[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 055 (Monday, April 7, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4899-S4909]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Jeffords,
Mr. Corzine, Mr. Reed, Mr. Kennedy, and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 794. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to improve the
system for enhancing automobile fuel efficiency, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
______
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 795. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
additional tax incentives for enhancing motor vehicle fuel efficiency,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a package of
legislation--two bills--designed to put us back on track for improved
fuel efficiency among automobiles.
I support a balanced, forward-looking energy policy, which should
include a strong provision to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. In
2002, the Senate spent several weeks debating energy policy, including
fuel efficiency. Unfortunately, a strong bill on this topic was not
enacted into law last year.
Both chambers of Congress are currently crafting a national energy
policy. As the challenging times we currently face demonstrates, we
cannot delay in addressing our national energy policy, including oil
consumption.
Throughout the debate on energy policy, I have emphasized that the
best way to lessen our Nation's dependence on foreign oil is to improve
the fuel efficiency of our automobiles. Transportation as a sector is
the largest user of petroleum. If we are truly committed to crafting a
forward-thinking energy policy, automobile fuel efficiency is the place
to start.
In 1975 the United States Congress had a vision: to double the fuel
efficiency of our Nation's passenger vehicles in ten years. By 1985 the
automotive industry achieved the goal that Congress set. As of 2001,
thanks to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, CAFE, law, oil
consumption was about 2.8 million barrels per day lower than it
otherwise would be.
Unfortunately, progress is now at a stand-still, and in fact, the
average fuel economy in the United States has slipped since 1985. Since
peaking at 22.1 mpg in 1987 and 1998, average fuel economy declined
nearly eight percent to 20.4 in 2001, lower than it had been at any
time since 1980. Average fuel economy for automobiles 8,500 pounds and
fewer continues to decline. One major factor in this regression is the
fact that passenger standards have not increased since 1985. While the
Bush Administration has recently increased non-passenger standards by a
modest 1.5 mpg, this is not enough to compensate for the progress we
have failed to achieve for more than a decade.
Another reason why we are losing ground in terms of fuel efficiency
is the exploitation of the ``non-passenger vehicle'' category.
Originally intended to cover trucks used for business-oriented
purposes, such as farming and construction, this category soon was
seriously abused, so that it now includes minivans, sport utility
vehicles, SUVs, and cross-over utility vehicles, CUVs.
In addition, out-dated provisions of our tax code have encouraged
increased manufacturing and purchasing of non-passenger vehicles. For
example, the Federal gas guzzler excise tax, enacted in 1978, exempted
non-passenger vehicles. At the time, few non-passenger vehicles
existed, aside from heavy duty trucks and vans. But today, sales of
SUVs, minivans, and CUVs make up over 30 percent of new vehicle
purchases. As these sales have grown, these vehicles have enjoyed
increasing subsidies by the Federal Government. In 1999, the SUV
loophole in the gas guzzler tax cost the government $5.6 billion in
uncollected taxes.
For those in America who want to make a difference in terms of energy
policy: take a look at the parking lots across America. Take a look at
the inefficient vehicles we are driving on the road today, because this
Congress and country have not shown the leadership to spur development
of more efficient cars and trucks in America.
We can improve the fuel efficiency of vehicles. We have done it in
the past, and we can do it again. A panel at the National Academy of
Sciences, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and other reputable
organizations have documented the myriad technologies available today,
and emerging technologies, that will reduce or eliminate the need for
oil in our vehicles.
Today we squarely face the question and challenge of energy security.
I believe American families are ready to do their part for their
country by purchasing more fuel-efficient vehicles. And I believe the
auto manufacturers, scientists and engineers of this country are ready
to step up to the plate and produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. By
supporting improved fuel economy, we can lead and demonstrate to future
generations that we are prepared to make a sacrifice for our national
security, environment, and public health.
Many have already voiced their support for decreasing our dependence
on oil. I am submitting for the record several editorials, which are
just a sample of the many public calls for enacting an energy policy
that includes a way to conserve oil. I also am submitting letters from
national organizations calling for more fuel efficient vehicles. I ask
that these documents be printed in the Record at the end of my
statement.
Today I am introducing two bills to get us back on the track of
progress, to increase fuel efficiency for both passenger and non-
passenger vehicles.
The Automobile Fuel Efficiency Improvements Act will increase the
fuel economy standard for both types of vehicles. It will increase the
CAFE standard of passenger automobiles to 40 miles a gallon by 2015, a
60 percent increase above the current average of 25 miles a gallon,
with the first increase required in model year 2006. The bill also will
increase the fuel economy of non-passenger automobiles to 27.5 miles a
gallon by 2015, a 60 percent increase above the current average of 17.5
miles a gallon, with the first increase required in model year 2006.
Through the CAFE standards required this bill, we will save a
cumulative 123 billion gallons of gasoline, and over 250 million metric
tons of carbon dioxide emissions, by 2015.
This bill also will close the loopholes in the non-passenger vehicle
definition. It will update the weight cut-off for
[[Page S4900]]
passenger and non-passenger automobiles, to reflect changing trends in
vehicle weight. Many vehicles, such as the new SUV called the Hummer,
weigh more than 8,500 pounds, the current weight cut-off for regulation
under CAFE. This bill will regulate vehicles up to 12,000 pounds, in
order to prevent large passenger vehicles from circumventing the
system. In addition, SUVs, minivans, and CUVs would be considered
passenger vehicles under this bill.
Another provision of this bill would establish a Federal procurement
requirement for the purchase of vehicles that exceed CAFE standards.
The bill also requires a study to improve the accuracy of the EPA test
for fuel economy, and would implement necessary changes to the test, so
that we can better account for improvements in fuel efficiency based on
how vehicles are truly performing on the roads. Finally, this bill
would update the civil penalties for violating CAFE laws, to adjust the
amounts for inflation.
The second bill I am introducing today, the Tax Incentives for Fuel
Efficient Vehicles Act, would modify the tax code. First, this bill
would create a new tax credit for purchasers of passenger and non-
passenger vehicles that exceed CAFE standards by at least 5 miles a
gallon. Second, this bill would modify the gas guzzler tax, effective
at the beginning of Model Year 2006, so that SUVs and other passenger
vehicles currently escaping the tax through an existing loophole would
be included. Heavy-duty trucks and vans would continue to be excluded.
Modifying the gas guzzler tax to include SUVs, minivans, and CUVs
will help us advance the policy goal of discouraging vehicles that are
especially inefficient in terms of energy consumption, while at the
same time raising revenues that can be used to provide an incentive for
vehicles that are especially fuel-efficient. This approach will help
spawn investment in automobiles that are better for our environment,
energy security and consumers.
I would ask my colleagues to note that it is my intention that the
Tax Incentives for Fuel Efficient Vehicles Act will have virtually no
cost to the Federal Government. If the revenues raised by the expansion
of the gas guzzler tax do not adequately compensate for the cost of the
credit, I will adjust the size of the credit accordingly.
I am proud to have the support of Senators Nelson, FL, Jeffords,
Corzine, Reed and Kennedy in introducing the Automobile Fuel Efficiency
Improvements Act. Also I am pleased that the following organizations
are supporting the Automobile Fuel Efficiency Improvements Act: Sierra
Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, Natural Resources Defense Council,
U.S. PIRG, National Environmental Trust, Friends of the Earth, Public
Citizen, The Wilderness Society, Citizen Action Illinois, Coalition on
the Environment and Jewish Life, National Council of Churches,
Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America, American Jewish
Committee, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Union of American Hebrew
Congregations, Central Conference of American Rabbis, MoveOn, and
Chesapeake Climate Action Network.
For the benefit of our children and future generations, I urge my
colleagues to support this important legislation.
Sierra Club,
Washington, DC, February 27, 2003.
Dear Congress Member: Protecting our environment and the
health and safety of our families are values that are clearly
and consistently supported by the majority of Americans. As
the nation's oldest and largest grassroots environmental
organization, the Sierra Club looks forward to working with
you and your staff to keep America's promise to leave a
cleaner planet to future generations.
The challenge facing the 108th Congress is not merely to
maintain existing protections, but to take common-sense steps
to protect our communities from environmental hazards and to
safeguard our natural heritage. Poll after poll confirms that
Americans--regardless of demographics or political
persuasion--care about protecting our special places,
restoring our forests, promoting smart growth, and improving
the safety or our clean air and water.
However, public support alone is not enough. It is for this
reason that the Sierra Club works with our more than 750,000
members nationwide to educate their neighbors about
environmental threats and opportunities, mobilize their
communities to demand environmental protection, and to hold
public officials accountable for their actions.
