleagues.
Mr. President, today I am pleased by the likely passage tonight of S.
577, the Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act. Originally introduced
on March 10, 1999, this legislation provides a mechanism that will
finally enable states to effectively enforce their laws prohibiting the
illegal interstate shipment of beverage alcohol.
At the outset, I should note that S. 577 has enjoyed overwhelming
support on both sides of the aisle and in both the Senate and the House
of Representatives.
Originally passed by the Senate as an amendment by Senator Byrd to
the Juvenile Justice bill, S. 254, on a lopsided vote of 80-17 on May
18, 1999, a revised version of S. 577 bill passed out of the Judiciary
Committee on a 17-1 vote on March 2, 2000. As of the time of final
passage, there were 23 cosponsors of the bill in the Senate--12
Republicans and 11 Democrats.
In the House, the companion legislation to S. 577, H.R. 2031,
sponsored by my friend from Florida, Representative Joe Scarborough,
passed the House initially by a vote of 310-112 on August 3, 1999. H.R.
2031 was backed by a coalition of 45 cosponsors in the House.
What is included in the conference report is the version of S. 577 as
passed by the Judiciary Committee in March. It is important to note
that the legislation, as revised with some amendments in the Committee
to address both the Wine Institute's and the American Vintners
Association's concerns, even got the support of Senators Feinstein and
Schumer, the two most vocal early opponents of the legislation. We
worked hard with representatives of the wineries on language to further
clarify that this bill does not, even unintentionally, somehow change
the balancing test employed by the Courts in reviewing State liquor
laws. We were able to reach agreement and incorporated those changes in
the bill. The Wine Institute and the Vintners Association both have
written us that they are no longer oppose the legislation.
Let me get to the substance of the legislation, the purpose behind it
and the history of this issue--both legislative and constitutional. I
think it is important to fully understand this history to appreciate
this legislation.
The simple purpose of this bill is to provide a mechanism to enable
States to effectively enforce their laws against the illegal interstate
shipment of alcoholic beverages. Interstate shipments of alcohol
directly to consumers have been increasing exponentially--and, while I
certainly believe that interstate commerce should be encouraged, and
while I do not want small businesses stifled by unnecessary or overly
burdensome and complex regulations, I do not subscribe to the notion
that purveyors of alcohol are free to avoid State laws which are
consistent with the power bestowed upon them by the Constitution.
Unfortunately, that is exactly want is happening, and that is what this
legislation will address.
All States, including the State of Utah, need to be able to address
the sale and shipment of liquor into their State consistent with the
Constitution. As my colleagues know, the Twenty First Amendment ceded
to the States the right to regulate the importation and transportation
of alcoholic beverages across their borders. States need to protect
their citizens from consumer fraud and have a claim to the tax revenue
generated by the sale of such goods. And of the utmost importance,
States need to ensure that minors are not provided with unfettered
access to alcohol. Unfortunately, indiscriminate direct sales of
alcohol circumvent this State right.
Let me emphasize that there are many companies engaged in the direct
interstate shipment of alcohol who do not violate State laws. In fact,
many of these concerns look beyond their own interests and make
diligent efforts to disseminate information to others to ensure that
State laws are understood and complied with by all within the
interstate industry. This legislation only reaches those that violate
the law.
Now, I would like to say a few words on the history of this issue. As
many of my colleagues know, debate over the control of the distribution
of beverage alcohol has been raging for as long as this country has
existed. Prior to 1933, every time individuals or legislative bodies
engaged in efforts to control the flow and consumption of alcohol,
whether by moral persuasion, legislation or ``Prohibition,'' others
were equally determined to repeal, circumvent or ignore those barriers.
The passage of state empowering federal legislation such as the Webb-
Kenyon Act and the Wilson Act were not sufficient, in and of
themselves, to provide states with the power they needed to control the
distribution of alcohol in the face of commerce clause challenges. It
took the passage of a constitutional amendment--and the re-enactment of
the Webb-Kenyon Act in 1935--to give states the power they needed to
control the importation of alcohol across their borders.
The Twenty-First Amendment was ratified in 1933. That amendment ceded
to the States the right to regulate the importation and transportation
of alcoholic beverages across their borders. By virtue of that grant of
authority, each State created its own unique regulatory scheme to
control the flow of alcohol. Some set up ``State stores'' to effectuate
control of the shipment into, and dissemination of alcohol within,
their State. Others refrained from direct control of the product, but
set up other systems designed to monitor the shipments and ensure
compliance with its laws. But whatever the type of State system
enacted, the purpose was much the same: to protect its citizens and
ensure that its laws were obeyed.
With passage of the ``Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act,'' the
States will be empowered to fight illegal sales of alcohol--let me
emphasize illegal. This legislation is particularly well-timed in that
it comes on the heels of a powerful opinion uphold state rights under
the 21st Amendment in the case of Bridenbaugh v. Freeman-Wilson, by
respected jurist Frank Easterbrook and the Seventh Circuit
[[Page S10198]]
Court of Appeals. In an opinion upholding a state's right to regulate
the importation of alcohol and prohibit illegal sales, Judge
Easterbrook cogently articulated the role of the 21st Amendment in the
Constitutional framework:
. . . the twenty-first amendment did not return the
Constitution to its pre-1919 form. Section 2 . . . closes the
loophole left by the dormant commerce clause, . . . No longer
may the dormant commerce clause be read to protect interstate
shipments of liquor from regulation; sec. 2 speaks directly
to these shipments . . . No decision of the Supreme Court
holds or implies that laws limited to the importation of
liquor are problematic under the dormant commerce clause.
Some who would seek to avoid state and federal laws have erroneously
complained that S. 577 will allow states to enforce discriminatory
state laws. These complaints are without merit. In actuality, failure
to pass this bill would have had the effect of discriminating against
in-state distributors by effectively giving out-of-state distributors
de facto immunity from state regulation. Congress and the Constitution
have recognized that States have a legitimate interest in being able to
control the interstate distribution of alcohol on the same terms and
conditions as they are able to control in-state distribution. As Judge
Easterbrook pointed out:
Indeed, all ``importation'' involves shipments from another
state or nation. Every use of sec. 2 could be called
``discriminatory'' in the sense that plaintiffs use that
term, because every statute limiting importation leaves
intrastate commerce unaffected. If that were the sort of
discrimination that lies outside state power, then sec. 2
would be a dead letter. . . . Congress adopted the Webb-
Kenyon Act, and later proposed sec. 2 of the twenty-first
amendment, precisely to remedy this reverse discrimination
and make alcohol from every source equally amenable to state
regulation.
That is exactly what S. 577 accomplishes. It simply ensures that all
businesses, both in-state and out-of-state, are held accountable to the
same valid laws of the state of delivery.
It is important to note that the Webb-Kenyon Act already prohibited
the interstate shipment of alcohol in violation of state law.
Unfortunately, that general prohibition lacked an appropriate
enforcement mechanism, thus thwarting the states' ability to enforce
their laws--those same laws they enacted pursuant to valid
Constitutional authority under the Twenty-First Amendment--in state
court proceedings through jurisdictional roadblocks. The legislation
passed today removes that impediment to state enforcement by simply
providing the Attorney General of a State, who has reasonable cause to
believe that his or her State laws regulating the importation and
transportation of alcohol are being violated, with the ability to file
an action in federal court for an injunction to stop those illegal
shipments.
This bill is balanced to ensure due process and fairness to both the
State bringing the action and the company or individual alleged to have
violated the State's laws. The bill:
1. Assures defendants of due process by requiring that no injunctions
may be granted without notice to the defendants or an opportunity to be
heard;
2. Assures defendants of due process by requiring that no preliminary
injunction may be issued without proving: (a) irreparable injury, and
(b) a probability of success on the merits;
3. Clarifies that injunctive relief only may be obtained--no damages,
attorneys fees or other costs--may be awarded;
4. Assures that cases brought are truly interstate/federal in
character by clarifying that in-state licensees and other authorized
in-state purveyors, readily amenable to state proceedings, may not be
subjected to federal injunctive actions;
5. Allows actions only against those who have violated or are
currently violating state laws regulating the importation or
transportation of intoxicating;
6. Notes that evidence from an earlier hearing on a request for a
preliminary injunction--but from no other state or federal proceedings,
may be used in subsequent hearings seeking a permanent injunction--
conserving court resources but protecting a defendant's right to
confront the evidence against him;
7. Ensures that S. 577 may not be construed to interfere with or
otherwise modify the Internet Tax Freedom Act;
8. Provides for venue where the violation actually occurs--in the
state into which the alcohol is illegally shipped.
9. Protects innocent interactive computer services (ICS's) and
electronic communications services (ECS's) from the threat of
injunctive actions as a result of the use of those services by others
to illegally sell alcohol;
10. Prohibits injunctive actions involving the advertising or
marketing (but not the sale, transportation or importation) of alcohol
where such advertising or marketing would be lawful in the jurisdiction
from which the advertising originates;
11. Requires that laws sought to be enforced by the states under S.
577 be valid exercises of authority conferred upon the states by the
21st Amendment and the Webb-Kenyon Act.
Madam President, contrary to some of the erroneous claims of some in
the narrow opposition, I want to reemphasize that S. 577 is intended to
assist the states in the enforcement of constitutionally-valid state
liquor laws by providing them with a federal court forum. We are not
stopping Internet or for that matter, any, legal sales of alcohol.
Indeed, there is no objection to this legislation by a host of
companies who sell wine over the Internet, such as Vineyards. The sole
remedy available under the bill is injunctive relief--that is, no
damages, no civil fines, and no criminal penalties may be imposed
solely as a result of this legislation.
We specifically included rules of construction language in subsection
2(e) stating that this legislation ``shall be construed only to extend
the jurisdiction of Federal courts in connection with State law that is
a valid exercise of power invested in the States'' under the Twenty-
First Amendment as that Amendment has been interpreted by the U.S.
Supreme Court ``including interpretations in conjunction with other
provisions of the Constitution.'' This bill is not to be construed as
granting the States any additional power beyond that.
Consequently, the state power vested under the Twenty-First
Amendment, as I have discussed above, is appropriately interpreted with
and against other rights and privileges protected by the Constitution,
as the Supreme Court does in every case. It should also be made clear
that by enacting S. 577, we are not passing on the advisability or
legal validity of the various state laws regulating alcoholic
beverages, which continue to be litigated in the courts, and should
appropriately be a matter for the courts to decide.
colloquy on 21st amendment enforcement act
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I have strong misgivings about one part
of the conference report we are about to consider. The provisions
relating to interstate sales of alcoholic beverages, known as the 21st
Amendment Enforcement Act, would dramatically reduce the ability of
small wineries in my state to market their products across the country.
