[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 50 (Thursday, March 22, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3626-S3628]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Durbin, and Ms. 
        Collins):
  S. 973. A bill to amend the Mandatory Victims' Restitution Act to 
improve restitution for victims of crime, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be joined by 
Senators Grassley, Durbin and Collins in re-introducing the Restitution 
for Victims of Crime Act. This legislation will give Justice Department 
officials the tools they say are needed to help them do a better job of 
collecting court-ordered Federal restitution and fines. It is virtually 
identical to the bill we introduced in June of last year.
  Recent information from the Justice Department suggests the many 
victims of crime and their families continue to face a significant 
challenge in trying to recover a sense of emotional and financial 
security after a crime has been perpetrated against them.
  By law, victims of Federal crimes are generally entitled to ``full 
and timely restitution'' for losses from a convicted offender. 
Unfortunately new Justice Department data show that the amount of 
uncollected Federal criminal debt is still spiraling upward--jumping 
from some $41 billion in fiscal year 2005 to nearly $46 billion at the 
end of fiscal year 2006. This is a hike of some $5 billion in 
uncollected Federal

[[Page S3627]]

criminal debt int he past fiscal year alone. Criminal debt ordered by 
Federal courts in North Dakota that remained uncollected at the end of 
fiscal year 2006 totaled $18.7 million, up almost $4 million from the 
preceding year.
  Crime victims should not have to worry if those in charge of 
collecting court-ordered restitution on their behalf are making every 
possible effort to do so. We believe that passing the Restitution for 
Victimis of Crime Act would greatly help Federal criminal justice 
officials in this task.
  Our bill includes provisions that will remove many existing 
impediments to increased collections. It will also provide new tools to 
help Federal criminal justice officials prevent criminal defendants 
from spending or hiding their ill-gotten gains and other financial 
assets by setting up pre-conviction procedures for preserving assets 
for victims' restitution.
  I hope that my Senate colleagues will help us get the legislation 
enacted at the first available opportunity. This will send a clear and 
much-needed message to white collar and other criminals: if you commit 
a crime you will be held accountable and will not be allowed to benefit 
in any way from your criminal activity and ill-gotten gains. I also 
believe this bill will reassure many innocent victims of Federal crime 
that the justice system is working hard to recover court-ordered 
restitution that is owed to such victims.
  I understand that criminal debt collection can be a tough job. It may 
be impossible to collect the full amount of restitution owed to victims 
in some cases. Clearly criminal debt collections may be more difficult 
in cases where convicted criminals are in prison, ill-gotten gains are 
already gone or these criminals are without any other financial means 
to pay their full restitution.
  However, victims of crime in this country should expect Federal law 
enforcement officials tasked with collecting outstanding restitution to 
do a better job. At the very least, crime victims should not be 
concerned that their prospects for financial restitution are being 
diminished because criminal offenders are frittering away their ill-
gotten gains on lavish lifestyles and the like. But, as I have 
mentioned before, past Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
investigations rightly give many crime victims real reason to worry. 
GAO's work made clear that more financial assets could be recovered but 
for a failure of some criminal justice officials to make criminal debt 
collection a top priority.