Sierra Club members are looking to their elected
representatives to continue progress on protecting our
communities, improving the quality of our air and water, and
ensuring a natural heritage of wilderness, parks and open
spaces for future generations. As the 108th Congress begins,
I would like to inform you about the particular issues on
which the Sierra Club's members will be seeking your support:
Oppose efforts to weaken the framework of existing laws
that safeguard public health and the environment and improve
the quality of our air and water, and protect our communities
from toxic pollution;
Support measures that safeguard America's wildlife and
unique natural heritage from Alaska's Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge to the wildlands of Utah and California;
Provide adequate funding for the enforcement of
environmental protection programs;
In reauthorizing TEA-21, give priority to maintaining
existing roads and bridges over new construction, and defend
the National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Air
Conformity laws from attack;
Push for policies that reduce global warming pollution,
reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and increase our energy
security by increasing our fuel economy, energy efficiency
and reliance on clean renewable sources of energy;
Protect the health and integrity of National Forests along
with the public's right to participate in the management of
our public lands;
Fully fund international and domestic family planning
programs that are critically important to stabilizing
population;
Ensure tough environmental standards in future US trade
agreements, and the personal safety and civil liberties of
those on the front lines of environmental protection around
the world.
Many of your constituents are also our members, which is
why we would like to work together in Washington and in your
district to protect the land we all love. Attached is a
contact sheet of our issue experts in several policy areas.
If you have any questions about upcoming legislation, would
like to find out more about Sierra Club positions, or would
like to get in touch with our members in your district,
please do not hesitate to contact us.
We look forward to continuing to work with you and your
staff to protect America's environment, for our families, for
our future.
Sincerely,
Debbie Sease,
Legislative Director.
____
Natural Resources Defense Council,
Washington, DC, March 24, 2003.
[Re Boxer/Chafee amendment to the Senate budget resolution.
Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Durbin: On behalf of the over 550,000 members
of Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), I thank you for
supporting the Boxer/Chafee amendment to the Senate budget
resolution preventing oil and gas development in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge.
You have voted to insure the continued protection of the
Arctic Refuge's ``biological heart,'' critical to nearly 200
species of wildlife. This area known as America's Serengeti
serves as a denning area for polar bears in the winter, a
nesting and/or feeding area for millions of migratory birds,
and the calving grounds for the 130,000 member Porcupine
caribou herd which returns every summer to calf and feed.
This herd has supported the Gwich'in Indian's way of life for
thousands of generations. The American public overwhelmingly
agrees with you that the coastal plain--one of our nation's
most spectacular wilderness areas--is too precious to
destroy.
Drilling in the Arctic Refuge makes no sense. It won't
lower gasoline prices and, it won't give us energy
independence or security. The best estimate is that there is
less than a six-month supply equivalency of oil that can be
economically produced from the Refuge--a mere drop in the
bucket--and, we won't get it for ten years.
Improving fuel efficiency of our automobiles is the
cheapest, fastest and cleanest energy solution. Efficiency
savings can be tapped immediately and would cost less than
half as much as producing oil from the Arctic Refuge.
Improving the fuel efficiency of America's automobile fleet
by just one percent per year would save more than 10 times as
much oil as is likely to be available in the Arctic Refuge.
Advanced hybrid electric vehicles announced by Ford and
already being produced by Honda and Toyota achieve about a
50% improvement in fuel economy. In contrast to drilling in
the Arctic Refuge, increasing fuel efficiency will help slow
down global warming.
We thank you for your leadership to save this irreplaceable
natural treasure. We salute your dedication to the protection
of this great crown jewel.
Sincerely yours,
John H. Adams,
President, Natural Resources Defense Council.
____
[From the New York Times, Mar. 23, 2003]
The Missing Energy Strategy
The Senate struck a blow for the environment and for common
sense last week, defeating President Bush's second attempt in
less than a year to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
to oil exploration. Credit goes to the Democrats, who mainly
held firm
[[Page S4901]]
in a close 52-to-48 vote, and to a small, sturdy group of
moderate Republicans, which now includes Norm Coleman, a
Minnesota freshman who wisely chose not to renege on his
campaign promise to protect the refuge despite an aggressive
sales pitch from senior Republicans and the White House.
The pitch included the usual hyperbole from the Alaska
delegation, which typically inflates official estimates of
economically recoverable oil in the refuge by a factor of
four. It also included a new but equally spurious argument
minted for the occasion, namely that rising gas prices and
the war in Iraq made drilling more urgent than ever. In
truth, Arctic oil will have no influence on gas prices until
it actually comes out of the ground, and even then it is
likely to reduce American dependence on foreign oil by only a
few percentage points.
Nevertheless it is much too soon for the environmental
community or its Senate champions, like Joseph Lieberman,
John McCain and James Jeffords, to rest on their well-earned
laurels. Drilling proposals will almost certainly resurface,
most likely in energy bills now on the drawing boards in both
the House and Senate. Beyond that, neither the White House
nor the Republican leadership shows any appetite for
developing what America really needs: innovative policies
that point toward a cleaner, more efficient and less oil-
dependent energy future. Instead, the White House and its
Congressional allies continue to push a retrograde strategy--
of which Arctic drilling was just one component--that
faithfully caters to President Bush's friends in the oil, gas
and coal industries and remains heavily biased toward the
production of fossil fuels.
On this score, the energy bills now being drawn up on
Capitol Hill offer no more hope than the 2002 models. Last
year's energy plan, which mercifully expired in a conference
committee, was top-heavy with subsidies for industry and
light on incentives for energy efficiency, alternative fuels
and other forms of conservation. The news from the relevant
Congressional committees suggests more of the same. Just last
week, Edward Markey of Massachusetts offered his colleagues
on the House energy committee a proposal to increase fuel
economy standards for cars and light trucks, including
S.U.V.'s, by about 20 percent by 2010. This is not an
unreasonable goal, given Detroit's technological
capabilities, and would save 1.6 million barrels a day, more
than double the recent imports from Iraq and far more than
the Arctic refuge could produce in the same time frame. The
committee crushed the idea.
The last two years have given the country plenty of reasons
to re-examine its energy policies: a power crisis in
California, the attacks of 9/11 and now a war in the very
heart of the biggest oil patch in the world. It is plainly
time to move forward in a systematic way with new ideas. But
the best we can do, it appears, is to beat back bad ones.
____
[From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Nov. 8, 2002]
More Per Gallon
Standards: Congress must approve higher vehicle mileage
requirements in order to reverse a troubling trend.
Body: Each year the Environmental Protection Agency trots
out mileage ratings for new car models. And year after year,
the news is depressing.
On Oct. 29, the EPA reported that the average fuel economy
for all 2003-model cars and passenger trucks is a paltry 20.8
miles per gallon.
That's down slightly from last year. But more notably, it's
6 percent below the peak for passenger vehicle efficiency of
22.1 mpg set 15 years ago.
In the past decade and a half, automakers have made
technological improvements that have increased engine
efficiency significantly. But those gains have been offset by
millions of Americans buying ever-larger gas guzzlers.
Much of the blame lies in Washington, where the Bush
administration and Congress haven't been able to come to a
consensus on energy policy and apparently lack the will to
mandate even a modest increase in the Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFE) standards for vehicles.
Those standards--which haven't been changed for 17 years--
require that each automaker's fleet of new cars averages 27.5
mpg. Light trucks (which include pickups, minivans and sport
utility vehicles) must average only 20.7 mpg.
The solution is simple: Congress should raise the CAFE
standards significantly, particularly for light trucks. But
the new standards should be reasonable ones that automakers
can meet.
Continued improvement in engine technology is one key to
meeting higher standards.
Some mileage gains also can be achieved even if automakers
make no further technological improvements and Congress
continues to sit on its hands.
Higher mileage standards would cut fuel consumption, which
in turn would reduce air pollution, decrease America's
dependence on foreign oil, save motorists money at the pump
and increase the chances that metropolitan areas such as
North Texas will be able to attain federal air quality
standards.
Those are compelling reasons for Congress and the White
House to adopt standards that will, for a change, result in
higher annual mileage ratings instead of continued declines.
____
[From the St. Petersburg Times, Nov. 16, 2002]
More Fuel-Efficiency Is Needed
Americans are getting a confusing message on automobile
mileage. ``By driving a more fuel-efficient vehicle, a
vehicle powered by alternative fuels, or even by driving our
current vehicles more efficiently, we can all do our part to
reduce our Nation's reliance on imported oil and strengthen
our energy security,'' Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham
recently announced.
Good advice. But Abraham chose an odd occasion to make his
appeal. He and Environmental Protection Agency chief Christie
Whitman were announcing the mileage figures for 2003 cars and
passenger trucks. The average of 20.8 MPG continued a
downward trend on fuel efficiency that has continued for the
past decade and a half.
In fact, the percentage of cars getting more than 30 MPG
declined in the new model year to only 4 percent of cars,
down from 6 percent last year. So it is even more difficult
for American drivers to heed Abraham's call to conserve.
If President Bush, who is Abraham's boss, or Congress
really wanted to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, they
would have embraced tougher mileage requirements. Yet, Vice
President Dick Cheney set the tone for the administration by
scorning energy conservation. Congress also backed away from
more stringent Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards,
which have been frozen since 1994. Even pro-environment
Democrats played along with the makers of gas-guzzling SUVs
when the United Auto Workers union opposed improved fuel
efficiency, arguing it would cost jobs (and union members).
Improving mileage isn't that difficult. ``We could be
averaging close to 30 to 40 miles per gallon, and that's with
conventional technology: nonhybrids, better engines, better
transmission, improved aerodynamics,'' said David Friedman, a
senior analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Instead, our wasteful ways complicate foreign policy in the
Middle East, whose oil fuels not only our cars but also
repressive regimes and terrorism. Soon enough, American
soldiers could be in harm's way in the region. Rather than
winking at the decline in fuel efficiency, our leaders should
set about reversing the troubling trend.