These wineries are small, independent, often family-owned,
operations. They are the ``little guys'' in the winemaking industry.
They need to sell their products directly to consumers around the
country, and the Internet, especially, holds great promise for their
future economic success.
Already, some of them have been hurt by state laws banning interstate
sales of wine. The Matanzas Greek Winery in Sonoma County estimates
that it is turning away around $8,000 a month in direct sales from
consumers who had visited the winery and hoped to place orders from
their homes in other states.
I am very concerned that the 21st Amendment Enforcement Act will make
it even more difficult for these ``little guys'' to compete in the wine
business.
I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, Senator Hatch, whether he would consider the impact of this
legislation on my small wineries. Would the senator be willing, after
the legislation has been on the books for a year or so, the review its
impact on small wineries and to work with me to make such amendments as
are necessary to take care of them?
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I would be happy to consider this issue
after next year and examine the legislation's impact on small wineries.
I respect my colleagues from California's commitment to their
constituents. I
[[Page S10199]]
must reemphasize, however, that this legislation does nothing to hurt
the so-called small wineries in competing or marketing their products
in the wine business. I worked hard for over a year with the wine
industry to ensure that the legislation does not have any unintended
consequences, and want to reassure my colleague from California that
the version of the legislation that is included in the conference
report incorporates revisions made in the committee to address both the
Wine Institute's and the American Vintners Association's concerns. We
also included language to further clarify that this bill does not, even
unintentionally, somehow change the balancing test employed by the
courts in reviewing state liquor laws. I should also not that the Wine
Institute and the Vintners Association, as well as numerous Internet
commerce companies, have written us that they no longer oppose the
legislation.
The simple purpose of this bill is to provide a mechanism to enable
States to effectively enforce their laws against the illegal interstate
shipment of alcoholic beverages. I hope the distinguished Senator from
California knows that while I certainly believe that interstate
commerce should be encouraged, and while I do not want small businesses
stifled by unnecessary or overly burdensome and complex regulations, I
do not subscribe to the notion that purveyors of alcohol are free to
avoid State laws which are consistent with the power bestowed upon them
by the Constitution--and I should add that I don't think that Senator
Boxer subscribes to that notion either.
Let me emphasize that there are many companies engaged in the direct
interstate shipment of alcohol who do not violate State laws. In fact,
many of these concerns look beyond their own interests and make
diligent efforts to disseminate information to others to ensure that
State laws are understood and complied with by all within the
interstate industry. This legislation only reaches those that violate
the law, and only allows the attorney general of a state to go to
Federal court to enforce its laws. It is just a jurisdictional
legislation and does not allow or prohibit any sales or marketing by
any winery, large or small.
Having said that, I do hear the concerns by Senator Boxer and am
willing to consider the impact of this legislation after the law has
been on the books for a year or so, as my colleague has asked. I look
forward to working with her to insure that this legislation does not
harm small wineries which comply with the law.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator for his interest and concern, and for
his commitment to review the impact of the 21st Amendment Enforcement
Act on small wineries in the future.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I yield the remainder of my time to the
Senator from Pennsylvania.
aimee's law
Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act conference report, H.R. 3244, which
in addition to seeking to end the trafficking of women and children
into the international sex trade, slavery and force labor also includes
major provisions reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act,
providing justice for victims of terrorism, and Aimee's law.
One of the most disturbing human rights violations of our time is
trafficking of human beings, particularly that of women and children,
for purposes of sexual exploitation and forced labor. Every year, the
trafficking of human beings for the sex trade affects hundreds of
thousands of women throughout the world. Women and children whose lives
have been disrupted by economic collapse, civil wars, or fundamental
changes in political geography have fallen prey to traffickers.
According to the Department of State, approximately 1-2 million women
and girls are trafficked annually around the world.
I commend Senator Sam Brownback and Senator Paul Wellstone for their
bipartisan leadership on the International Trafficking of Women and
Children Victim Protection Act. The bill specifically defines
``trafficking'' as the use of deception, coercion, debt bondage, the
threat of force, or the abuse of authority to recruit, transport,
purchase, sell, or harbor a person for the purpose of placing or
holding such person, whether for pay or not, in involuntary servitude
or slavery-like conditions. Using this definition, the legislation
establishes within the Department of State an Interagency Task Force to
Monitor and Combat Trafficking. The Task Force would assist the
Secretary of State in reporting to Congress the efforts of the United
States government to fight trafficking and assist victims of this human
rights abuse. In addition, the bill would amend the Immigration and
Nationality Act to provide for a non-immigrant classification for
trafficking victims in order to better assist the victims of this
crime.
Senator Orrin Hatch and Senator Joe Biden introduced S. 2787, the
Violence Against Women Act. This bipartisan bill would reauthorize
federal programs which have recently expired for another five years to
prevent violence against women. It seeks to strengthen law enforcement
to reduce these acts of violence, provide services to victims,
strengthen education and training to combat violence against women and
limit the effects of violence on children. I am an original cosponsor
of this important legislation which has been endorsed by the National
Association of Attorneys General, the National Governor's Association,
and the American Medical Society. On September 26, the House of
Representatives passed its version of the Violence Against Women Act,
H.R. 1248, by a vote of 415 to 3. I am pleased that this important
legislation is included in the Sex Trafficking conference report which
passed the House of Representatives on October 6 by a 371-1 vote
margin.
The reauthorization legislation also creates new initiatives
including transitional housing for victims of violence, a pilot program
aimed at protecting children during visits with parents accused of
domestic violence, and protections for elderly, disabled, and immigrant
women. The bill also would provide grants to reduce violent crimes
against women on campus and extend the Violent Crime Reduction Trust
Fund. It authorizes over $3 billion over five years for the grant
programs. As a Member of the House of Representatives in the 103rd
Congress, I supported H.R. 1133, the original Violence Against Women
Act, offered by Representative Pat Schroeder of Colorado. Since FY1995,
VAWA has been a major source of funding for programs to reduce rape,
stalking, and domestic violence. I am also very pleased that my own
legislation to strengthen incentives for violent criminals, including
rapists and child molesters, to remain in prison and hold states
accountable is included in the conference report.
Aimee's law was prompted by the tragic death of a college senior
Aimee Willard who was from Brookhaven, Pennsylvania near Philadelphia.
Arthur Bomar, a convicted murderer was early 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 heinous crime in Delaware County, PA.
Aimee's mother, Gail Willard, has become a tireless advocate for
victims' rights and serves as an inspiration to me and countless
others.
This important legislation would use federal crime fighting funds to
create an incentive for states to adopt stricter sentencing and truth-
in-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 enough federal crime fighting dollars 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 released felon for a similar heinous 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 those 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.
[[Page S10200]]
Recidivism rates for sexual predators are the highest of any category
of violent crime. Despite this, the average time served for rape is
only five and one half years, and the average time served for sexual
assault is under four years. Also troubling is the fact that thirteen
percent of convicted rapists receive no jail time at all. We have more
than 130,000 convicted sex offenders right now living in our
communities because of the leniency of these systems. The average time
served for homicide is just eight years. Under Aimee's law, federal
crime fighting funds are used to create an incentive for states to
adopt stricter sentencing and truth-in-sentencing laws.
This legislation is endorsed by Gail Willard, Aimee's mother, Marc
Klass, Fred Goldman, and numerous organizations such the National
Fraternal Order of Police, the National Rifle Association, and the Law
Enforcement Alliance of America. 39 victims' rights organizations also
support Aimee's law including Justice For All, the National Association
of Crime Victims' Rights, the Women's Coalition, and Kids Safe. These
groups consider Aimee's law one of their highest priority bills. It
sends a message that if a state has very lenient sentencing it impacts
other states and crime victims in those states as well.
I first offered Aimee's law as an amendment to the juvenile justice
bill on May 19, 1999, which passed the Senate by a 81-17 vote margin.
Congressman Matt Salmon also offered the legislation as an amendment in
the House of Representatives on June 16, 1999, which passed by a 412-15
vote. Due to a lack of progress on the conference report it became
necessary to move the legislation separately. On May 11, I joined
Aimee's mother Gail at a hearing of the U.S. House Subcommittee on
Crime, to urge the House to approve legislation separately to keep
sexual predators behind bars. The House of Representatives subsequently
passed the legislation again by a unanimous voice vote.
Aimee's law is an appropriate way to protect the citizens of one
state from inappropriate early releases of another state. One of the
forty plus national organizations supporting Aimee's law, the National
Fraternal Order of Police, said the following.
One of the most frustrating aspects of law enforcement is
seeing the guilty go free and, once free, commit another
heinous crime. Lives can be saved and tragedies averted if we
have the will to keep these predators locked up. Aimee's Law
addresses this issue smartly, with Federalizing crimes and
without infringing on the State and local responsibilities of
local law enforcement by providing accountability and
responsibility to States who release their murders, rapists,
and child molesters to prey again on the innocent.
We have made several modest changes to address implementation
concerns by the states in the effort to achieve the best protection
possible for our citizens. These include (1) Definitions: utilizing the
definitions for murder and rape of part I of the Uniform Crime Reports
of the FBI and for dangerous sexual offenses utilizing the definitions
of chapter 109A of title 18- to provide for uniform comparisons across
the states; (2) Sentencing Comparisons: Eliminating the additional 10
percent requirement and utilizing a national average for sentencing
only as a benchmark; (3) Study: Also building into the process a study
evaluating the implementation and effect of Aimee's Law in 2006; (4)
Source of Funds: Provides states the flexibility to choose the source
of federal law enforcement assistance funds (except for crime victim
assistance funds); (5) Implementation: Delays the implementation of
Aimee's Law to January 1, 2002 to allow states the opportunity to make
any modifications that they would choose to do; and (6) Indeterminate
Sentencing States: Safe harbor for states with sentencing ranges allows
for the use of the lower number in the calculation (e.g. if sentencing
guideline is 10-15 years, 10 years will be utilized.)
We are sending a clear message with Aimee's law. We want tougher
sentences and we want truth in sentencing. A child molester who
receives four years in prison, when you consider the recidivism rate,
is an abomination. Murders, rapists, and child molesters do not deserve
early release; our citizens deserve to be protected. In this
legislation we are protecting one state's citizens from the complacency
of another state, and appropriate role for the federal government. I
want to thank my colleagues for their support and urge the passage of
this legislation.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the statement of Gail
Willard be printed in the Record, along with the list of endorsements.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Testimony of Gail Willard Before the Crime Subcommittee
It has been one thousand four hundred twenty one days since
Aimee's murder. This nightmare began on June 20, 1996. At
4:45 AM, I was awakened by a phone call--something every
parent dreads and hopes will never happen to them. I was told
that the police had found my car on the ramp of a major
highway. The car engine was running; the driver's side door
was open; the headlights were on; the radio was playing
loudly; and there was blood in front of and next to the car.