  At my request, the GAO reviewed five white-collar financial fraud 
cases and concluded that the Justice Department's prospects were ``not 
good for collecting additional restitution from offenders'' owed to the 
victims--even though one or more of the criminal offenders involved had 
reported earning millions of dollars in income, having millions in net 
worth and/or were spending thousands of dollars monthly on 
entertainment and clothing prior to the judgments entered against them. 
In addition, the GAO found that certain offenders had taken expensive 
trips overseas, had fraudulently obtained millions of dollars in assets 
and converted those assets for personal use, had established businesses 
for their children, or held homes worth millions of dollars that were 
located in upscale neighborhoods. Despite all of this reported wealth, 
GAO found that only a small fraction of court-ordered restitution owed 
to victims had been collected.
  The legislation that Senator Grassley and I are re-introducing today 
is based on a comprehensive package of recommendations by the Justice 
Department that stem in large part from the work of the Task Force on 
Improving the Collection of Criminal Debt. Justice Department officials 
believe these changes will remove many of the current impediments to 
better debt collection.
  For example, Justice Department officials described a circumstance 
where they were prevented by a court from accessing $400,000 held in a 
criminal offender's 401(k) plan to pay a $4 million restitution debt to 
a victim because that court said the defendant was complying with a 
$250 minimum monthly payment plan and that payment schedule precluded 
any other enforcement actions. Our bill would remove impediments like 
this in the future.
  This legislation will address another major problem identified by the 
GAO for officials in charge of criminal debt collection; that is, many 
years can pass between the date a crime occurs and the date a court 
orders restitution. This gives criminal defendants ample opportunity to 
spend or hide their ill-gotten gains. Our bill sets up pre-conviction 
procedures for preserving assets for victims' restitution. These tools 
will help ensure that financial assets traceable to a crime are 
available when a court imposes a final restitution order on behalf of a 
victim. These tools are similar to those already used successfully in 
some States and by Federal officials in certain asset forfeiture cases.
  Key provisions of the bill would do the following:
  Clarify that court-ordered Federal criminal restitution is due 
immediately in full upon imposition, just like in civil cases and that 
any payment schedule ordered by a court is only a minimum obligation of 
a convicted offender.
  Allow Federal prosecutors to access financial information about a 
defendant in the possession of the U.S. Probation Office--without the 
need for a court order.
  Clarify that final restitution orders can be enforced by criminal 
justice officials through the Bureau of Prisons' Inmate Financial 
Responsibility Program.
  Ensure that if a court restricts the ability of criminal justice 
officials to enforce a financial judgment, the court must do so 
expressly for good cause on the record. Absent exceptional 
circumstances, the court must require a deposit, the posting of a bond 
or impose additional restraints upon the defendant from transferring or 
dissipating assets.
  Help ensure better recovery of restitution by requiring a court to 
enter a pre-conviction restraining order or injunction, require a 
satisfactory performance bond, or take other action necessary to 
preserve property that is traceable to the commission of a charged 
offense or to preserve other nonexempt assets if the court determines 
that it is in the interest of justice to do so.
  Under the bill, a criminal defendant is allowed to challenge a 
court's pre-judgment asset preservation order. For example, a defendant 
may challenge a post-indictment restraining order if he or she can show 
that there is no probable cause to justify the restraint or the order 
does not provide the accused with adequate resources for attorney fees 
or reasonable living expenses.
  Permit the Attorney General to commence a civil action under the 
Anti-Fraud Injunction Statute to enjoin a person who is committing or 
about to commit a Federal offense that may result in a restitution 
order; and permit a court to restrain the dissipation of assets in any 
case where it has power to enjoin the commission of a crime, not just 
banking or health care fraud as permitted under current law.
  Allow the United States under the Federal Debt Collections Procedure 
Act to use prejudgment remedies to preserve assets in criminal cases 
that are similar to those used in civil cases when it is needed to 
preserve a defendant's assets for restitution. Such remedies, including 
attachment, garnishment, and receivership, are not currently available 
in criminal cases because there is no enforceable debt prior to an 
offender's conviction and judgment.
  Clarify that a victim's attorney fees may be included in restitution 
orders, including cases where such fees are a foreseeable result from 
the commission of the crime, are incurred to help recover lost property 
or expended by a victim to defend against third-party lawsuits 
resulting from the defendant's crime.
  Allow courts at their discretion to order immediate restitution to 
those that have suffered economic losses or serious bodily injury or 
death as the result of environmental felonies. Under current law, 
courts can impose restitution in such cases as a condition of probation 
or supervised release but this means that many victims of environment 
crimes must wait for years to be compensated for their losses, if at 
all.
  The Restitution for Victims of Crime Act has previously been endorsed 
by a number of organizations concerned about the well-being of crime 
victims, including: The National Center for Victims of Crime, Mothers 
Against Drunk

[[Page S3628]]

Driving, the National Organization for Victims Assistance (NOVA), the 
National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, Parents of Murdered Children, 
Inc., Justice Solutions, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, 
the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and the National 
Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators (NAVAA). Most recently, 
the National Crime Victim Law Institute shared its support for our 
bill.
  Last year, United States Attorney Drew Wrigley in Fargo, North Dakota 
said this legislation ``represents important progress toward ensuring 
that victims of crime are one step closer to being made whole.''
  Senator Grassley and I look forward to working with these groups and 
others to move this bill forward in the legislative process. With the 
Justice Department's help, we can make criminal debt collection a top 
priority for all Federal criminal justice officials once again.
                                 ______