The president and congressional leaders should require
automakers to improve CAFE standards. They also should call
on Americans to share the sacrifices that lie ahead. We are
likely to respond.
____
[From the Los Angeles Times, Aug. 8, 2002]
Stop Your Grousing, Auto Makers, and Get the Gases Out
(By Carl Zichella)
The auto industry howled when Gov. Gray Davis signed
California's landmark global warming control bill. Litigation
to overturn the new law, which restricts automobile emissions
of carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases, was
threatened before his signature was dry.
For auto industry observers, there was a sense of deja vu
about this hysterical response. Every time the government has
required new safety or efficiency standards, auto makers have
claimed that the result would be financial ruin, the
elimination of thousands of jobs and the loss of consumer
choice.
The truth is that the industry was wrong at every turn, and
it is wrong now. Car makers, instead of suing to overturn
this much-needed law, should get busy complying with it. No
new technology needs to be developed.
This is the industry that fought turn signals, seat belts
and safety glass. Henry Ford II called laminated windshields,
padded interiors and collapsible steering wheels
``unreasonable, arbitrary and technically unfeasible.''
When Congress required auto manufacturers to build cleaner
cars in 1973, the industry response was hyperbolic. ``If GM
is forced to introduce catalytic converter systems across the
board . . . it is conceivable that complete stoppage of the
entire production could occur,'' warned a GM vice president.
The company easily complied, consumers benefited and GM
suffered no appreciable hardship.
In 1974, a Ford official told a congressional committee
that ``corporate average fuel economy''--CAFE--standards
would ``result in a Ford product line consisting either of
all sub-Pinto-sized vehicles or some mix of vehicles
ranging from sub-sub-compact to perhaps a Maverick.'' That
couldn't have been more wrong.
According to the Rocky Mountain Institute, from 1977 to
1983 American-built cars increased in efficiency by seven
miles per gallon. From 1977 through 1985, the U.S. gross
domestic product rose 27% while oil imports fell by 42%. OPEC
lost an eighth of its market. Few public policies have ever
been such a resounding success. Vehicle choice expanded while
oil prices declined.
The sky isn't falling for auto manufacturers, but the
planet is getting warmer, and the consequences for California
are severe. If the snowpack in the Sierra declines, bitter
competition for water will result since about 70% of
California drinking water originates there.
Further, farmland will become more arid and sea levels will
rise, reducing food production and flooding coastal cities.
Forests will shrink and some of the most valuable wildlife
habitat on Earth will vanish or be altered.
[[Page S4902]]
The good news is that some simple solutions are at hand.
This year Ford sponsored a ``Future Truck'' competition for
university engineering students to build more-efficient sport
utility vehicles. If you believe the industry's rhetoric,
you'd think that SUVs will be abolished. But Ford's ``Future
Truck'' contestants showed the ridiculousness of this charge.
Students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison this year
modified a Ford Explorer to get the equivalent of 38 mpg.
Others built a GMC Suburban that emits about half the carbon
dioxide of the production version. More-efficient vehicles
mean less CO2 emissions. You don't need to require
mileage standards--something that federal law forbids the
state to do--to get these benefits; all the state needs to do
is require the auto makers use the best technology available.
If university students can do this, why can't the Big
Three? Ford boasts that it plans to introduce a hybrid gas-
electric SUV in 2003. This model would meet the standard far
ahead of the new law's generous 2009 deadline. Instead of
suing California, auto makers should do what is right and
comply with the law.
Mr. NELSON of FLORIDA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join
with my colleague, Senator Durbin of Illinois, and others, in
introducing a Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency bill that requires
passenger vehicles to have an average fuel efficiency of 40 miles per
gallon and nonpassenger vehicles to have an average fuel efficiency
27.5 miles per gallon by 2015.
This proposal should be an important part of the upcoming debate on
the energy needs of our country. I was very disappointed last year
during the energy debate when several meaningful CAFE proposals were
defeated.
Now, as we again embark on the important task of determining how our
country's energy needs will be met in the coming decades, CAFE
increases should be a part of the plan.
It has been said many times, but is worth repeating: the purpose of
increasing CAFE is to reduce fuel consumption.
The U.S. consumes 25 percent of the world's oil, but only has 3
percent of the world's reserves--so we have to use less of it and find
alternatives.
Our national security depends on it. If we don't have to rely on
other countries, many of whom do not support our policies and may be in
fact be working against us, for our energy, we as a nation are more
secure.
And increasing CAFE protects the environment. Toxic air emissions and
carbon dioxide emissions are reduced--thereby slowing global warming.
The automobile manufacturers won't embrace this proposal, but they
should. The 2001 National Academy of Sciences' report said 40 mph is
possible and feasible.
The technology exists to raise CAFE significantly with no net
consumer costs. And, developing technologies, including hybrid vehicle
designs, could improve vehicle fuel economy by 20-40 percent. We're
perfectly willing to give auto manufacturers the lead time necessary to
make these strides, but the benchmark has to be there to spur them into
action.
The pay off to our national security, environment, level of
technological expertise and market share will be worth the effort.
I have faith in the ingenuity of our automakers and the adaptability
of the American consumer to make an increased CAFE standard profitable.
For these reasons, I lend my support to Senator Durbin's measure and
look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue during the
upcoming energy debate.
______
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. Warner):
S. 804. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
nonrefundable tax credit for contributions to congressional candidates;
to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill with my
colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, that provides tax incentives
for American families to participate in political campaigns. It will
empower millions of Americans to become engaged in our political
system, by providing a tax credit to those who donate money to
congressional candidates.
As campaigns become more and more expensive, the number of small
contributors is actually decreasing. The current campaign finance
system is becoming dominated by big dollar contributors, a trend that
is troubling to me.
Our bill would make middle income Americans more able to donate to
candidates. Specifically, the bill would provide a maximum $400 tax
credit to married couples earning up to $120,000 for their campaign
contributions. For singles with income up to $60,000, the tax credit
would apply to contributions up to $200. This credit will provide a
dollar for dollar offset for contributions, an incentive that could
encourage the many working families to consider contributions to the
candidates of their choice.
This is not a new idea. This type of credit was a part of our tax
system for more than a decade in the 1970s and 1980s. It has been a
part of many campaign finance reform proposals over the years,
proposals that have been introduced and supported by both Democrats and
Republicans. And this policy proposal is the focus of a study last year
by the American Enterprise Institute, AEI, which concluded that this
approach would help to elevate small donors from the supporting role
that they now play. So, our proposal has been successful in the past,
and it has had broad support from both parties over the past thirty
years.
Participation in the political process is key to a strong democracy.
This bill will help broaden participation and will provide an incentive
for more Americans to be included in political campaigns.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 804
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CREDIT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONGRESSIONAL
CANDIDATES.
(a) General Rule.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
nonrefundable personal credits) is amended by inserting after
section 25B the following new section:
``SEC. 25C. CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES.
``(a) General Rule.--In the case of an eligible individual,
there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by
this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to the
total of contributions to candidates for the office of
Senator or Representative in, or Delegate or Resident
Commissioner to, the Congress.
``(b) Maximum Credit.--The credit allowed by subsection (a)
for a taxable year shall not exceed $200 ($400 in the case of
a joint return).
``(c) Verification.--The credit allowed by subsection (a)
shall be allowed, with respect to any contribution, only if
such contribution is verified in such manner as the Secretary
shall prescribe by regulations.
``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Candidate; contribution.--The terms `candidate' and
`contribution' have the meanings given such terms in section
301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.
``(2) Eligible individual.--The term `eligible individual'
means any taxpayer whose adjusted gross income for the
taxable year does not exceed $60,000 ($120,000 in the case of
a joint return).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 642 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to special rules for credits and deductions of
estates or trusts) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(j) Credit for Certain Contributions Not Allowed.--An
estate or trust shall not be allowed the credit against tax
provided by section 25C.''.
(2) The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 25B the
following new item:
``Sec. 25C. Contributions to congressional candidates.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to contributions made after the date
of the enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending after
such date.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Daschle,
Mr. Kerry, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 805. A bill to enhance the rights of crime victims, to establish
grants for local governments to assist crime victims, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this past Sunday marked the beginning of
National Crime Victims' Rights Week. We set this week aside each year
to focus attention on the needs and rights of crime victims. I am
pleased to take
[[Page S4903]]
this opportunity to introduce legislation with my good friend from
Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, and our cosponsors, Senators Corzine,
Kerry, Murray, and Schumer. Our bill, the Crime Victims Assistance Act
of 2003, represents the next step in our continuing efforts to afford
dignity and recognition to victims of crime.
My involvement with crime victims began more than three decades ago
when I served as State's Attorney in Chittenden County, VT, and
witnessed first-hand the devastation of crime. I have worked ever since
to ensure that the criminal justice system is one that respects the
rights and dignity of victims of crime, rather than one that presents
additional ordeals for those already victimized.