Who was the driver? Where was the driver? That night, my
beautiful twenty-two year old daughter, Aimee, had my car.
She had gone to a reunion with high school friends, and now
she was missing. Late that afternoon Aimee's body was found
in a trash-strewn lot in the ``badlands'' of North
Philadelphia. She had been raped and beaten to death.
Aimee was a wonder, a delight, a brilliant light in my
life. With dancing blue eyes and a bright, beautiful smile,
she drew everyone who knew her into the web of her life. She
would light up a room just by walking into it. She could run
like the wind, and she enjoyed the game--every game. She had
friends and talents and dreams for a spectacular future, so
it seemed only natural and right to believe that she would
live well into old age. Never one to complain when things
didn't go her way, Aimee always worked and played to the best
of her ability, happy with her successes, taking her failure
in stride. Aimee lived and loved well. She never harmed
anyone; in fact, Aimee rarely ever spoke ill of anyone. She
was almost too good to be true. On June 20, 1996, at age
twenty-two years and twelve days. Aimee was robbed of her
life, and our family was robbed of the joy and love and
innocent simplicity that were Aimee's special gift to us. We
will never be the same. There is an ache deep within each one
of us--and ache that cries out, ``Why God? Why?''
``Just Do It'' was Aimee's motto. She never worried about
what she could not do well; she put her energy into doing
what she could do well. In athletics, Aimee took her God-
given talents and worked them to perfection. For college
Aimee accepted a scholarship to play soccer for George Mason
University in Fairfax, Virginia. In her sophomore year, she
joined the lacrosse team. A two sport Division 1 athlete,
Aimee was on her way to becoming a legend at George Mason
University. In the spring of 1996, the spring before she was
murdered, Aimee led her lacrosse conference, scoring fifty
goals with twenty-nine assists. In fact, 1995-96 was a banner
year for Aimee. She was named to the Colonial Athletic
Association All-Conference Team in both soccer and lacrosse,
and to the All-American team for the Southeast region in
lacrosse.
Aimee's athletic success is only part of her glory. Her
friends describe her as a quiet presence, a fun-loving kid, a
good listener, a loyal friend. They used words like shy,
modest, kind, strong, focused, intense, caring, sharing
and loving when they speak about Aimee. They tell of
Aimee's magic with people. So that you will understand the
impact her murder had on them, I want to share an excerpt
from a letter one of her friends wrote to me.
``For the past few weeks my heart has been breaking for all
of us in our devastating loss, but more recently I think my
heart has been hurting a bit more for those who will never
get the chance to know the woman who played two Division 1
sports, making the all-conference teams in both, and All-
American in one. They will never meet the girl who was always
being named `Athlete of the Week' and had no idea that she
was half the time. These people will never get the chance to
argue with her over things like Nike vs. Adidas, Bubblicious
vs. Bubble Yum, Coke vs. Cherry Coke, or whether certain
professional athletes were over-rated. I am one of the
fortunate ones. I have volumes of Aimee's memories. I know
the beauty of those big blue eyes under a low brim of a Nike
hat. I know the carefree serenity that gave birth to the
goofy laugh. I witnessed her grace with grit, her passion
with patience, her pride without arrogance, her speed without
exhaustion, and her sweat that was enough to start an ocean.
If I was given the opportunity to trade in all my present
pain in exchange for never being able to say, `Aimee was my
teammate; Aimee was my friend,' I'd stick with the pain. The
memory of her is so wonderful.''
It is impossible to adequately describe the impact of
Aimee's murder on the countless people who knew her and loved
her. We are all trying to survive the pain and emptiness of
this great loss. How often I turn to tell Aimee something
silly or dumb when I'm watching one of our favorite
television shows, or a basketball or football game, but she
isn't there. I'm out shopping and I say, ``Aimee would look
great in that outfit. I'll buy if for her.'' But Aimee will
never wear a
[[Page S10201]]
new outfit again. I will never have the joy of holding Aimee
in my arms again, or of seeing her sparkling blue eyes,
freckled nose and bright smile. I will never know the
children Aimee dreamed of having, or the children Aimee
dreamed of coaching.
I do have wonderful memories of Aimee. Her life was wrapped
in my love, and mine was wrapped in her love. Because of evil
incarnate in Arthur Bomar, I now also have horrible
nightmares of the fear, the absolute terror, Aimee must have
known, and of the dreadful pain she was forced to endure. I
who had been with Aimee in every facet of her life, every
event big and small, was not there to protect her from the
fear and the pain. I never had the chance to say good-bye.
This despicable individual had condemned me, my other two
children, the rest of our family and all of Aimee's friends
who live with an ache deep in our hearts. The void can never
be filled. The pain of the loss of Aimee is forever.
Aimee's life was ended on June 20, 1996, a night of total
madness. She was kidnaped from her own car, raped, and then
beaten to death--beaten so badly around the head and face
that she was identified by the Nike swoosh tattoo on her
ankle--beaten so badly that she had an empty heart when she
was found. Every pint of blood had spilled from her body. The
person who did this to Aimee is a convicted felon who was on
parole.
Arthur Bomar was released from Nevada's prison system after
serving only twelve years of a life sentence for murdering a
man. While he was awaiting trial for the murder charge, he
shot a woman. While he was in prison serving time for both
these crimes, he assaulted a woman who was visiting him
there. Despite all these violent crimes, and sentences
even beyond the life sentence, Nevada released him after
only twelve years. Did they think he was reformed? All
they had to do was read his record to know that he wasn't.
A reformed, contrite prisoner sentenced to life doesn't
beat up a woman visitor. But he was released by Nevada,
and he came to Pennsylvania and murdered my Aimee.
On October 1, 1998, Arthur Bomar was convicted of first
degree murder, kidnaping, rape and abuse of a corpse. After
the jury announced their decision for the death penalty, this
reformed felon from Nevada raised his hand with his middle
finger extended and shouted, ``F - - - you, Mrs. Willard, her
brother and her sister.''
This kidnapper, rapist and murderer should never have been
on the street in June of 1996. And Aimee Willard should be
teaching and coaching, living and loving, spreading her joy
among us. But she isn't. Her legacy will live on, however, in
scholarship funds, aid to those in need, and a beautiful
memorial garden on that lot in the ``badlands'' of North
Philadelphia. Her legacy will live on because of Aimee's Law,
the ``No Second Chances'' law proposed by Matt Salmon from
Arizona and co-sponsored by Curt Weldon from Pennsylvania and
many other Congressmen and Senators.
Our entire justice system, as I see it, cries out for
reform. Our system lacks real truth in sentencing. Life in
prison does not mean life. Murderers are returned to the
streets to murder again. Willful murderers do not deserve a
second chance. If ``Aimee's Law'' is passed in 2000, the
States will have strong incentive to reform their parole
systems and to keep predators in prison actually for life. If
not, they will risk a reduction of federal funds if their
paroled murderers cross state lines and commit another
violent crime.
I am asking you, the members of the Sub-Committee on Crime,
to support the passage of ``Aimee's Law'' if you want to stop
the nightmare or convicted murderers continuing to murder. If
this law is passed, our streets will be a little safer, some
families will be spared the heartache we have suffered, and
Aimee Willard's name, not the name of her killer, will be
remembered forever. Please remember that Aimee has no second
chance at life.
Thank you.
____
Aimee's law
Protects Americans from convicted murders, rapists, and
child molesters by requiring states to pay the costs of
prosecution and incarceration for a previously convicted
criminal who travels to another state and commits a similar
violent crime. The payment would come from federal law
enforcement assistance funds chosen by the state. The
legislation is designed to keep violent criminals with high
recidivism rates in prison for most of their sentences
consistent with the principles of truth in sentencing. The
federal government needs to be involved to protect the
citizens of one state from inappropriate early releases of
another state such as occurred with Aimee Willard from the
Philadelphia area, a college senior, who was kidnapped and
brutally raped and murdered by a man who was released early
from prison in Nevada. Passed the Senate last year 81-17;
passed the House of Representative 412-15.
partial list of endorsements
The National Fraternal Order of Police, Washington, DC.
Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Falls Church,
Virginia.
KlaasKids Foundation, Sausalito, California.
Childhelp USA, Scottsdale, Arizona.
Kids Safe, Granada Hills, California.
Concerned Women for America, Washington, PC.
California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA),
Sacramento, California.
National Rifle Association (N.R.A.), Falls Church,
Virginia.
Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau, Sacramento, California.
Mothers Outraged at Molesters Organization (M.O.M.s),
Independence, Missouri.
Southern States Police Benevolent Association, Virginia.
Garland, Texas Police Department, Garland, Texas.
Action Americans--Murder Must End Now (A.A.M.M.E.N.),
Marietta, Georgia.
Arizona Professional Police Officers, Association, Phoenix,
Arizona.
Arizona Voice for Crime Victims, Phoenix, Arizona.
Association of Highway Patrolmen of Arizona, Tucson,
Arizona.
California Protective Parents Association, Sacramento,
California.
Christy Ann Fornoff Foundation, Mesa, Arizona.
Citizens and Victims for Justice Reform, Louisville,
Kentucky.
Concerns of Police Survivors (C.O.P.S.), Missouri.
International Children's Rights Resource Center,
Washington.
Justice for All, New York, New York.
Justice for Murder Victims, San Francisco, California.
Kids In Danger of Sexploitation (K.I.D.S.), Orlando,
Florida.
McDowell County Sheriff's Department, Marion, North
Carolina.
Memory of Victims Everywhere (M.O.V.E.), San Juan
Capistrano, California.
National Association of Crime Victims' Rights, Portland,
Oregon.
New Mexico Survivors of Homicide, Inc., Albuquerque, New
Mexico.
Parents Legal Exchange Alliance, San Francisco, California.
Parents of Murdered Children, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Parole Watch, New York, New York.
Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, Phoenix, Arizona.
Protect Our Children, Cocoa, Florida.
Security On Campus, Inc., King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Speak Out for Stephanie (S.O.S.), Overland Park, Kansas.
Survivor Connections, Inc., Cranston, Rhode Island.
Survivors and Victims Empowered (S.A.V.E.), Lancaster,
Pennsylvania.
Survivors of Homicide, Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Victims of Crime and Leniency (V.O.C.A.L.), Montgomery,
Alabama.
The Women's Coalition, Pasadena, California.
