[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 96 (Wednesday, June 24, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7007-S7008]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Crapo):
  S. 1340. A bill to establish a minimum funding level for programs 
under the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 for fiscal years 2010 to 2014 
that ensures a reasonable growth in victim programs without 
jeopardizing the long-term sustainability of the Crime Victims Fund; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Crapo to 
introduce the Crime Victims Fund Preservation Act of 2009, which would 
restore and increase critical funding for direct services and 
compensation to victims of crime under the Victims of Crime Act.
  I was honored to support the passage of the Victims of Crime Act of 
1984, VOCA, which has been the principal means by which the Federal 
Government has supported essential services for crime victims and their 
families. The Victims of Crime Act provides grants for direct services 
to victims, such as state crime victim compensation programs, emergency 
shelters, crisis intervention, counseling, and assistance in 
participating in the criminal justice system. These services are all 
financed by a reserve fund created from fines and penalties paid by 
Federal criminal offenders, at no cost to taxpayers.
  A number of us have worked hard over the years to protect the Crime 
Victims Fund. State victim compensation and assistance programs serve 
nearly four million crime victims each year, including victims of 
violent crime, domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, elder 
abuse, and drunk driving. The Crime Victims Fund makes these programs 
possible and has helped hundreds of thousands of victims of violent 
crime bravely move forward with their lives.
  Several years ago, I worked to make sure that the Crime Victims Fund 
would be there in good times, and in bad. We made sure it had a ``rainy 
day'' capacity so that in lean years, victims and their advocates would 
not have to worry that the fund would run out of money and that they 
would be left stranded. More recently, an annual cap has been set on 
the level of funding to be spent from the Fund in a given year, in part 
to help preserve adequate funds from year to year. When this cap was 
established, and when President Bush then sought to empty the Crime 
Victims Fund of unexpended funds, I joined with Senator Crapo, Senator 
Mikulski and others from both political parties to make sure that the 
Crime Victims Fund was preserved. Fortunately Congress has consistently 
rejected efforts to rob crime victims of resources that are 
appropriately set aside to assist them and their families.
  Unfortunately, the cap on the fund has not kept pace with the demand 
for compensation and services. From 2006 to 2008, VOCA victim 
assistance formula grants were cut by $87 billion or 22 percent. This 
reduction in funding, coupled with the current economic climate, was 
devastating to victim service providers who were forced to curtail 
services, lay off staff, and close their doors, jeopardizing the well-
being and recovery of many crime victims.
  In addition, victim service professionals have seen a clear increase 
in victimization and victim need in the past year as job losses and 
economic stress translate into increased violence in the home and in 
our communities. The National Crime Victims Helpline reported a 25 
percent increase in calls in recent months and the National Domestic 
Violence Hotline reported a similar increase. Local shelters and crisis 
lines are also reporting a rise in demand as the shortage of affordable 
housing and rising unemployment are increasing the time that victims 
stay in emergency shelters. The rising unemployment rate also means 
victims are less likely to have insurance to cover their crime-related 
expenses.
  At a Judiciary Committee hearing I chaired in April on the Victim of 
Crime Act, witnesses testified that there has also been an increase in 
the variety of crimes being committed. The National Crime Victims 
Helpline has seen an increase in calls from fraud victims people 
falling prey to ``work at home'' scams, secret shopper scams, 
investment scams, mortgage fraud, and construction fraud. Such victims 
are in desperate need of financial counseling and mental health 
counseling to overcome the stress and emotional impact of falling 
victim to these scams. Under Federal regulations, States may use 
compensation and victim assistance programs to aid financial crime 
victims, but services are not available. Victim service providers are 
reluctant to expand their outreach and services without assured 
increased funding and there is already too much competition for the 
limited funds available. The National Census of Domestic Violence 
Services conducted last fall showed that in one day, nearly 9,000 
victims were turned away from shelter, counseling, and other crucial 
services because local programs were unable to serve them.
  The need for victim assistance and compensation has grown. The Crime 
Victims Fund can provide more help. Recent years have seen an increase 
in collections from criminal fines and penalties. Accordingly, Congress 
has the ability to provide stable and predictable growth without 
jeopardizing the sustainability of the fund, and should do so through 
this legislation. The Crime Victims Fund Preservation Act would 
establish a minimum funding level for programs under VOCA to ensure 
reasonable and predictable growth in victim services through fiscal 
year 2014. Providing a stable and predictable funding stream will 
enable states to expand their programs and outreach to the thousands of 
victims who have nowhere to turn. Again, I emphasize that it does not 
cost a dime of taxpayer funds but will come exclusively from Federal 
criminal fines and penalties.
  I want to commend Senator Mikulski, the Chairwoman of the Commerce, 
Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee, and Senator Shelby, 
the Ranking Member, for working with the President to provide $100 
million in the economic recovery package for crime victims. That 
additional funding is sorely needed right now and I know it was 
sincerely appreciated by victim service providers. Funding in the 
Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 together with the Recovery Act 
funds, restored funding to the 2006 level, adjusted for inflation. A 
2010 cap on total VOCA obligations of $705 million is expected to 
maintain the funding level for assistance grants provided in 2009 
through the Recovery Act funding and annual appropriations. I believe 
that

[[Page S7008]]

the certainty this legislation will provide will be helpful to the 
states, victim service providers, and the citizens they serve, and will 
help improve this vital program.
  I look forward to working with Senator Crapo, Senator Mikulski and 
many other interested Senators on this initiative to provide increased, 
stable, and predicable funding for to meet the ongoing need for 
essential services for crime victims and their families in the years 
ahead.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1340

       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 ``Crime Victims Fund 
     Preservation Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. CRIME VICTIMS FUND.

       Section 1402(c) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 
     U.S.C. 10601(c)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(c)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) The amount made available from the Fund for the 
     purposes of paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of subsection (d) 
     shall be not less than--
       ``(A) $705,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
       ``(B) $867,150,000 for fiscal year 2011;
       ``(C) $1,066,594,500 for fiscal year 2012;
       ``(D) $1,311,911,235 for fiscal year 2013; and
       ``(E) $1,613,650,819 for fiscal year 2014.''.
                                 ______