I am proud that Congress has been a significant part of the solution
to provide victims with greater rights and assistance. Over the past
two decades, Congress has passed several bills to this end. These bills
have included: the Victims of Crime Act of 1984; the Victims' Bill of
Rights of 1990; the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990; the
Violence Against Women Act of 1994; the Mandatory Victims Restitution
Act of 1996; the Victim Rights Clarification Act of 1997; the Crime
Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act of 1998; the Victims of
Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000; the Victims of
Terrorism Tax Relief Act of 2001; and the September 11th Victim
Compensation Fund of 2001.
The legislation that we introduce today, the Crime Victims Assistance
Act of 2003, builds upon this progress. It provides for comprehensive
reform of the Federal law to establish enhanced rights and protections
for victims of Federal crime. Among other things, our bill provides
crime victims with the right to consult with the prosecution prior to
detention hearings and the entry of plea agreements, and generally
requires the courts to give greater consideration to the views and
interests of the victim at all stages of the criminal justice process.
Responding to concerns raised by victims of the Oklahoma City bombing,
the bill provides standing for the prosecutor and the victim to assert
the right of the victim to attend and observe the trial.
Assuring that victims are provided their statutorily guaranteed
rights is a critical concern for all those involved in the
administration of justice. Our bill would establish an administrative
authority in the Department of Justice to receive and investigate
victims' claims of unlawful or inappropriate action on the part of
criminal justice and victims' service providers. Department of Justice
employees who fail to comply with the law pertaining to the treatment
of crime victims could face disciplinary sanctions, including
suspension or termination of employment.
In addition to these improvements to the Federal system, the bill
proposes several innovative new programs to help States provide better
services to victims of State crimes. The bill authorizes technology
grants for local authorities to develop state-of-the-art notification
systems to keep victims informed of case developments and important
dates. Grants would also be available to improve compliance with State
victim's rights laws, encourage further experimentation with the
community-based restorative justice model, streamline access to victim
services through the use of case managers, and expand the capacity of
victim service providers to serve victims with limited English
proficiency.
Finally, the Crime Victims Assistance Act would improve the manner in
which the Crime Victims Fund is managed and preserved. Most
significantly, the bill would eliminate the annual cap on spending from
the Fund, which has prevented millions of dollars of Fund deposits from
reaching victims and supporting essential services. We should not be
imposing artificial caps on VOCA spending while substantial unmet needs
continue to exist. The Crime Victims Assistance Act would replace the
cap with a self-regulating system, supported by crime victim groups,
that would ensure the stability and protection of Fund assets, while
allowing more money to be distributed for victim programs.
These are all matters that can be considered and enacted this year
with a simple majority of both Houses of Congress. They need not
overcome the delay and higher standards necessitated by proposing to
amend the Constitution. They need not wait the hammering out of
implementing legislation before making a difference in the lives of
crime victims.
I have on several occasions noted my concern that we not dissipate
the progress we could be making by focusing exclusively on efforts to
amend the Constitution. Regretfully, many opportunities for progress
have been squandered. One notable exception was the passage, as part of
the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, of several significant amendments to the
Victims of Crime Act that Senator Kennedy and I had proposed in an
earlier version of the Crime Victims Assistance Act. I am glad that we
could get those important provisions signed into law, but we still have
more to do.
I look forward to continuing to work with the Administration, victims
groups, prosecutors, judges and other interested parties on how we can
most effectively enhance the rights of victims of crime. Congress and
State legislatures have become more sensitive to crime victims rights
over the past 20 years and we have an opportunity to make additional,
significant progress this year to provide the greater voice and rights
that crime victims deserve. It is my hope that Democrats and
Republicans, and supporters and opponents of the proposed
constitutional amendment, will join in advancing the Crime Victims
Assistance Act through Congress. We can make a difference in the lives
of crime victims right now.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the section-by-
section analysis be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 805
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Crime
Victims Assistance Act of 2003''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--VICTIM RIGHTS IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM
Sec. 101. Right to consult concerning detention.
Sec. 102. Right to a speedy trial.
Sec. 103. Right to consult concerning plea.
Sec. 104. Enhanced participatory rights at trial.
Sec. 105. Enhanced participatory rights at sentencing.
Sec. 106. Right to notice concerning sentence adjustment, discharge
from psychiatric facility, and executive clemency.
Sec. 107. Procedures to promote compliance.
TITLE II--VICTIM ASSISTANCE INITIATIVES
Sec. 201. Pilot programs to enforce compliance with State crime
victim's rights laws.
Sec. 202. Increased resources to develop state-of-the-art systems for
notifying crime victims of important dates and
developments.
Sec. 203. Restorative justice grants.
Sec. 204. Grants to develop interdisciplinary coordinated service
programs for victims of crime.
Sec. 205. Grants for services to crime victims with special
communication needs.
TITLE III--AMENDMENTS TO VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT OF 1984
Sec. 301. Formula for distributions from the crime victims fund.
Sec. 302. Clarification regarding antiterrorism emergency reserve.
Sec. 303. Prohibition on diverting crime victims fund to offset
increased spending.
TITLE I--VICTIM RIGHTS IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM
SEC. 101. RIGHT TO CONSULT CONCERNING DETENTION.
(a) Right To Consult Concerning Detention.--Section 503(c)
of the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
10607(c)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting
the following:
``(2) A responsible official shall--
``(A) arrange for a victim to receive reasonable protection
from a suspected offender and persons acting in concert with
or at the behest of the suspected offender; and
``(B) consult with a victim prior to a detention hearing to
obtain information that can be presented to the court on the
issue of any threat the suspected offender may pose to the
safety of the victim.''.
(b) Court Consideration of the Views of Victims.--Chapter
207 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 3142--
(A) in subsection (g)--
(i) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
[[Page S4904]]
(iii) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) the views of the victim; and''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(k) Views of the Victim.--During a hearing under
subsection (f), the judicial officer shall inquire of the
attorney for the Government if the victim has been consulted
on the issue of detention and the views of such victim, if
any.''; and
(2) in section 3156(a)--
(A) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) the term `victim' includes all persons defined as
victims in section 503(e)(2) of the Victims' Rights and
Restitution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 10607(e)(2)).''.
SEC. 102. RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL.
Section 3161(h)(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(v) The interests of the victim (as defined in section
503(e)(2) of the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990
(42 U.S.C. 10607(e)(2)) in the prompt and appropriate
disposition of the case, free from unreasonable delay.''.
SEC. 103. RIGHT TO CONSULT CONCERNING PLEA.
(a) Right To Consult Concerning Plea.--Section 503(c) of
the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
10607(c)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (8) as
paragraphs (5) through (9), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) A responsible official shall make reasonable efforts
to notify a victim of, and consider the views of a victim
about, any proposed or contemplated plea agreement. In
determining what is reasonable, the responsible official
should consider factors relevant to the wisdom and
practicality of giving notice and considering views in the
context of the particular case, including--
``(A) the impact on public safety and risks to personal
safety;
``(B) the number of victims;
``(C) the need for confidentiality, including whether the
proposed plea involves confidential information or
conditions; and
``(D) whether time is of the essence in negotiating or
entering a proposed plea.''.
(b) Court Consideration of the Views of Victims.--Rule 11
of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is amended--
(1) by redesignating subdivisions (g) and (h) as
subdivisions (h) and (i), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subdivision (f) the following:
``(g) Views of the Victim.--Notwithstanding the acceptance
of a plea of guilty, the court should not enter a judgment
upon such plea without making inquiry of the attorney for the
Government if the victim (as defined in section 503(e)(2) of
the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990) has been
consulted on the issue of the plea and the views of such
victim, if any.''.
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by subsection (b)
shall become effective as provided in paragraph (3).
(2) Action by judicial conference.--
(A) Recommendations.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Judicial Conference of the
United States shall submit to Congress a report containing
recommendations for amending the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure to provide enhanced opportunities for victims to be
heard on the issue of whether or not the court should accept
a plea of guilty or nolo contendere.
(B) Inapplicability of other law.--Chapter 131 of title 28,
United States Code, does not apply to any recommendation made
by the Judicial Conference of the United States under this
paragraph.
(3) Congressional action.--Except as otherwise provided by
law, if the Judicial Conference of the United States--
(A) submits a report in accordance with paragraph (2)
containing recommendations described in that paragraph, and
those recommendations are the same as the amendments made by
subsection (b), the amendments made by subsection (b) shall
become effective 30 days after the date on which the
recommendations are submitted to Congress under paragraph
(2);
(B) submits a report in accordance with paragraph (2)
containing recommendations described in that paragraph, and
those recommendations are different in any respect from the
amendments made by subsection (b), the recommendations made
pursuant to paragraph (2) shall become effective 180 days
after the date on which the recommendations are submitted to
Congress under paragraph (2), unless an Act of Congress is
passed overturning the recommendations; and
(C) fails to comply with paragraph (2), the amendments made
by subsection (b) shall become effective 360 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(4) Application.--Any amendment made pursuant to this
section (including any amendment made pursuant to the
recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United
States under paragraph (2)) shall apply in any proceeding
commenced on or after the effective date of the amendment.
SEC. 104. ENHANCED PARTICIPATORY RIGHTS AT TRIAL.