Endorsements From Individuals: (*interstate cases)
Ms. Gail Willard (PA; mother of Aimee Willard, a college
student raped and murdered by a released killer*)
Ms. Mary Vincent (WA; survivor of rape/attempted murder in
CA; her attacker, released from prison, later killed a mother
of three in Florida*)
Mr. Fred Goldman (CA; father of Ron Goldman, who was killed
in CA along with Nicole Simpson)
Mr. Marc Klass (CA; father of Polly, who was molested and
murdered in Nevada by a released sex offender)
Ms. Dianne Bauer (AK; daughter of Dr. Lester Bauer, who was
murdered in Nevada by a released murderer*)
Ms. Jeremy Brown (NY; survivor of rape; her attacker had
served time for murder*)
Ms. Trina Easterling (LA; mother of Lorin, an 11 year-old
girl abducted, raped, and murdered, allegedly by Ralph
Stogner, who had served time for raping a pregnant woman*)
Mr. Louis Gonzalez (NJ; brother of Ippolito ``Lee''
Gonzalez, a policeman murdered by a released killer*)
Ms. Dianne Marzan (TX; mother of daughters molested by an
HIV-positive, released sex offender*)
The Pruckmayr family (PA; parents of Bettina, brutally
stabbed 38 times in our nation's Capital by a paroled
murderer)
Ms. Beckie Walker (TX; wife of TX Police Officer Gerald
Walker, who was murdered by a released double-killer*)
Mr. Ray Wilson (CO; father of Brooklyn Ricks, who was raped
and murdered by a released rapist*)
Mr. SANTORUM. In conclusion, Madam President, I thank Senator
Brownback for his great work and perseverance in bringing this crime-
fighting package to the Senate to pass it and turn it into law quickly.
Aimee's law was debated and considered here in the Senate during this
session of Congress. It passed 81-17. It has passed the House with over
400 votes. It is a provision that has very broad support. It is one of
the No. 1 legislative provisions that the victims rights organizations
in America would like to see done.
This is a piece of legislation that targets three types of
offenders--murderers, rapists, and sex offenders, child molesters in
particular. What this does is focus on those three because, obviously,
they are three of the most heinous crimes on the books, but they are
also crimes that have the highest incidence of repeat offenders,
particularly the sexual crimes.
Aimee's law is given that name for Aimee Willard. She was a college
student outside of Philadelphia who was
[[Page S10202]]
raped and murdered by Arthur Bomar. Arthur Bomar was released from a
Nevada prison after serving only a small fraction of his sentence for a
similar crime. He was released, and within a few months he found his
way to Philadelphia, where Aimee was out one evening. She was attacked,
raped, and murdered. It was a case that sent shockwaves through
southeastern Pennsylvania and the whole Delaware Valley. Aimee's
mother, Gail, has been on a crusade since then to do something to make
sure convicted rapists and murderers and other sex offenders serve
their full sentences.
If you look at the sentences that are meted out for these crimes, it
is somewhat chilling to realize that if you look at the sentences that
are served for murder, for example, the average sentence for murder is
8 years. The average sentence for rape is 5\1/2\ years. This is the
actual time they serve, and the actual time served for a sex or child
molestation offense is 4 years.
We believe that you have a high incidence of recidivism in these
crimes, and people need to serve longer sentences so they are not a
threat to our communities. In fact, more than 14,000 murders, rapes,
and sexual assaults on children are committed each year by felons who
had been released after serving a sentence on one of those very same
crimes. So 14,000 of these crimes are committed by people who have
committed these crimes in the past, who were let go to commit a crime
again.
What we believe and what we have suggested is, frankly, very modest.
It is modest in the sense that it is, I argue, even for those 81
Senators who voted for this legislation the last time around--and some
expressed concern that this was going to be too tough on the States--
not as tough as it was before. We have changed it in ways that have
made it a little less onerous on States to have to keep up with these
provisions. We tightened the definitions more. We created flexibility
for the States for them to choose which funds they would use.
This is basically what this proposal does. It says if you release
someone from prison who has not served 85 percent of their sentence, or
has served a sentence below the national average for the crimes that we
enumerate, and that person goes out and commits a crime in another
State, then the State in which the person has committed the second
crime--the released felon commits a second crime--then it has a right
to go to the original State who let this person out early and seek
compensation for all the costs associated with the prosecution,
conviction, and incarceration of that criminal.
That hardly seems like the overbearing Federal Government dictating
to States how to run their criminal justice system. These are Federal
funds. States can choose which Federal funds they can allocate for this
purpose. But what it says is we need to get tougher in having tougher
sentences and making sure that those sentences, when given, are served.
I don't believe that is too much to ask for this Congress, and I very
strongly urge my colleagues to support this measure, and recognize that
if this measure is not supported this bill will be dead and will have
to start over again in the House of Representatives.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I yield myself 3 minutes. I want to
recognize the leadership of my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator
Santorum, in this provision. This is something he fought for to put in
this overall package, to keep in this overall package, and it was
something when we started down this road, frankly, I was saying I want
a little, clean, simple bill to deal with sex trafficking. And several
Members on the House side, and Senator Santorum on this side, fought to
put this in.
The more I studied this, the consistency of the flow was there with
this. This is dealing with trying to protect people who have been
subject to domestic crimes, domestic violence, to protect people who
have been subject to trafficking and protect people who have been
subject to, frankly, early release and high recidivism offenders in
other States, such as what happened, unfortunately, in his State in the
case of Aimee Willard.
I applaud my colleague's work. I note one other thing. Other
colleagues look at this and raise questions about does this really fit
within the overall package, and one can make their decision one way or
the other. But the point is, if this is pulled out, the bill has to go
back to the House. We don't have time, so it effectively kills the
bill. The House has already voted 371-1 for this package. It is a
package and if this gets pulled out, it has to go back to the House.
The House is going out on Friday for a funeral of one of its Members.
Tomorrow, it has its calendar set up. It kills the bill, so everything
else gets killed as well, regardless of what the arguments are. I plead
with colleagues and say let's look at this and go ahead and support the
entire package and not support the motion to strike the Aimee's law
provision.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Madam President.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam 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. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, off whose time is the quorum call
charged?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the understanding of the Chair that,
under the previous order, all quorum calls are being charged today to
both sides equally.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I note for the record, as we put it in, it was charged
against all sides equally because there are four people who have
separate allotted time. It should be allocated equally to all of those.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's understanding is correct. It
will be so allocated.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I note that we are planning on a vote
at 4:30. Senator Thompson has the time reserved from 3:30 to 4:30. I
note for my colleagues that if anybody wishes to speak on this
particular bill, Senator Thompson has an entire hour reserved. Under
the unanimous consent order, we immediately go to both votes--the vote
on the appeal of the ruling of the Chair for Senator Thompson, and
immediately we will go to a vote on final passage of the conference
report.
If anybody seeks to speak on this bill, they should do so at the
present time because otherwise it will be allocated to Senator
Thompson.
I will use a couple of minutes of my time at this point. I note that
within the bill there is the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act that
has been spoken of by Senator Lautenberg and Senator Mack, which seeks
justice for victims of terrorism that is taking place. That is in the
bill. I think it is an important part of the legislation. I hope we
will have some discussion taking place on that as well.
I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BIDEN. 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. BIDEN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time, if
any, is under the control of the Senator from Delaware?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes 48 seconds.
Mr. BIDEN. I ask the ranking member whether or not he is willing to
yield additional time if I need it?
Mr. LEAHY. How much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. I yield the 6 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, what a difference a year makes. Last year,
I came to the floor and indicated I thought in light of the resistance
taking place regarding the Violence Against Women Act and its
reauthorization and the Violence Against Women II Act, it would be a
tough fight to renew and strengthen the Violence Against Women Act.
Thanks to
[[Page S10203]]
the help and support of a number of folks in and out of this Senate--
from attorneys general in the various States, to police, to victims
advocates, doctors, nurses, Governors, women's groups--I am proud to
say we finally arrived at a point where the Violence Against Women Act
2000 is on the verge of passing the Senate as part of the sex
trafficking conference report.
I thank particularly my good friend from Minnesota. Since he has
arrived in the Senate, he has been the single strongest supporter I
have had. Along with his wife, who is incredible, she has been the
single most significant outside advocate for the Violence Against Women
Act in everything that surrounds and involves it.
I dealt him a bit of advice. When I went to a conference on a bill he
was working very mightily for, along with our friend and Republican
colleague, the sex trafficking bill, which is a very important bill in
and of itself--by itself it is important--if we were doing nothing else
but passing that legislation that he and Senator Brownback have worked
so hard on, it would be a worthy day, a worthy endeavor for the Senate
and the U.S. Government.
I realize people watching this on C-SPAN get confused when we use the
``Senate speak.'' We talk of conferences and conference reports and
various types of legislation. The bottom line is, I was part of that
agreement where we sat down with House Members and Senate Members to
talk about the sex trafficking legislation. I didn't surprise him--I
told him ahead of time, but I am sure I created some concern--by
attempting to add the Violence Against Women Act to that legislation.
We ultimately did.
It is the first time in the 28 years I have been in the Senate that I
have gone to a conference and added a major piece of legislation in
that conference, knowing that it might very well jeopardize the passage
of the legislation we were discussing. And it is worthy legislation. I
am a cosponsor. I can think of nothing--obviously, you would expect me
to say that, being the author of this legislation--I can think of
nothing of more consequence to the women of America and the children of
America than our continuing the fight--and I am sure my friend from
Minnesota agrees with me--regarding violence against women.
I thank Senator Hatch for working so hard with me to pass this
legislation. This legislation was not a very popular idea on the other
side of the aisle 8 years ago when we wrote this, and 6 years ago when
we got close to passing it, and 5 years ago when we passed it. Senator
Hatch stood up and led the way on the Republican side. And I thank my
Republican colleagues, about 25 of whom--maybe more now--cosponsored
it. I attribute that to Senator Hatch's leadership, and I thank him for
that.
This legislation is very important. I will try as briefly as I can to
state why it is important.
First of all, it reauthorizes the Violence Against Women Act of 1994,
referred to as landmark legislation. I believe it is landmark
legislation. It is the beginning of the end of the attitude in America
that a woman is the possession of a man, that a woman is, in fact,
subject to a man's control even if that requires ``physical force.''
This clearly states, and we stated it for the first time on record in
1994, that no man has a right under any circumstance other than self-
defense to raise his hand to or to use any physical force against a
woman for any reason at all other than self-defense.
One might think: Big deal; we all knew that. No, we didn't all know
that. It has begun to shape societal attitudes. What has happened is
that we have seen a decline of 21 percent in the violent acts committed
by significant others against their spouses and/or girlfriends and/or
mate. That is a big deal. What happens if we don't pass this today? The
Violence Against Women Act goes out of existence. It is no longer
authorized. So this is a big deal, a big, big deal.
No. 2, I promised when I wrote this legislation in 1994 that, after
seeing it in operation, I would not be wedded to its continuation if it
wasn't working, and that I would propose, along with others, things
that would enhance the legislation. That is, places where there were
deficiencies we would change the law and places where the law in place
was useless or counterproductive, we would eliminate that provision of
the law. We have kept that promise.