(a) Amendments to Victim Rights Clarification Act.--Section
3510 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (e); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Application to Televised Proceedings.--This section
applies to any victim viewing proceedings pursuant to section
235 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
1996 (42 U.S.C. 10608), or any rule issued pursuant to that
section.
``(d) Standing.--
``(1) In general.--At the request of any victim of an
offense, the attorney for the Government may assert the right
of the victim under this section to attend and observe the
trial.
``(2) Victim standing.--If the attorney for the Government
declines to assert the right of a victim under this section,
then the victim has standing to assert such right.
``(3) Appellate review.--An adverse ruling on a motion or
request by an attorney for the Government or a victim under
this subsection may be appealed or petitioned under the rules
governing appellate actions, provided that no appeal or
petition shall constitute grounds for unreasonably delaying a
criminal proceeding.''.
(b) Amendment to Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of
1990.-- Section 502(b) of the Victims' Rights and Restitution
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 10606(b)) is amended--
(1) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
``(4) The right to be present at all public court
proceedings related to the offense, unless the court
determines that testimony by the victim at trial would be
materially affected if the victim heard the testimony of
other witnesses.''; and
(2) in paragraph (5), by striking ``attorney'' and
inserting ``the attorney''.
SEC. 105. ENHANCED PARTICIPATORY RIGHTS AT SENTENCING.
(a) Views of the Victim.--Section 3553(a) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
``(7) the impact of the crime upon any victim of the
offense as reflected in any victim impact statement and the
views of any victim of the offense concerning punishment, if
such statement or views are presented to the court; and''.
(b) Enhanced Right To Be Heard Concerning Sentence.--Rule
32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is amended--
(1) in subdivision (c)(3)(E)--
(A) by striking ``if the sentence is to be imposed for a
crime of violence or sexual abuse,''; and
(B) by inserting ``written or oral'' before ``statement'';
and
(2) by amending subdivision (f) to read as follows:
``(f) Definition.--For purposes of this rule, the term
`victim' means any individual against whom an offense has
been committed for which a sentence is to be imposed, but the
right of allocution under subdivision (c)(3)(E) may be
exercised instead by--
``(1) a parent or legal guardian, if the victim is
incompetent or has not reached 18 years of age; or
``(2) 1 or more family members or relatives designated by
the court, if the victim is deceased or incapacitated,
if such person or persons are present at the sentencing
hearing, regardless of whether the victim is present.''.
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by subsection (b)
shall become effective as provided in paragraph (3).
(2) Action by judicial conference.--
(A) Recommendations.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Judicial Conference of the
United States shall submit to Congress a report containing
recommendations for amending the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure to provide enhanced opportunities for victims to
participate during the presentencing and sentencing phase of
the criminal process.
(B) Inapplicability of other law.--Chapter 131 of title 28,
United States Code, does not apply to any recommendation made
by the Judicial Conference of the United States under this
paragraph.
(3) Congressional action.--Except as otherwise provided by
law, if the Judicial Conference of the United States--
(A) submits a report in accordance with paragraph (2)
containing recommendations described in that paragraph, and
those recommendations are the same as the amendments made by
subsection (b), the amendments made by subsection (b) shall
become effective 30 days after the date on which the
recommendations are submitted to Congress under paragraph
(2);
(B) submits a report in accordance with paragraph (2)
containing recommendations described in that paragraph, and
those recommendations are different in any respect from the
amendments made by subsection (b), the recommendations made
pursuant to paragraph (2) shall become effective 180 days
after the date on which the recommendations are submitted to
Congress under paragraph (2), unless an Act of Congress is
passed overturning the recommendations; and
(C) fails to comply with paragraph (2), the amendments made
by subsection (b) shall become effective 360 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
[[Page S4905]]
(4) Application.--Any amendment made pursuant to this
section (including any amendment made pursuant to the
recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United
States under paragraph (2)) shall apply in any proceeding
commenced on or after the effective date of the amendment.
SEC. 106. RIGHT TO NOTICE CONCERNING SENTENCE ADJUSTMENT,
DISCHARGE FROM PSYCHIATRIC FACILITY, AND
EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (6) of section 503(c) of the
Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
10607(c)), as redesignated by section 103 of this Act, is
amended to read as follows:
``(6) After trial, a responsible official shall provide a
victim the earliest possible notice of--
``(A) the scheduling of a parole hearing or a hearing on
modification of probation or supervised release for the
offender;
``(B) the escape, work release, furlough, discharge or
conditional discharge, or any other form of release from
custody of the offender, including an offender who was found
not guilty by reason of insanity;
``(C) the grant of executive clemency, including any
pardon, reprieve, commutation of sentence, or remission of
fine, to the offender; and
``(D) the death of the offender, if the offender dies while
in custody.''.
(b) Reporting Requirement.--The Attorney General shall
submit biannually to the Committees on the Judiciary of the
House of Representatives and the Senate a report on executive
clemency matters or cases delegated for review or
investigation to the Attorney General by the President,
including for each year--
(1) the number of petitions so delegated;
(2) the number of reports submitted to the President;
(3) the number of petitions for executive clemency granted
and the number denied;
(4) the name of each person whose petition for executive
clemency was granted or denied and the offenses of conviction
of that person for which executive clemency was granted or
denied; and
(5) with respect to any person granted executive clemency,
the date that any victim of an offense that was the subject
of that grant of executive clemency was notified, pursuant to
Department of Justice regulations, of a petition for
executive clemency, and whether such victim submitted a
statement concerning the petition.
SEC. 107. PROCEDURES TO PROMOTE COMPLIANCE.
(a) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General of the United
States shall promulgate regulations to enforce the rights of
victims of crime described in section 502 of the Victims'
Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 10606) and to
ensure compliance by responsible officials with the
obligations described in section 503 of that Act (42 U.S.C.
10607).
(b) Contents.--The regulations promulgated under subsection
(a) shall--
(1) establish an administrative authority within the
Department of Justice to receive and investigate complaints
relating to the provision or violation of the rights of a
crime victim;
(2) require a course of training for employees and offices
of the Department of Justice that fail to comply with
provisions of Federal law pertaining to the treatment of
victims of crime, and otherwise assist such employees and
offices in responding more effectively to the needs of
victims;
(3) contain disciplinary sanctions, including suspension or
termination from employment, for employees of the Department
of Justice who willfully or wantonly fail to comply with
provisions of Federal law pertaining to the treatment of
victims of crime; and
(4) provide that the Attorney General, or the designee of
the Attorney General, shall be the final arbiter of the
complaint, and that there shall be no judicial review of the
final decision of the Attorney General by a complainant.
TITLE II--VICTIM ASSISTANCE INITIATIVES
SEC. 201. PILOT PROGRAMS TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH STATE
CRIME VICTIM'S RIGHTS LAWS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions shall apply:
(1) Compliance authority.--The term ``compliance
authority'' means 1 of the compliance authorities established
and operated under a program under subsection (b) to enforce
the rights of victims of crime.
(2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Office for Victims of Crime.
(3) Office.--The term ``Office'' means the Office for
Victims of Crime.
(b) Pilot Programs.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 12 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, acting through
the Director, shall establish and carry out a program to
provide for pilot programs in 5 States to establish and
operate compliance authorities to enforce the rights of
victims of crime.
(2) Agreements.--
(A) In general.--The Attorney General, acting through the
Director, shall enter into an agreement with a State to
conduct a pilot program referred to in paragraph (1), which
agreement shall provide for a grant to assist the State in
carrying out the pilot program.
(B) Contents of agreement.--The agreement referred to in
subparagraph (A) shall specify that--
(i) the compliance authority shall be established and
operated in accordance with this section; and
(ii) except with respect to meeting applicable requirements
of this section concerning carrying out the duties of a
compliance authority under this section (including the
applicable reporting duties under subsection (f) and the
terms of the agreement), a compliance authority shall operate
independently of the Office.
(C) No authority over daily operations.--The Office shall
have no supervisory or decisionmaking authority over the day-
to-day operations of a compliance authority.
(c) Objectives.--
(1) Mission.--The mission of a compliance authority
established and operated under a pilot program under this
section shall be to promote compliance and effective
enforcement of State laws regarding the rights of victims of
crime.
(2) Duties.--A compliance authority established and
operated under a pilot program under this section shall--
(A) receive and investigate complaints relating to the
provision or violation of the rights of a crime victim; and
(B) issue findings following such investigations.
(3) Other duties.--A compliance authority established and
operated under a pilot program under this section may--
(A) pursue legal actions to define or enforce the rights of
victims;
(B) review procedures established by public agencies and
private organizations that provide services to victims, and
evaluate the delivery of services to victims by such agencies
and organizations;
(C) coordinate and cooperate with other public agencies and
private organizations concerned with the implementation,
monitoring, and enforcement of the rights of victims and
enter into cooperative agreements with such agencies and
organizations for the furtherance of the rights of victims;
(D) ensure a centralized location for victim services
information;
(E) recommend changes in State policies concerning victims,
including changes in the system for providing victim
services;
(F) provide public education, legislative advocacy, and
development of proposals for systemic reform; and
(G) advertise to advise the public of its services,
purposes, and procedures.
(d) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a State shall submit an application to the
Director which includes assurances that--
(1) the State has provided legal rights to victims of crime
at the adult and juvenile levels;
(2) a compliance authority that receives funds under this
section will include a role for--
(A) representatives of criminal justice agencies, crime
victim service organizations, and the educational community;
(B) a medical professional whose work includes work in a
hospital emergency room; and
(C) a therapist whose work includes treatment of crime
victims; and
(3) Federal funds received under this section will be used
to supplement, and not to supplant, non-Federal funds that
would otherwise be available to enforce the rights of victims
of crime.
(e) Preference.--In awarding grants under this section, the
Attorney General shall give preference to a State that
provides legal standing to prosecutors and victims of crime
to assert the rights of victims of crime.
(f) Oversight.--
(1) Technical assistance.--The Director may provide
technical assistance and training to a State that receives a
grant under this section to achieve the purposes of this
section.
(2) Annual report.--Each State that receives a grant under
this section shall submit to the Director, for each year in
which funds from a grant received under this section are
expended, a report that contains--
(A) a summary of the activities carried out under the
grant;
(B) an assessment of the effectiveness of such activities
in promoting compliance and effective implementation of the
laws of that State regarding the rights of victims of crime;
(C) a strategic plan for the year following the year
covered under subparagraph (A); and
(D) such other information as the Director may require.
(g) Review of Program Effectiveness.--
(1) In general.--The Director of the National Institute for
Justice shall conduct an evaluation of the pilot programs
carried out under this section to determine the effectiveness
of the compliance authorities that are the subject of the
pilot programs in carrying out the mission and duties
described in subsection (c).
(2) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director of the National Institute
of Justice shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on the
Judiciary of the Senate a written report on the results of
the evaluation required by paragraph (1).
(h) Duration.--A grant under this section shall be made for
a period not longer than 4 years, but may be renewed for a
period not to exceed 2 years on such terms as the Director
may require.
[[Page S4906]]
(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section, to remain available until expended--
(A) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
(B) such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal
years 2005 and 2006.
(2) Evaluations.--Up to 5 percent of the amount authorized
to be appropriated under paragraph (1) in any fiscal year may
be used for administrative expenses incurred in conducting
the evaluations and preparing the report required by
subsection (g).
SEC. 202. INCREASED RESOURCES TO DEVELOP STATE-OF-THE-ART
SYSTEMS FOR NOTIFYING CRIME VICTIMS OF
IMPORTANT DATES AND DEVELOPMENTS.
The Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601 et seq.)
is amended by inserting after section 1404C the following:
``SEC. 1404D. VICTIM NOTIFICATION GRANTS.
``(a) In General.--The Director may make grants as provided
in section 1404(c)(1)(A) to State, tribal, and local
prosecutors' offices, law enforcement agencies, courts,
jails, and correctional institutions, and to qualified
private entities, to develop and implement state-of-the-art
systems for notifying victims of crime of important dates and
developments relating to the criminal proceedings at issue on
a timely and efficient basis.
``(b) Integration of Systems.--Systems developed and
implemented under this section may be integrated with
existing case management systems operated by the recipient of
the grant.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section--
``(1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
``(2) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
``(3) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
``(d) False Claims Act.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, amounts collected pursuant to sections 3729
through 3731 of title 31, United States Code (commonly known
as the `False Claims Act'), may be used for grants under this
section.''.
SEC. 203. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE GRANTS.
(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are to--
(1) hold juvenile offenders accountable for their offenses,
while ensuring the continuing safety of victims;
(2) involve victims and the community in the juvenile
justice process;
(3) obligate the offender to pay restitution to the victim
and to the community through community service or through
financial or other forms of restitution; and
(4) equip juvenile offenders with the skills needed to live
responsibly and productively.
(b) Authority To Make Grants.--The Office of Justice
Programs of the Department of Justice shall make grants, in
accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may
prescribe, to units of local governments, tribal governments,
and qualified private entities to establish restorative
justice programs, such as victim and offender mediation,
family and community conferences, family and group
conferences, sentencing circles, restorative panels, and
reparative boards, as an alternative to, or in addition to,
incarceration.
(c) Program Criteria.--A program funded by a grant made
under this section shall--
(1) be fully voluntary by both the victim and the offender
(who must admit responsibility), once the prosecuting agency
has determined that the case is appropriate for this program;
(2) include as a critical component accountability
conferences, at which the victim will have the opportunity to
address the offender directly, to describe the impact of the
offense against the victim, and the opportunity to suggest
possible forms of restitution;
(3) require that conferences be attended by the victim, the
offender and, when possible, the parents or guardians of the
offender, and the arresting officer; and
(4) provide an early, individualized assessment and action
plan to each juvenile offender in order to prevent further
criminal behavior through the development of appropriate
skills in the juvenile offender so that the juvenile is more
capable of living productively and responsibly in the
community.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section--
(1) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
(2) $4,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
SEC. 204. GRANTS TO DEVELOP INTERDISCIPLINARY COORDINATED
SERVICE PROGRAMS FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME.
The Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601 et seq.)
is amended by inserting after section 1404D, as added by
section 202 of this Act, the following:
``SEC. 1404E. INTERDISCIPLINARY COORDINATED SERVICE PROGRAMS.
``(a) In General.--The Director is authorized to award
grants under section 1404(c)(1)(A) to States, tribal
governments, local governments, and qualified public or
private entities, to develop and implement interdisciplinary
coordinated service programs for victims of crime.
``(b) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions shall apply:
``(1) Interdisciplinary coordinated service program.--The
term `interdisciplinary coordinated service program' means a
case management program that coordinates the various systems
and programs that impact or assist victims of crime,
including--:
``(A) the criminal justice system;
``(B) public or private victim assistance organizations;
``(C) victim compensation programs;
``(D) public or private health care services;
``(E) public or private mental health services;
``(F) community-based victim service organizations;
``(G) public or private educational services, including
preschool, after-school care, and child care programs; and
``(H) other public or private sources of services or
assistance to victims of crime.
``(2) Emergency interdisciplinary coordinated service
program.--The term `emergency interdisciplinary coordinated
service program' means an interdisciplinary coordinated
service program that responds to a community crisis.
``(3) Community crisis.--The term `community crisis' means
a single crime or multiple related crimes that have a wide
impact or serious consequences on a community.
``(4) Lead entity.--
``(A) In general.--The term `lead entity' means the State,
tribal government, local prosecutor's office, or qualified
public or private entity with experience working across
disciplines and agencies, that leads the interdisciplinary
coordinated service program or emergency interdisciplinary
coordinated service program.
``(B) Responsibilities.--The lead entity is responsible for
distributing funds to any entities collaborating on the
interdisciplinary coordinated service program or emergency
interdisciplinary coordinated service program, as necessary.
``(c) Mission.--The mission of a program developed and
implemented with a grant under this section shall be to--
``(1) streamline access to services by victims of crime;
``(2) eliminate barriers to services for victims of crime;
``(3) coordinate client services across disciplines to
assure continuity of care, including the use of technology to
link service providers to each other;
``(4) improve how victims of crime experience the criminal
justice system in order to promote cooperation and trust;
``(5) reduce duplication of effort in outreach and
provision of services to victims;
``(6) assist crime victims in avoiding unnecessary and
repetitive interviewing, retelling of victimization, and
completion of applications; and
``(7) improve service delivery through client input and
feedback.
``(d) Preference.--In awarding grants under this section,
the Director shall give preference to lead entities that
collaborate with the most comprehensive coalition of entities
that impact or serve victims of crime.
``(e) Oversight--
``(1) Funding proposal.--The proposed distribution of
funding among the lead entity and any collaborating entities
shall be included in any grant application for funding.
``(2) Report.--Each lead entity that receives a grant under
this section shall submit to the Director, for each year in
which funds from a grant under this section are expended, a
report assessing the effectiveness of the emergency
interdisciplinary coordinated service program or the
interdisciplinary coordinated service program.
``(f) Review of Program Effectiveness.--
``(1) In general.--The Director of the National Institute
for Justice shall conduct an evaluation of the emergency
interdisciplinary coordinated service programs and the
interdisciplinary coordinated service programs carried out
under this section to determine the effectiveness and cost
effectiveness of the programs in carrying out the mission and
duties described under subsection (c).
``(2) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director of the National Institute
of Justice shall submit, to the Committees on the Judiciary
of the House of Representatives and the Senate, a written
report on the results of the evaluation required under
paragraph (1).
``(g) Duration.--The Director shall award grants under this
section for a period not to exceed 4 years, but may renew the
grant for a period not to exceed 2 years on such terms as the
Director may reasonably require.
``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated,
in addition to funds made available by section
1402(d)(4)(C)--
``(A) $6,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through
2007 for emergency interdisciplinary service programs; and
``(B) $14,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through
2007 for interdisciplinary service programs.
``(2) Deadlines.--Funds appropriated for emergency
interdisciplinary service programs shall be made available by
the Director not later than 30 days after the date of the
community crisis and distributed not later than 120 days
after the date of the community crisis.
``(3) Transfer of unexpended funds.--All funds
appropriated, but not expended, for emergency
interdisciplinary service programs during each fiscal year
shall be obligated to interdisciplinary service programs for
distribution in the subsequent fiscal year and shall not be
diverted to offset increased spending.