This legislation does a number of things. It makes improvements in
what we call full faith and credit of enforcement orders. Simply
stated, that means if a woman in the State of Maryland goes to court
and says, ``This man is harassing me,'' or ``He has beaten me,'' or
``He has hurt me,'' and the court says that man must stay away from
that woman and cannot get within a quarter mile--or whatever the
restriction is--and if he does, he will go to jail, that is a
protection order, a stay away order.
What happens in many cases when that woman crosses the line into the
State of Delaware or into the State of Pennsylvania or into the
District of Columbia and that man follows her, the court in that
district does not enforce the stay away order from the other State for
a number of reasons: One, they don't have computers that they can
access and find out whether there is such an order; two, they are blase
about it; or three, they will not give full faith and credit to it.
This creates a development and enhancement of data collection and
sharing system to promote tracking and enforcement of these orders. Big
deal.
Second, transition housing. This is a change. We have found that we
have provided housing for thousands and thousands and thousands of
women who have gotten themselves into a dilemma where they are
victimized but have no place to go. So we, all of us in the Congress,
have provided moneys for building credible and decent and clean
shelters, homes for women where they can bring their children.
I might note parenthetically the majority of children who are
homeless, on the street, are there because their mothers are the victim
of abuse and have no place to go. So they end up on the street. We are
rectifying that.
We found out there is a problem. There is a problem because there are
more people trying to get into this emergency housing and there is no
place for some of these women to go between the emergency housing--and
they can't go back to their homes--and having decent housing. So we
provide for a transition, some money for transition housing. In the
interest of time, I will not go into detail about it.
Third, we change what we call incorporating dating violence into the
purposes that this act covers, where there is a pro-arrest policy,
where there are child abuse enforcement grants, et cetera. The way the
law was written the first time, an unintended consequence of what I did
when I wrote the law is, a woman ended up having to have an extended
relationship with the man who was victimizing her in order to qualify
for these services. That is an oversimplification, but that is the
essence. If a woman was a victim of date rape, the first or second time
she went out with a man of whom she was a victim, she did not qualify
under the law for those purposes. Now that person would qualify.
We also provide legal assistance for victims of domestic violence and
sexual harassment. We set aside some of the money in the Violence
Against Women Act, hopefully through the trust fund which, hopefully,
the Presiding Officer will insist on being part of this. We provide for
women getting help through that system. We provide for safe havens for
children, pilot programs.
As my friend from Minnesota knows, most of the time when a woman gets
shot or killed in a domestic exchange, it is when she is literally
dropping off a child at the end of the weekend. That is when the
violence occurs. So we provide the ability for the child to be dropped
off in a safe place, under supervised care--the father leaves, and then
the mother comes and picks the child up and regains custody--because we
find simple, little things make big, giant differences in safety for
women. This also provides pilot programs relating to visitation and
exchange.
We put in protective orders for the protection of disabled women from
domestic violence. Also, the role of the court in combating violence
against women engages State courts in fighting violence by setting
aside funds in one of the grant programs.
And we provided a domestic violence task force. We also provide
standards, practices, and training for sexual forensic examinations
which we have
[[Page S10204]]
been doing in my State, and other States have done, but nationwide they
are not being done. So much loss of potential evidence is found when
the woman comes back into court because they did not collect the
necessary evidence at the time the abuse took place.
Also, maybe the single most important provision we add to the
Violence Against Women Act is the battered immigrant women provision.
This strengthens and refines the protections for battered immigrant
women in the original act and eliminates the unintended consequence of
subsequent charges in immigration law to ensure that abused women
living in the United States with immigrant victims are brought to
justice and the battered immigrants also escape abuse without being
subject to other penalties.
There is much more to say.
We have worked hard together over the past year to produce a strong,
bipartisan bill that has gained the overwhelming support of the
Senate--with a total of 74 cosponsors. All of my Democratic colleagues
are cosponsors, along with 28 of my Republican friends.
Passage of this bill today would not have been possible without the
effort and commitment of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, my
friend Orrin Hatch, who has dedicated years to addressing the scourge
of violence against women.
I also want to take this opportunity to thank our committee's ranking
member, Senator Leahy, for his constant support of my efforts to bring
this bill to a vote, and my friends in the House, Representatives John
Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Connie
Morella, for their leadership on this important legislation.
The need for this law is as clear today as it was more than a decade
ago when I first focused on the problem of domestic violence and sexual
assault.
Consider this: In my state of Delaware, I regret to report that more
than 30 women and children have been killed in domestic violence-
related homicides in the past three years.
No area or income-bracket has escaped this violence. To stop domestic
violence beatings from escalating into violent deaths, more than one
thousand police officers throughout Delaware--in large cities and
small, rural towns alike--have received specialized training to deal
with such cases.
Every State in this country now has similar police training, and the
Violence Against Women Act is providing the necessary funding.
To ensure these officers collect evidence that will stand up in
court, they are being armed with state-of-the-art instant cameras and
video cameras.
The Violence Against Women Act is providing the necessary funding for
these cameras--nationwide.
The National Domestic Violence Hotline handles 13,000 calls from
victims per month and has fielded over half a million calls since its
inception. The Violence Against Women Act is providing the necessary
funding.
We are also working hard to create an army of attorneys nationwide
who have volunteered to provide free legal services to victims--from
filing a protection order, to divorce and custody matters. But many,
many more women need legal assistance. The Violence Against Women Act
of 2000, which is before us today, authorizes and provides the
necessary funding to help victims of domestic violence, stalking, and
sexual assault obtain legal assistance at little to no cost.
Don't take my word for the need for this legislation. You have heard
from folks in your states. Listen to their stories and the programs
they've put into place over the past five years since we passed the
Violence Against Women Act in 1994--with overwhelming bipartisan
support.
Unless we act now--and renew our commitment to stopping violence
against women and children--our efforts and successes over the past
five years will come to a screeching halt. The Violence Against Women
Act expired September 30.
If the funding dries up--make no mistake--the number of domestic
violence cases and the number of women killed by their husbands or
boyfriends who profess to ``love'' them--will increase.
Domestic violence has been on a steady decline in recent years. U.S.
Department of Justice statistics show a 21 percent drop since 1993.
Why?
From Alabama to Alaska--New Hampshire to New Mexico--Michigan to
Maine--California to Kentucky--Delaware to Utah--police, prosecutors,
judges, victims' advocates, hospitals, corporations, and attorneys are
providing a seamless network of ``coordinated response teams'' to
provide victims and their children the services they need to escape the
violence--and stay alive.
In National City, California, family violence response team
counselors go directly to the scenes of domestic violence cases with
police.
Violence Against Women Act funds have facilitated changes from
simple, common sense reforms--such as standardized police reporting
forms to document the abuse . . . to more innovative programs, such as
the Tri-State Domestic Violence Project involving North Dakota,
Montana, and Wyoming. This project includes getting the word out to
everyone from clergy to hairdressers to teachers--anyone who is likely
to come into contact with a domestic violence victims--so that they can
direct victims to needed housing, legal, and medical services. And the
services and protections are offered across State lines.
Such coordinated projects have different names in different States--
in Oregon, they have domestic violence intervention teams.
In Vermont they have ``PAVE.'' The Project Against Violent
Encounters.
Washington State has developed ``Project SAFER''--which links
attorneys with victims at battered women shelters to ``Stop Abuse and
Fear by Exercising Rights.''
In Washington, D.C. they formed Women Empowered Against Violence--
known as WEAVE--which provides a total package for victims, from legal
assistance to counseling to case management through the courts.
Utah has developed the ``CAUSE'' project, or the Coalition of
Advocates for Utah Survivors' Empowerment. It is a statewide, nonprofit
organization that has created a system of community support for sexual
assault survivors.
In Kansas, they've funded a program called ``Circuit Riders,'' who
are advocates and attorneys who travel to rural parts of the State to
fill the gaps in service.
Different names for these programs but the same funding source and
inspiration--the Violence Against Women Act.
Experience with the act has also shown us that we need to strengthen
enforcement of protection from abuse orders across state lines.
Candidly, a protection from abuse order is just one part of the
solution. A piece of paper will not stop a determined abuser with a
fist, knife, or gun.
But look at what states like New York and Georgia are doing to make
it easier--and less intimidating--for women to file for a protection
from abuse order.
They have implemented a completely confidential system for a victim
to file for a protection from abuse order without ever having to walk
into a courtroom.
It is all on-line over the internet. After the victim answers a
series of questions and describes the abuse, the information is deleted
once transmitted to the court--with no information stored
electronically.
This project is part of specialized domestic violence courts
established in many states--where one judge handles the entire case--
from protection orders, to divorce, custody, and probation issues.
The Center for Court Innovation is working with the New York courts
to develop customized computer technology that will link the courts,
police, probation officers, and social service agencies--so that
everyone is on the same page, and knows exactly what's happening with a
domestic violence case.
We need to take this technology nationwide. And the Violence Against
Women Act of 2000 before us today will provide funding to states for
such technology. and not all our solutions are high-tech.
To help victims enforce protection orders, states and cities across
this country have teamed up with the cellular phone industry to arm
victims with cell phones.
In my state of Delaware, I spearheaded a drive to collect two
thousand
[[Page S10205]]
used cell phones, so that every person with a protection from abuse
order can get a cell phone programmed to automatically dial 9-1-1 if
the abuser shows up at her house, place of work, at the school yard
when she picks up her child, the bus stop or the grocery store.
Commonsense solutions--all sparked by the Violence Against Women Act
this body passed overwhelmingly in 1994.
Again, listen to the voices of victims we have helped.
Phyllis Lee from Tennessee says she is alive today thanks to the
battered women shelter in Dayton. Without it, she is certain her
abusive husband would have killed her with his violent beatings. After
enduring 17 years of torturous abuse, including severe beatings to her
head and body, rape, and the withholding of needed medical care,
Phyllis finally escaped.
After a particularly severe beating, she hid in the woods for 20
hours, paralyzed with fear that her husband would find her. She crawled
to a nearby farmhouse and asked for help.
With the help of the woman who lived there, she contacted Battered
Women, Inc.--an organization that assists victims of domestic violence.
This program, which includes a hotline, counselors, and a shelter, is
heavily funded by the Violence Against Women Act. It provided a way out
for Phyllis and her children, whose lives were in grave danger.
Battered Women, Inc. also helped Phyllis get her GED and she is now
working as an advocate for other battered women. She says that without
this program, she never would have known that the option to live
without abuse existed.