``(4) Evaluation.--Funds appropriated pursuant to paragraph
(1) may be used to carry out the provisions under subsection
(f).
``(5) Maintenance of effort.--Funds appropriated pursuant
to this section shall be
[[Page S4907]]
used to supplement, and not supplant, non-Federal funds that
would otherwise be available to support interdisciplinary
service programs and emergency interdisciplinary service
programs.
``(i) False Claims Act.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, amounts collected pursuant to sections 3729
through 3731 of title 31, United States Code (commonly known
as the `False Claims Act'), may be used for grants under this
section.''.
SEC. 205. GRANTS FOR SERVICES TO CRIME VICTIMS WITH SPECIAL
COMMUNICATION NEEDS.
The Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601 et seq.)
is amended by inserting after section 1404E, as added by
section 204 of this Act, the following:
``SEC. 1404F. SERVICES TO VICTIMS WITH SPECIAL COMMUNICATION
NEEDS.
``(a) In General.--The Director is authorized to award
demonstration grants under section 1404(c)(1)(A) to States,
tribal governments, local governments, and qualified public
or private entities to support the extension of services to
victims with special communication needs.
``(b) Mission.--The mission of a demonstration grant
awarded under this section shall be to expand the capacity of
victim service providers to serve crime victims with special
communication needs relating to limited English proficiency,
hearing loss, or developmental disabilities.
``(c) Use of Funds.--Activities funded under a
demonstration grant awarded under this section may include--
``(1) contracting with a telephonic interpreter service to
offer services to a specified pool of victim service
providers, at no additional cost to such service providers or
at a discounted rate;
``(2) the use of local interpreters;
``(3) the use of bilingual or multilingual victim advocates
or assistants;
``(4) foreign language classes and cultural competency
training for service providers;
``(5) translation of materials;
``(6) hearing assistance devices;
``(7) services to help individuals with developmental
disabilities understand court proceedings;
``(8) community outreach; and
``(9) other means to improve accessibility of victim
services for crime victims with special communication needs.
``(d) Task Forces.--
``(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a State, tribal government, local government,
or qualified public or private entity shall have established
a task force to study needs and alternatives for promoting
greater access to services for crime victims with special
communication needs.
``(2) Membership.--The task force referred to in paragraph
(1) shall be composed of representatives of--
``(A) system and non-system based victim service providers;
``(B) the predominant ethnic communities; and
``(C) individuals with severe hearing loss or developmental
disabilities.
``(3) Recommendations.--Each task force referred to in
paragraph (1) shall--
``(A) study the issues described under paragraph (1) during
the period of any grant awarded; and
``(B) make specific recommendations for expenditures by the
grant recipient.
``(e) Annual Report.--Each entity that receives a grant
under this section shall submit to the Director, for each
year in which funds from a grant received under this section
are expended, a report containing--
``(1) a summary of the activities carried out under the
grant;
``(2) an assessment of the effectiveness of such activities
in extending services to previously unserved and underserved
victims of crime;
``(3) a strategic plan for the year following the year
covered under paragraph (1); and
``(4) such other information as the Director may require.
``(f) Duration.--The Director shall award demonstration
grants under this section for a period not to exceed 4 years,
but may renew the grant for a period not to exceed 2 years on
such terms as the Director may reasonably require.
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section,
which shall remain available until expended--
``(1) $500,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
``(2) $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2005 through
2007.
``(h) False Claims Act.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, amounts collected pursuant to sections 3729
through 3731 of title 31, United States Code (commonly known
as the `False Claims Act') may be used for grants under this
section.''.
TITLE III--AMENDMENTS TO VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT OF 1984
SEC. 301. FORMULA FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM THE CRIME VICTIMS
FUND.
(a) Formula for Fund Distributions.--Section 1402(c) of the
Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601(c)) is amended
to read as follows:
``(c) Fund Distribution; Retention of Sums in Fund;
Availability for Expenditure Without Fiscal Year
Limitation.--
``(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C),
the total amount to be distributed from the Fund in any
fiscal year shall be not less than 105 percent nor more than
115 percent of the total amount distributed from the Fund in
the previous fiscal year, provided that the amount shall at a
minimum be sufficient fully provide grants in accordance with
sections 1403(a)(1), 1404(a)(1), and 1404(c)(2).
``(B) In any fiscal year that there is an insufficient
amount in the Fund to fully provide grants in accordance with
subparagraph (A), the amounts made available for grants under
sections 1403(a), 1404(a), and 1404(c) shall be reduced by an
equal percentage.
``(C) In any fiscal year that the total amount available in
the Fund is more than 2 times the total amount distributed in
the previous fiscal year, up to 125 percent of the amount
distributed in the previous fiscal year may be distributed.
``(2) In each fiscal year, the Director shall distribute
amounts from the Fund in accordance with subsection (d).
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all sums
deposited in the Fund that are not distributed shall remain
in reserve in the Fund for obligation in future fiscal years,
without fiscal year limitation.''.
(b) Establishment of Base Amount for Total Victim
Assistance Grants.--Section 1404(a)(1) of the Victims of
Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10603(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(1)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Except as provided in section 1402(c)(1)(B), the
total amount distributed to States under this subsection in
any fiscal year shall not be less than the average amount
distributed for this purpose during the prior 3 fiscal
years.''.
(c) Establishment of Base Amount for OVC Discretionary
Grants.--Section 1404(c)(2) of the Victims of Crime Act of
1984 (42 U.S.C. 10603(c)(2)) is amended by inserting after
``(2)'' the following: ``Except as provided in section
1402(c)(1)(B), the amount available for grants under this
subsection in any fiscal year shall not be less than the
average amount available for this purpose during the prior 3
fiscal years.''.
SEC. 302. CLARIFICATION REGARDING ANTITERRORISM EMERGENCY
RESERVE.
Section 1402(d)(5)(C) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984
(42 U.S.C. 10601(d)(5)(C)) is amended by inserting ``, and
any amounts used to replenish such reserve,'' after ``any
such amounts carried over''.
SEC. 303. PROHIBITION ON DIVERTING CRIME VICTIMS FUND TO
OFFSET INCREASED SPENDING.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to ensure that
amounts deposited in the Crime Victims Fund (as established
by section 1402(a) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42
U.S.C. 10601(a)) are distributed in a timely manner to assist
victims of crime as intended by current law and are not
diverted to offset increased spending.
(b) Treatment of Crime Victims Fund.--Section 1402 of the
Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(h) For purposes of congressional points of order, the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, any limitation on
spending from the Fund included in the President's budget or
enacted in appropriations legislation for fiscal year 2004 or
any subsequent fiscal year shall not be scored as
discretionary savings.''.
Crime Victims Assistance Act of 2003--Section-by-Section Summary
overview
The Crime Victims Assistance Act of 2003 represents an
important step in Congress's continuing efforts to provide
assistance and afford respect to victims of crime. The bill
will accomplish three major goals. First, it will provide
enhanced rights and protections for victims of federal
crimes. Second, it will assist victims of State crimes
through grant programs designed to promote compliance with
State victim's rights laws. Third, it will improve the manner
in which the Crime Victims Fund is managed and preserved.
TITLE I--VICTIM RIGHTS IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM
Sec. 101. Right to consult concerning detention. Requires
the government to consult with victim prior to a detention
hearing to obtain information that can be presented to the
court on the issue of any threat the suspected offender may
pose to the victim. Requires the court to make inquiry during
a detention hearing concerning the views of the victim, and
to consider such views in determining whether the suspected
offender should be detained.
Sec. 102. Right to a speedy trial. Requires the court to
consider the interests of the victim in the prompt and
appropriate disposition of the case, free from unreasonable
delay.
Sec. 103. Right to consult concerning plea. Requires the
government to make reasonable efforts to notify the victim
of, and consider the victim's views about, any proposed or
contemplated plea agreement. Requires the court, prior to
entering judgment on a plea, to make inquiry concerning the
views of the victim on the issue of the plea.
Sec. 104. Enhanced participatory rights at trial. Provides
standing for the prosecutor and the victim to assert the
right of the victim to attend and observe the trial. Extends
the Victim Rights Clarification Act to apply to televised
proceedings. Amends the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act
of 1990 to strengthen the right of crime victims to be
present at court proceedings, including trials.
[[Page S4908]]
Sec. 105. Enhanced participatory rights at sentencing.
Requires the probation officer to include as part of the
presentence report any victim impact statement submitted by a
victim. Extends to all victims the right to make a statement
or present information in relation to the sentence. Requires
the court to consider the victim's views concerning
punishment, if such views are presented to the court, before
imposing sentence.
Sec. 106. Right to notice concerning sentence adjustment,
discharge from psychiatric facility, and executive clemency.
Requires the government to provide the victim the earliest
possible notice of (1) the scheduling of a hearing on
modification of probation or supervised release for the
offender; (2) the discharge or conditional discharge from a
psychiatric facility of an offender who was found not guilty
by reason of insanity; or (3) the grant of executive clemency
to the offender. Requires the Attorney General to report to
Congress concerning executive clemency matters delegated for
review or investigation to the Attorney General.
Sec. 107. Procedures to promote compliance. Establishes an
administrative system for enforcing the rights of crime
victims in the Federal system.