States with large Indian reservations--such as California and
Nevada--have formed Inter-Tribal Councils so that Native American women
no longer have to suffer in silence at the hands of their violent
abusers. One victim in California writes:
If it were not for the Inter-Tribal Council's efforts, I
would be dead, homeless or living in my car, with my children
hungry.
In California, the Inter-Tribal Council has reached out to Native
American communities to establish the ``Stop and Take Responsibility''
program.
First, and foremost, this program is about education--educating
Native American men that hitting your spouse is a serious crime, and
educating mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters--that no man has a
right to lay a hand on them.
This past May, the shooting of Barry Grunnow, an English teacher in
Lake Worth, Florida--by a seventh grade honor roll student named
Nathaniel Brazil--shocked the nation.
Recently, Lake Worth police released reports showing a history of
domestic violence in the Brazil home.
As the Palm Beach Post wrote recently in an editorial--
While violence in the home can hardly be directly blamed
for the tragic shooting . . . this case does demonstrate the
way in which domestic violence affects society at large, how
violence in the home increased the likelihood for violence in
the surrounding community. It is about time that we push for
bipartisan Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization in
Congress to combat domestic violence and its horrible
consequences.
And if any of you doubt the link between children growing up in a
home watching their mother get the living hell beat out of her--and
that child growing up to be violent as well, consider this recent case
two months ago in San Diego.
A prosecutor was in her office, interviewing a mother who was
pressing charges against her husband after suffering years of abuse. As
the questioning stretched on, the woman's 8-year-old son grew restless.
Just as little kids do--the boy tugged at his mother's sleeve,
saying, ``Let's go. I'm hungry . . . can we leave yet.''
He became even more agitated and said: ``Come on, Mom, I want to
go.''
Finally, the 8-year-old boy shouted: ``I'm talking to you?'' Then, he
curled up his fist and punched her.
Now, where did he learn that?
That prosecutor not only had a victim in her office. She had a future
domestic violence abuser.
But states are not giving up on these kids. For example, in Pasco
County, Florida the Sheriff's Office has developed a special program
just to focus on the children in homes with domestic violence.
It's called KIDS, which stands for Kids in Domestic Situations. The
sheriff hired four new detectives, a supervisor, and a clerk. They
review every domestic violence call to see if a child lives in the
home. They are specially trained to interview that child and get him or
her the needed counseling--to break the cycle of violence.
Unfortunately, the abuse does not stop for women once they are
divorced--particularly when the father uses the children to continue
the harassment. All too often, Kids caught in the crossfire of a
divorce and custody battle need safe havens.
One woman in Colorado had to confront her former husband and abuser
at her son's soccer games--to exchange custody for the weekend. She had
to endure continued mental and emotional abuse, putting herself in
physical harms-way. Finally a visitation center opened. Now she drops
off her son into the hands of trained staff in a secure environment.
In Hawaii, Violence Against Women Act funding has allowed officials
to open three new visitation centers in the island's most rural
counties.
The Violence Against Women Act of 2000 adds new funding for safe
havens for children to provide supervised visitation and safe
visitation exchange in situations involving domestic violence, child
abuse, sexual assault, or stalking.
Of course, there are also the battered women's shelters. Over the
past five years, every State in this country has received funding to
open new and expand existing shelters. Two thousand shelters in this
country now benefit from this funding.
In my State of Delaware we have increased the number of shelters from
two to five, including one solely for Hispanic women.
For as much as we've done, so much more is needed. Our bipartisan
Biden-Hatch bill increases funding for tens of thousands of more
shelter beds. It also establishes transitional housing services to help
victims move from shelters back into the community.
And let's not forget the plight of battered immigrant women, caught
between their desperate desire to flee their abusers and their
desperate desire to remain in the United States. A young Mexican woman
who married her husband at the age of 16 and moved to the United States
suffered years of physical abuse and rape--she was literally locked in
her own home like a prisoner. Her husband threatened deportation if she
ever told police or left the house. When she finally escaped to the
Houston Area Women's Center in Texas, she was near death.
That shelter gave her a safe place to live, and provided her the
legal services she needed to become a citizens and get a divorce.
Our bipartisan bill expands upon the protections for battered
immigrant women.
Thanks to nurses and emergency room doctors across this country--we
have made great strides in helping victims who show up at the emergency
room, claiming they ran into a door or fell down the stairs.
The Kentucky General Assembly has made it mandatory for health
professionals in emergency rooms to receive three hours of domestic
violence training.
The National Hospital Accreditation Board is encouraging all
hospitals to follow Kentucky's lead.
The SANE program, sexual assault nurse examiners, are truly angels to
victims. They are specially trained to work with police to collect
needed evidence in a way that is sensitive and comforting to victims.
The Violence Against Women Act of 2000 facilitates these efforts by
ensuring that STOP grants can be used for training on how to conduct
rape exams and how to collect, preserve, and analyze the evidence for
trial.
Finally, I am very pleased to report, this legislation expands grants
under the Violence Against Women Act to states, local governments,
tribal governments, and universities to cover violence that arises in
dating relationships. Hopefully, this important change will help
prevent tragedies like the death of Cassie Diehl, a 17-year-old high
school senior from Idaho, killed by a boyfriend who left her for dead
after the truck he was driving plunged 400 feet of a mountain road.
What is especially tragic about this story is the great lengths to
which Cassie's parents went, before her death,
[[Page S10206]]
to seek help from local law enforcement agencies and local prosecutors
in putting an end to the boyfriend's constant abuse of their child,
even seeking a protection order from a judge. All of these efforts
failed because Cassie was a teenager involved in an abusive dating
relationship. Law enforcement officials believed that because Cassie
was a 17-year-old high school student living at home she could not be
abused by a boyfriend, that she was not entitled to protection under
the law.
The legislation we will vote on today will help avoid future horror
stories like Cassie's by providing training for law enforcement
officers and prosecutors to better identify and respond to violence
that arises in dating relationships and by expanding victim services
programs to reach these frequently young victims.
Thanks in part to the landmark law we passed in 1994, violence
against women is no longer regarded as a private misfortune, but is
recognized as the serious crime and public disgrace that it is. We have
made great strides to putting an end to the days when victims are
victimized twice--first by their abuser, then by the emergency response
and criminal justice systems. We are making headway.
I have given you plenty of examples, but there are hundreds more.
In addition to the battered women's shelters, the STOP grants, the
National Domestic Violence Hotline, and other grant programs I have
mentioned, the Biden-Hatch Violence Against Women Act of 2000
reauthorizes for five years the Pro-Arrest grants, Rural Domestic
Violence and Child Abuse Enforcement grants, campus grants, the rape
prevention and education grant program, and three victims of child
abuse programs, including the court-appointed special advocate program
(CASA).
So, let us act now to pass the Biden-Hatch bill.
There is one thing missing, I must point out, from this legislation.
Unfortunately, the conference report does not extend the Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund that would guarantee the funding for another five
years--so that these innovative, effective projects can continue.
I believe that extending the trust fund is critical. Remember, none
of this costs a single dime in new taxes. It's all paid for by reducing
the federal government by some 300,000 employees. The paycheck that was
going to a bureaucrat is now going into the trust fund. So I will
continue to work to extend the trust fund to ensure that these programs
actually receive the funding we have authorized.
Let me just close by saying that it has been a tough fight over the
past 22 months to get my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to focus
on the need to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. But we have
finally done it.
I greatly appreciate the support, daily phone calls, letters, and e-
mails of so many groups--who are the real reason we have been able to
get this done this year. The National Association of Attorneys General,
every law enforcement organization, all the many women's groups, the
National and 50 individual State Coalitions Against Domestic Violence,
the American Medical Association, the National Governors Association,
nurses, the list goes on and on--more than 150 groups total.
If you'll allow me one more point of personal privilege, this act--
the Violence Against Women Act--is my single greatest legislative
accomplishment in my nearly 28 years in the United States Senate.
Why? Because just from the few examples provided above--it's having a
real impact in the lives of tens of thousands of women and children.
You see it and hear the stories when you're back home.
So let us today pass the bipartisan Biden-Hatch Violence Against
Women Act now, and renew our national commitment to end domestic
violence.
Mr. President, I am happy now to yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. May I have 30 seconds of the time I yielded to the
Senator?
Mr. BIDEN. Yes.
Mr. LEAHY. I will speak more on this in another venue, but I think it
is safe to say VAWA would not be voted on today had it not been for the
persistence of the Senator from Delaware. That persistence is something
the public has not seen as much as those of us who have been in private
meetings with him, where his muscle really counted. We would not have
this vote today, and I suspect it will be an overwhelmingly supportive
vote--that vote would not have been today were it not for the total and
complete persistence of the Senator from Delaware, just as the vote on
sex trafficking is to the credit of the Senators from Kansas and
Minnesota.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for that. The
beginning of my comments was a polite way of apologizing for my being
so persistent. I have been here 28 years. I have never threatened a
filibuster. I have never threatened to hold up legislation. I have
never once stopped the business on the floor--not that that is not
every Senator's right. I have never done that. I care so much about
this legislation that I was prepared to do whatever it would take. I
apologize for being so pushy about it. But there is nothing I have done
in 28 years that I feel more strongly about than this. I apologize to
my friends for my being so persistent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I know my colleague, Senator Brownback, wants to speak
as well. Let me thank Senator Biden for his great leadership as well.
We are very proud we were able to work this out and do trafficking and
the reauthorization for the Violence Against Women Act together. Let me
thank him for safe visas. He was kind enough to mention my wife Sheila.
That was really an initiative on which she has been working. I was so
pleased to see that in this bill.
Let me also say to my colleague, as much as I appreciate the work of
the Senator from Tennessee, I want to make the point that this is not
about the rule 28 scope of conference. I think the Chair will rule
against my colleague from Tennessee. I think the Chair will rule
against him with justification.
Most importantly, I want colleagues to know the majority of you voted
for Aimee's law. I voted against it. But if the Senator from Tennessee
should succeed--I know this is not his intention--that is the end of
this conference report, that is the end of this legislation on
trafficking, that is the end of reauthorization of VAWA, and it would
be a tragic, terrible mistake.
I hope colleagues will continue to support it. I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I note the hour of 3:30 approaches.
Senator Thompson has a lot of time.
If we are able to pass this legislation today, we still have a hurdle
left to go. This is a major victory for women and children subject to
violence here and abroad. This is a major piece of legislation for us
to be able to pass through this body. It is late in the session. We are
already past the time scheduled for adjournment. To be able to get this
legislation passed at this time is a significant accomplishment. The
Senator from Delaware pushed aggressively and hard on VAWA, as a number
of people did on other items.
This is a good day, a great day for the Senate to stand up and do
some of the best work we can to protect those who are the least
protected in our society, to speak out for those who are the least
protected here and around the world.
This is a great day for this country, and it is a great day for this
body.
I am pleased we are wrapping up this portion of the debate. I think
we have had a good discussion. We will have the vote on the appealing
of the point of order by the Chair. I plead with my colleagues, with
all due respect to my colleague from Tennessee, to vote against my
colleague from Tennessee so we can proceed to pass this important
legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I have 20 seconds, with the
indulgence of my colleague from Tennessee, I thank Senator Brownback
again. I also thank a whole lot of people, a whole lot of human rights
organizations, women's organizations, grassroots organizations,
religious organizations, who have been there for the bill,
organizations of others who have really worked hard for reauthorization
of the Violence Against Women Act. Thank you for your grassroots work.
I yield the floor and thank my colleague from Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Tennessee is recognized to make a point of order against the conference
report. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the
conferees included matters not in the jurisdiction of the Foreign
Relations Committee. I am referring specifically to Aimee's law.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's point of order is not well
taken.
[[Page S10207]]
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair and ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator controls 1 hour of debate. The
Senator from Tennessee is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for the manner in which this has
been handled and the opportunity this affords me to make the statement
I am going to make today.
This is an objection to the conference report. There are many good
things in this conference report. Unfortunately, Aimee's law is a part
of it. I prefer to have the consideration of that independently,
separate and apart from the conference report, but that is not to be.
Historically, of course, Aimee's law did pass as a part of a much
larger bill, the juvenile justice bill, some time ago but was never
signed into law. When I voiced my objection to it at that point, it was
put into this conference report. I cannot let it go without raising my
objection to something that I think has to do with an important
principle.
It is very unfortunate, when we have tragic circumstances that happen
in this country, such as young people being killed, all the violence
and abuse that goes on in this country, we take that and use the
emotionalism from it to make bad law.
I do not think anybody within the sound of my voice can accuse me of
being soft on crime. I ran in 1994 on that issue. I ran again in 1996
on that issue. My position is clear. But my position is also clear that
we are continuing the trend toward the centralization of decisionmaking
in this country. In other words, if we do not like what a State is
doing with regard to its criminal laws, we tend to find a way around
it.
I do not like the idea that some States let prisoners out sooner than
they should, but if we really do not like that and we really do not
have any concerns about taking over the criminal jurisdiction in this
country, things that have been under the purview of States for 200
years, why don't we just pass a Federal law using the commerce clause
and state that it affects interstate commerce?
Perhaps the Supreme Court will allow it; maybe they will not. Why
don't we just pass a Federal law on murder? Why don't we just have a
Federal law that says anyone convicted of murder has to serve so much
time and just get on with it? Even the people pushing things such as
Aimee's law apparently recognize there is a principle that causes us
problems, and that is, we are set up with a Federal system.
Every kid learns in school that we have a system of checks and
balances, one branch against another, also Federal versus State and
local law. It is a diffusion of power. It is time honored. It is in the
Constitution. It is in the 10th amendment. Some things the States do
and some things the Federal Government does.
If we do not believe in that anymore, if we are going to say every
time there is some tragic circumstance, such as the drive-by shootings
in 1992--we federalized the crime of drive-by shootings. In 1997, there
was not one Federal prosecution for drive-by shootings, but yet it was
in the headlines, and we could not help ourselves because we wanted to
express our outrage at this crime that was being taken care of at the
State level.
No one has ever accused these States with high-profile crimes of not
jumping in and taking care of the situation, sometimes imposing the
death penalty. You cannot do much more than that. Yet we feel the
necessity to pass Federal laws that will ultimately create a Federal
police force to do things we have left to the purview of the States for
200 years. That is a serious matter.
Nobody wants to vote against something called Aimee's law as a result
of a tragedy of some young woman getting killed, for goodness' sake.
Unfortunately, it happens all across this country all the time. But we
have greater responsibilities when we take the oath of the office we
hold. We are supposed to uphold the Constitution. Is the relationship
between the State and Federal Government the one we studied in school,
the one the courts tell us is still in effect, and, more fundamentally,
do we need States anymore? States do not behave the way we want them to
sometimes. States do not do what the Federal Government wants them to
do. States do different things.
People in Tennessee might not look at something exactly the same way
people in New York might look at it. People in New York might not look
at something the same way people in California do. We have certain
basic things on which we agree in our Federal Constitution, but the
Founding Fathers gave us leeway to experiment.
Nobody I know of inside Washington, DC, has the answers to all these
problems. We all have the same motivation: No one wants crime, no one
wants these terrible tragedies, but we certainly do not have a monopoly
on what to do about it. That is why we have States to experiment, to do
different things.
Too often, under the glare of the headlines, we want one solution; we
want one answer; we want one Federal answer with our name on the
legislation so we ``did something'' about some tragic murder that
happened in one of the States, which is prosecuted by the State and the
person has long been sent to the penitentiary or death row.
We need to concentrate on the fact that we do not seem to think we
need the States anymore. We had this fundamental disagreement at the
founding of our country between Jefferson and Hamilton. Hamilton wanted
a strong Federal Government, we all remember from our schooldays.
Jefferson said: No, that is too much centralization of power; remember
what happened to us earlier in our history. We need to diffuse that
power, and the States need certain rights, so we need to balance that
out.
One of my House colleagues said: The problem with Congress is we are
Jeffersonians on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays and Hamiltonians on
Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. We give lipservice to the
proposition of limited Government, decentralization, giving more power
back to the States, getting things out of Washington. We all run on
that platform, and as soon as we get here, we can't wait to pass some
sweeping Federal law that, in many cases, supersedes State law and the
different ways States have chosen to handle a different problem.
We preempt State law. We pass Federal laws all the time. The
Constitution allows us, under the supremacy clause, to do that. We will
not even say when we are preempting. The courts have to decide that. We
pass laws all the time, and the courts have to take a look at them
later on to decide to what extent we are preempting State laws, and so
we strike down those State laws.
We continue to criminalize State law. Five percent of the criminal
prosecutions in this country are Federal. Yet last year there were over
1,000 pieces of legislation introduced in this Congress having to do
with criminal law. It clogs the courts. Justice Rehnquist on a regular
basis comes over here and pleads with us to stop this: You are not
doing anything for law enforcement--he tells us--by trying to
criminalize everything at the Federal level that is already covered at
the State level; you are clogging the courts.
The Judicial Conference reports to us from time to time: You are
clogging the courts with all this stuff that should not be in Federal
court; the States are already taking care of that. Nobody is claiming
they are not. So for the same offense, we have this array of State laws
and this array of criminal laws, and the prosecutor can use that
against a defendant however he might choose. It is not something that
will enhance our system of justice but something that only enhances our
own stature when we believe we are able to say we passed some tough
criminal law. We are doing more to harm criminal justice by doing this
than we are doing to help it.
My favorite last year was the legislation that was considered in
Congress to prohibit videos of animal abuse using stiletto heels. That
is not a joke. Unfortunately, we have bills such as that introduced in
Congress all the time.
We, from time to time, try to get around the commerce clause. We want
to federalize things, such as guns in schools. Every State in the Union
has a tough law they deal with in their own way as to what to do about
a terrible problem--guns in schools. We get no
[[Page S10208]]
headlines out of that, so we had a Federal law to which the Supreme
Court said: No, that does not affect interstate commerce. Then we just
try to basically directly force States to enforce Federal laws and
regulations that we make--background checks for guns, when judges
should retire, Federal regulations. Finally, the Supreme Court said:
No, we cannot do that. The 10th amendment prohibits us from doing that.
So we have a steady array of our attempting to figure out ways in and
around the Constitution in order to impose our will because ``we know
best.''
The latest, of course, now is the use of the spending clause. The
courts have said, basically, if Congress sends the money, they have the
right to attach strings. States blithely go along many times--not all
the time, but many times. Oftentimes they accept that free Federal
money and learn that they are getting 7 percent of their money for
their problem and 75 percent of the regulations and redtape, the
requirements that go along with it.
So this is the context in which we find ourselves when we consider
Aimee's law. This is all just a little bit of history we have been
dealing with to which not many people pay much attention. But it has to
do with our basic constitutional structure. It has to do with the
fundamental question in this country and, I think, our fundamental job;
that is, What should the Federal Government do, or what should
Government do, and at what level should Government do it? What is more
fundamental than that? What is more important than that, as we hastily
pass out and introduce these thousands of bills up here? If they sound
good, do it--all the while eroding a basic constitutional principle
that we all claim we believe in.
So this Aimee's law came about because of another tragic set of
circumstances. We have seen them: The dragging death in Texas, the
drive-by shooting case in 1992, the situation that produced Aimee's
law. There is always something in the headlines of a tragic nature in
criminal law.
Under Aimee's law, if Tennessee, for example, tries somebody--let's
say for murder or rape--and convicts them, and that person serves their
sentence under State law, under Tennessee law, and then they are
released, and that person goes to Kentucky and commits another similar
criminal offense, here is where the Federal Government comes into play.
The Attorney General does this calculation and says, basically, that
unless Tennessee's law under which this guy was convicted provides for
the average term of imprisonment of all the States--you look at all the
States and say: What is the average term of imprisonment for murder?--
if Tennessee has a little less than the average of all the other
States, and he goes to Kentucky and kills somebody else, then Tennessee
has to pay Kentucky to apprehend the guy, to try the guy, and to
incarcerate him for however long Kentucky wants to incarcerate him.
That is basically what Aimee's law is. So this is moving the ball a
little bit farther down the road for those who want Washington to
decide all the criminal laws in this country.
Here we have a standard not that Congress has set. A lot of times we
will say: We want everybody on the highways to be driving under the old
.08 rule because we believe that ought to be the intoxication limit. We
are going to withhold funds if you don't. It is a Federal standard. You
can argue with it or you can agree with it.
But that is not what we have here. This is not a standard that
Congress has had hearings on and has determined that Tennessee has to
live up to. It is a standard that is based upon a calculation of what
the average is among all the other States.
What if Tennessee looks at it a little differently? They ought to
have the right to have a little more stringent laws or a little more
lenient laws. They have the people of Tennessee to answer to. They have
their own legislature. They have their own Governor. These are things
that Tennessee has been deciding for 200 years. If they do not do what
the average of other States do, when it is totally within their
prerogative, should they be penalized?
There are several problems with this law. Some of them are
constitutional because it has ex post facto concerns. I do not know,
for example, in reading this law, whether it intends to apply to people
who have already been sentenced or whether it applies to people who
will be sentenced after this law comes into effect.
I wish one or any of the sponsors of this bill would come to the
floor and tell us whether or not the intent of this law is to have this
law apply to people who have already been sentenced maybe 5 years ago,
maybe 10 years ago. If so, then what can a State do about that to avoid
being penalized the way I just described?