TITLE II--VICTIM ASSISTANCE INITIATIVES
Sec. 201. Pilot programs to enforce compliance with State
crime victim's rights laws. Authorizes the establishment of
pilot programs in five States to establish and operate
compliance authorities to promote compliance and effective
enforcement of State laws regarding the rights of victims of
crime. Compliance authorities will receive and investigate
complaints relating to the provision or violation of a crime
victim's rights, and issue findings following such
investigations. Amounts authorized are $5 million through
FY2004, and such sums as necessary for the next two fiscal
years.
Sec. 202. Increased resources to develop state-of-the-art
systems for notifying crime victims of important dates and
developments. Authorizes grants to develop and implement
crime victim notification systems. Amounts authorized are $10
million through FY2004, and $5 million for each of the next
two fiscal years.
Sec. 203. Restorative justice grants. Authorizes grants to
establish juvenile restorative justice programs. Eligible
programs shall: (1) be fully voluntary by both the victim and
the offender (who must admit responsibility); (2) include as
a critical component accountability conferences, at which the
victim will have the opportunity to address the offender
directly; (3) require that conferences be attended by the
victim, the offender, and when possible, the parents or
guardians of the offender, and the arresting officer; and (4)
provide an early, individualized assessment and action plan
to each juvenile offender. These programs may act as an
alternative to, or in addition to, incarceration. Amounts
authorized are $8 million through FY2004, and $4 million for
each of the next two fiscal years.
Sec. 204. Grants to develop interdisciplinary coordinated
service programs for victims of crime. Authorizes grants to
establish or develop case management programs that can
coordinate the various systems and programs that impact or
assist victims, thereby streamlining access to services and
reducing ``revictimization'' within the criminal justice
system. Emergency interdisciplinary coordinated service
programs will respond to events that have serious
consequences on a particular community, such as terrorist
attacks. Amounts authorized are $6 million for each of the
next four fiscal years.
Sec. 205. Grants for services to crime victims with special
communication needs. Authorizes demonstration grants to
expand the capacity of victim service providers to serve
victims with special communication needs, such as limited
English proficiency, hearing disabilities, and developmental
disabilities. Amounts authorized are $500,000 through FY2004,
and $5 million for each of the next three fiscal years.
TITLE III--AMENDMENTS TO THE VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT
Sec. 301. Formula for distributions from the Crime Victims
Fund. Replaces the annual cap on distributions from the Crime
Victims Fund with a formula that ensures stability in the
amounts distributed while preserving the amounts remaining in
the Fund for use in future years. In general, subject to the
availability of money in the Fund, the total amount to be
distributed in any fiscal year shall be not less than 105
percent nor more than 115 percent of the total amount
distributed in the previous fiscal year. This section also
establishes minimum levels of annual funding for both State
victim assistance grants and discretionary grants by the
Office for Victims of Crime.
Sec. 302. Clarification regarding antiterrorism emergency
reserve. Clarifies the intent of the USA PATRIOT Act
regarding the restructured Antiterrorism emergency reserve,
which was that any amounts used to replenish the reserve
after the first year would be above any limitation on
spending from the Fund.
Sec. 303. Prohibition on diverting crime victims fund to
offset increased spending. Ensures that the amounts deposited
in the Crime Victims Fund are distributed in a timely manner
to assist victims of crime as intended by current law and are
not diverted to offset increased spending.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, victims of crime deserve to have their
voices heard and be notified about important events in the criminal
justice system relating to their cases, and they deserve enforceable
rights under the law.
Today, my colleagues and I are introducing the Crime Victims
Assistance Act. It is especially appropriate that we do so this week,
which is National Crime Victims' Rights Week. Our bill is intended to
define the rights of victims more clearly, and establish effective
means to implement and enforce these rights. Equally important, it does
so without taking the unnecessary and time-consuming step of amending
the Constitution.
Our bill strengthens protections for victims of both violent and
nonviolent Federal crimes, and gives them a greater voice in the
criminal justice system. It gives victims a number of important rights,
such as the right to be notified and consulted on detention and plea
agreements; the right to be present and heard at trial and at
sentencing; and the right to be notified of a scheduled hearing on a
sentence adjustment, discharged from a psychiatric facility, or grant
of clemency.
The rights established by this bill will fill existing gaps in
Federal criminal law and will be a major step toward guaranteeing that
victims of crime receive fair treatment and are afforded the respect
they deserve. Our bill achieves these goals in a way that does not
interfere with the rights of the States to protect victims in ways
appropriate to each State.
Rather than mandating that States modify their criminal justice
procedures in particular ways, our bill authorizes the use of Federal
funds to establish effective programs to promote victim rights
compliance. It increases resources for the development of state-of-the-
art systems for notifying victims of important dates and developments
in their cases. It provides funds for the development of community-
based programs relating to those rights. It also provides funds for
case management programs to streamline access to victims services and
reduce ``revictimization'' by the criminal justice system, and enable
service providers to help victims with special communication needs,
such as limited English proficiency, hearing disabilities, and
developmental disability.
Finally, our bill replaces the cap on spending form the Crime Victims
Fund, which has prevented millions of dollars of fund deposits from
reaching victims and supporting essential services. The bill adopts a
new approach supported by victim groups to strengthen the stability of
the fund and protect its assets, while allowing more funds to be
distributed for victim programs.
We do not have to amend the Constitution to achieve these important
goals. The Constitution is the foundation of our democracy. It reflects
the enduring principles of our country. The Framers deliberately made
the Constitution difficult to amend because it was never intended to be
used for normal legislative purposes. If it is not necessary to amend
the Constitution to achieve particular goals, it is necessary not to
amend it. Our legislation is well-designed to establish effective and
enforceable rights for victims of crime, and I urge my colleagues to
support it.
______
By Mr. SESSIONS (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
S. 807. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a
maximum term of supervised release of life for sex offenders; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the legislation I have offered, along
with Senator Hatch, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, is called the
Lifetime Consequences for Sex Offenders Act of 2003. It is supported by
the U.S. Department of Justice.
We will be seeking to include it within the child crimes bill,
otherwise known as the PROTECT Act.
Studies show that sexual offenders are prone toward recidivism
throughout their lives. A 1988 study of sexual recidivism factors on
child molesters showed that 43 percent of offenders sexually reoffended
within a 4-year followup period--43 percent, almost half of them who
were caught. Within a 4-year period, maybe others reoffended and were
not caught. So one way to help curb that recidivism is to place the
defendant on supervised release for a period of years after he or she
is released from prison.
[[Page S4909]]
Currently, under 18 U.S.C. Section 3543, a Federal judge is allowed
to impose a term of 1 to 5 years supervised release on a convicted sex
offender. In a review of 42 studies regarding sexual-offender
recidivism in which researchers followed up on the offenders, the
researchers have found that the longer the followup period is, the
greater is the percentage of those who will commit another crime. So it
means they tend to reoffend way out into extended periods of time.
So this will give the sentencing court discretion to place a sex
offender on supervised release for a term of up to life if the court
thinks that is appropriate.
Mr. President, I had one of America's finest citizens in my office
this afternoon, John Walsh of the ``America's Most Wanted'' program, of
which he is known so well. He has been a champion of protecting
children from sexual predators and abuse. He told me there is no
doubt--and there is no doubt scientifically or any other way--that
child predators and sexual offenders and child molesters tend to be
recidivists. Pedophiles continue that activity. We wish it were not so,
but we see that in the papers every day--people who have had prior
problems, who have not just offended one time.
When I was a Federal prosecutor, I prosecuted a number of individuals
charged with sexual based offenses. In almost every instance, those who
are apprehended--possessing child pornography, making child
pornography--had a history prior to that, over a period of years, of
the molestation of other children. In fact, I remember one who did not
appear to have that history, and the agent ended up talking to his
daughter or step-daughter, and she said when she was a young girl, he
had molested her. So there was never one defendant that I had, in the
fifteen years I prosecuted, who did not have a history of it.
It is a problem that we know is real. And it is not correct or wise
to have a judge maybe sentence somebody to jail for 5 years in custody,
and then they get out, and the most the judge can supervise them is 1
to 5 years. They may still be molesting children 25 years down the
road. Supervision can help them avoid repeat offenses and can help
protect children. And they will have a probation or parole officer
supervising their activities, making them report, on a daily basis,
knowing where they are working, making sure they are not working in an
area that could endanger children.
I think this is a commonsense bill. Senator Hatch and I are pleased
to offer it. It is something that needs to be made a part of American
law.
I appreciate the leadership that John Walsh has committed to these
issues and the PROTECT Act, in particular.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 807
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Lifetime Consequences for
Sex Offenders Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18.
Section 3583 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (e)(3), by inserting ``on any such
revocation'' after ``required to serve'';
(2) in subsection (h), by striking ``that is less than the
maximum term of imprisonment authorized under subsection
(e)(3)''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(k) Notwithstanding subsection (b), the authorized term
of supervised release for any offense under section 1201
involving a minor victim, and for any offense under section
1591, 2241, 2242, 2244(a)(1), 2244(a)(2), 2251, 2251A, 2252,
2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, 2423, or 2425, is any term of years
or life.''.
____________________