Secondly, if a person is still serving time, and the State knows it
is going to be penalized if he is released under the State law because
other States might have a little more stringent law, what is going to
happen next time that person comes up to the parole board? Are they
going to be looking at it objectively?
Or, better still, the question is, to the sponsors of this
legislation: What about people who have already been convicted and
already served their time and have been out of jail now for 15, 20
years, and they go to Kentucky and kill somebody else? Does this apply
to them? If that is the case, there are thousands and thousands and
thousands of people in every State who have been convicted of crimes
and are now out of jail and going to other States. Are we going to go
back and calculate what the average law provided for incarceration for
all of those people? I think it is silent.
If the intent is, in fact, to catch all of those people and, if they
do something else, have this law apply, it has ex post facto
ramifications with regard to the State. You are not doing anything to
the individual, but you are forcing the State to either lose money or
to try to extend the time these people stay in jail.
Can you imagine the litigation you are going to have with regard to
these parole board hearings, when a person apparently looks as though
he is eligible for parole, but the parole board has discretion, and
they know if they release this person, he is going to be one of these
people caught under the law? Can you imagine the litigation that is
going to come about as a result?
If, on the other hand, it is not meant to be ex post facto, if, in
fact, this law only applies to those who are convicted of crimes after
the effective date of this law, then this law is going to be a nullity
for the most part, I imagine, for many years, if people serve out terms
in prison for horrendous crimes.
I would like to know, seriously, what the intention of the law is
because it is not clear from the legislation itself. As Fred Ansell has
said:
If it applies retroactively, then the law could apply
retroactively in different ways. It could mean that the law
applies only if an offender is released from a State after
2002 after having served a less than average sentence, and
then commits a crime. Or it could even mean that a person
commits a crime as early as January 1, 2002, who was released
from prison many years ago.
If the State is liable for what an already-released
offender does in the future, and it accepts the Federal funds
with these conditions, then the State has agreed to accept an
unlimited future liability. It will be liable for the crimes
that thousands of offenders might commit, as measured by the
costs of apprehension, prosecution, and incarceration. This
is not losing 5 percent of transportation funds for not
enacting a 21-year-old drinking age, as was upheld in South
Dakota v. Dole. This is where Federal ``pressure turns into
compulsion.'' Moreover, the funds are not attached to a new
program. The conditions are attached to funds that States
have already satisfied conditions to receive now and are
being used for law enforcement purposes now. Prisons under
construction now might have to be abandoned if the States can
no longer receive Federal funds for prisons unless they
lengthen their sentences. Drug task forces, police
assistance, prosecutorial assistance, all of which are
currently functional, would be jeopardized, causing possible
loss of life and limb to the citizenry, if States did not
adopt Washington's sentencing policy in order to be sure to
continue receiving the money. That is coercion, not
inducement.
If the measure is retroactive only with respect to people
who are released after 2002 for earlier committed crimes, the
compulsion is not as great, but is still very strong, as the
State still faces unlimited liability for any prisoners for
future crimes committed over many years. To avoid that, a
State seeking to retain Federal funding might essentially, in
the Supreme Court's words, be ``induced . . . to engage in
activities which would themselves be unconstitutional,'' such
as lengthening the sentences of those who would otherwise be
released, violating the ex post facto clause.
[[Page S10209]]
This wouldn't be a direct lengthening, but it would certainly have a
potential effect with regard to, for example, parole board activities.
So not only do you have an ex post facto problem, you have a spending
loss problem. The Supreme Court has held that Congress can withhold
money, unless the States engage in the behavior that Congress wants
them to as they receive the money. They don't have to take the money,
but if they do, they have to take the strings attached to it. The
Supreme Court has basically upheld that. The Supreme Court also said
the conditions that the Federal Government places on the use of the
money must be unambiguous. The States must know what they have to do in
order to get this money.
I submit that under the present case, Aimee's law, the States could
not tell what they have to do in order to get this money because they
are always dealing with a moving target. If you remember what I said a
while ago, the name of the game is for the States to keep ratcheting up
their incarceration time so they are within the national average. If
they fall below that for their own good purposes, whatever the reasons
and circumstances--they want to devote more money to prevention, or
they want to devote more to rehabilitation instead of prisons, whatever
their decisions might be--if they fall a little below, they are going
to lose their money. If they want to keep their money, how high are
they supposed to raise their incarceration rates? Because by the time
they change their law and raise their incarceration rates for these
various offenses, other States, presumably, could be doing the same
thing. You are always going toward a moving target. Each State is
trying to outstrip each other, and each State, if it wants to keep its
money and not have to pay for 40 or 50 years for somebody in another
State--their incarceration expense--the safe thing for it to do is
ratchet up the time. The safest thing for it to do would be to give
life sentences without parole.
For some people, I think that is a good idea anyway. But is that
something we ought to be forcing States to do with regard to any and
all prisoners who come before them who are charged with this particular
list of crimes? It is a list that this Congress has decided is the
protected list--not anything else, just this protected list. If the
States don't comply, then they lose their Federal money. So the States
can't tell what they are supposed to do in order to keep their money.
It is a very ambiguous, bad piece of legislation.
There are policy reasons in addition to what I have described and in
addition to the constitutional problems. It pits one State against
another. We are supposed to be doing things to unify this country--I
thought. The Supreme Court and this Congress spends a lot of time and
attention on implementing the commerce clause, designed to make sure
there is the free flow of goods and people and information one State to
another.
The Supreme Court strikes down laws that States might want which
might say another State can't come in, or where they are trying to
impose their will on another State outside their boundary. The commerce
clause promotes a free flow of commerce, but under this particular law
you are pitting one State against another, calculating to see if they
can get some money from another State because they have a different
criminal law than this other State had, and the Attorney General of the
Federal Government is the referee and she keeps the books on all of
that. That is a terrible idea.
Another policy reason is that Aimee's law defeats the very purpose
that it is trying to carry out. Much of the money that will be
withheld, if a State doesn't comply with this Federal mandate, will go
for prisons. One of the reasons, presumably, why some States have to
turn people out before we would like is because of a lack of prison
space. They are getting this Federal money in order to help them with
more prisons.
This is a very circular kind of situation the Federal Government is
creating. We are cutting them off from money to do the very thing that
is the reason we are cutting them off because they didn't do it in the
first place. It makes no sense whatsoever. There is no additional
inducement--is the next policy reason--under Aimee's law for the
States--other than to keep their Federal money--for the States to
comply with this Federal rule.
We are concerned about people getting out of jail and committing
other crimes. We are all concerned about that. But seven out of eight
crimes that are committed by people who have gotten out of jail happen
in the States in which they were confined. So the State of Tennessee
has every reason in the world to want to have laws that are reasonable
for the protection of its own citizens and to keep people confined for
a reasonable period of time for these crimes for the protection of
their own citizens. Do they need any inducement because one out of
eight might go somewhere else and commit a crime and that State might
come back on them?
You have a situation here of particular crimes. Murder, as defined
under Federal law, could mean anything from vehicular homicide on up.
So, presumably, someone could be convicted of vehicular homicide in
Tennessee and go to California and be convicted of first-degree murder;
they are both murder under the meaning of this law. California could
get Tennessee's Federal money to incarcerate this guy for the next
however many years for murder when he was only convicted of vehicular
homicide in Tennessee.
This has not been thought through.
The Federal Government simply should not be setting the standards for
State crimes. They ought to set the standards for Federal crimes.
States ought to have the flexibility to choose with their limited
resources.
We tax the citizens of the States at a rate unprecedented since World
War II. We put mandates on States with which we have been struggling,
and we are trying to back off that a little bit. We have all of these
regulations we put on the States. They have limited resources most
years. They are doing a little better these days. They ought to have
the right to decide for themselves--the people who elect their
officials--how they use those resources.
If they want to spend more money for education, if they want to spend
more money for health care, if in the criminal area they want to spend
more money for prevention, if they want to spend more for
rehabilitation, those are different things that different States are
doing all across the country. We can see who has been successful and
who has not been successful.
That is the reason we have States. That is the reason our Founding
Fathers set up States. If we don't allow them to do that, what is the
use of having them? Why do we have them? Why don't we just go ahead and
pass a Federal law for everything and abrogate the States, if we don't
need that kind of diversity and if we don't need that kind of
experimentation?
The Federal Government would have States keep people--let's say the
elderly--and have to make the tradeoff of using limited resources to
keep people in jail who are, say, elderly and long past the time when
you would think they would be dangerous to people, but keep them there
on the off chance that they might get out and commit a crime in another
State, and so forth. It doesn't make any sense.
This is simply an indirect attempt by the Federal Government--by us,
by the Congress--to get States in a bidding war as to who can pass the
most stringent laws in all of these areas. That is OK in and of itself.
But it shouldn't be done because we are threatening them to do it. We
think we have the answers to these problems, and we don't.
I served on the Judiciary Committee a while back, and I was chairman
of the Juvenile Justice Subcommittee for a while. For anybody who deals
in criminal law, the first thing they have to come away with, if they
are being fair about it, is a sense of great humility.
There is so much we do not know about what causes crime--why young
people commit crimes, what the best solution is, and so forth. My own
view is that we should spend a lot more time, money, and research, and
we should spend a lot more time, money, and effort in finding out what
is going on in these various communities around the country with the
various approaches communities and States have had and the various
kinds of problems. It is very complex and very controversial. But that
doesn't stop us. Last time I checked, we had 132 programs on juvenile
crime alone at the
[[Page S10210]]
Federal level without a clue as to whether or not any of them are
working or doing any good. My guess is that some of them are probably
counterproductive.
A lot of people want to pass, as a part of a bill, to have youthful
offenders sentenced as adults. In some cases, if States want to do
that, that is fine with me. But we were going to impose a requirement
that all States sentence youthful offenders as adults within certain
categories until we found out that the way it plays out in some cases
is they would get less time as an adult than they would in a juvenile
facility.
There is just an awful lot we don't know.
Why should we be forcing States to adhere to some kind of a national
standard as to how long a person ought to serve for a list of crimes?
If we really believe we ought to do that, why don't we just go ahead
and do it directly?
We have seen the benefit of a system our Founding Fathers established
over and over and over again. This is not just textbook stuff. It has
to do with power, and the use of power, and who is going to use power,
and how concentrated you want it. It has to do with innovation. It has
to do with experimentation. It has to do with good competition among
the States. We have seen welfare reform, education choice, competitive
tax policies, and public-private partnerships all thrive at the State
level. Good things are happening.
This law is another step away from all of that, another step toward
Federal centralization and the monopolizing of criminal policy in this
country. I could not let this go and could not let this pass without
making that abundantly clear once again.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Thompson for his consistency
and for the remarks he just made. I don't know that it will sway the
vote, but it is certainly worth contemplating what he just said.
____________________