[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 11, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S916-S920]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMY AND VICKY CHILD PORNOGRAPHY VICTIM RESTITUTION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF
2015
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will
report S. 295.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 295) to amend section 2259 of title 18, United
States Code, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 1 hour
of debate, equally divided in the usual form.
The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I thank the majority leader for moving
ahead on S. 295, which we call the Amy and Vicky Act.
The need for this bill arises because of the Supreme Court's 5-to-4
decision last year in Paroline v. United States.
The Court at that time limited the recovery that a victim of a child
pornography offense could receive, even as additional wrongdoers saw
her image as it was repeatedly posted on the Internet.
Rather than making the offender provide restitution for all the harms
caused by the repeated viewings, the Supreme Court limited the recovery
against any one defendant to the relative harm that defendant caused.
This bill will expand the categories of loss for which the victim
could recover. It would reverse, then, the Supreme Court by permitting
the victim to recover up to the full loss from any one defendant,
subject to a minimum amount, depending upon the defendant's conduct. No
longer, then, would the victim receive restitution from each defendant
limited to that defendant's own actions. Each defendant would be
jointly and severally liable for the victim's entire loss.
The bill sets up a contribution procedure for those defendants, which
then would make the victim whole. Of course, that is the main point.
The choice is between the convicted child pornography offender being
held responsible for the full loss and the innocent victim not
receiving full compensation.
The Supreme Court ruled that the victim could not receive all her
restitution from any one single defendant,
[[Page S917]]
even as her damage suffered was compounded. This bill appropriately
rejects that. I hope it is not the last time this Congress overturns a
Supreme Court decision.
I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, as I was
in the last Congress. I was pleased that the first legislation the
Judiciary Committee took up when I became chairman was this bipartisan
child pornography bill, and I am glad to have shepherded that bill
through the committee so that the Senate at this time can take it up as
one of its first legislative items.
We should all commend, as I do, Senator Hatch for his work on this
very important piece of legislation.
I yield the floor.
Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I am very pleased to see the Senate will
pass the bipartisan Justice for Amy and Vicky Act.
As an original co-sponsor of this bill, it's great to see that the
Senate is helping ensure that victims of child pornography are able to
receive full restitution for the terrible harms that they have
suffered.
Last year, the Supreme Court issued a decision that sharply limited
the remedies available to victims of child pornography.
The case involved Pennsylvania resident ``Amy.''
``Amy'' was just eight and nine years old when her uncle raped her.
Amy received help from a therapist and her family, and began to heal.
Then, at age 17, Amy learned that her uncle recorded the events and
traded them over the Internet. Amy is believed to be the most widely
traded image of child pornography: Her attorney estimates that over
70,000 people have viewed these images.
I cannot begin to imagine the devastation Amy feels, so I turn to her
own words. Amy writes:
Every day of my life I live in constant fear that someone
will see my pictures and recognize me and that I will be
humiliated all over again. It hurts me to know someone is
looking at them--at me--when I was just a little girl being
abused for the camera. I did not choose to be there, but now
I am there forever in pictures that people are using to do
sick things. I want it all erased. I want it all stopped. But
I am powerless to stop it just like I was powerless to stop
my uncle. . . . My life and my feelings are worse now because
the crime has never really stopped and will never really
stop. . . . It's like I am being abused over and over and
over again.
Amy has struggled to hold down a steady job, facing repeated
breakdowns. Amy estimates she has suffered $3.4 M in lost income and
counseling costs over the years.
Amy sought restitution from those who viewed and traded her image.
The Federal restitution statute allows a victim of child pornography to
collect restitution from those convicted of producing, trafficking, or
viewing images of the victim's abuse.
But Amy faced a problem common in child pornography cases: Tens of
thousands of people have trafficked in her image. When she attempted to
collect restitution, could she collect the full amount from any one
person? Or would she have to wait for tens of thousands of people to be
criminally convicted, collecting a small amount from each person, in
order to be made whole?
Last April, in the case of Paroline v. United States, the Supreme
Court decided that Federal statute required the latter. The Supreme
Court recognized that this was unworkable, and it called on Congress to
provide a legislative remedy.
Last year, I responded to the Supreme Court's call by introducing the
Justice for Amy Act, which would ensure that victims of child
pornography are able to receive full restitution, without having to
appear in thousands of court cases.
It sought to amend the Federal restitution statute to provide that
all defendants who produce, traffic, or possess child pornography of a
victim are jointly and severally liable for all of that victim's
damages, and may sue one another for contribution. This goal is to take
the burden off of the child victim, and places it on the child
pornographers. Once one defendant is found guilty, he is held liable
for the full damages and the burden is on him to sue all other
wrongdoers to help pay the restitution award.
I am pleased to see that this commonsense approach has been adopted
by and incorporated into the Justice for Amy and Vicky Act. I am proud
to be an original co-sponsor of this important legislation that the
Senate will pass today.
This bill provides one important first step in ensuring that victims
of child sexual abuse receive the help they need. I look forward to
continuing to work with my colleagues to provide additional protections
for America's children.
Mr. DAINES. Madam President, as a father of four, I am deeply
concerned by the very need for legislation like S. 295, the Amy and
Vicky Child Pornography Victim Restitution Improvement Act. It is
appalling that even a single one of our children is subject to such
base and vile exploitation. As parents, and as a Nation, it is
paramount we guard our children when there are those who would exploit
them in pornography, who would enslave them in human and sex
trafficking, and who would perpetrate this sickening crime upon them.
The Amy and Vicky Child Pornography Victim Restitution Act is one
more step in laying the full consequences of these heinous crimes upon
the perpetrators. While current law brings criminals to justice before
the courts, it can leave the victims to reconstruct their lives with
only limited resources on hand. This bill would make sure victims of
child pornography have what they need to rebuild and restore their
lives by making the perpetrators financially responsible.
Yet while it is a good and necessary step, nothing can ever truly be
done by the law or the courts to repair the damage that has been
wrought on these lives. We must stop it before it begins. So let us
help those who are in need of healing and stop those who would continue
this violence.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that any time during the quorum
calls be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Department of Homeland Security Funding
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, later this month, on February 27, funding
for the Department of Homeland Security will run out. I think we all
agree this is a critical time for our country's national security, and
it is important that we fully fund Department of Homeland Security to
protect Americans against terrorist attacks.
But in recent days several of my friends across the aisle have spoken
on this floor asserting that Republicans are trying to force a
Department of Homeland Security shutdown. Nothing could be further from
the truth.
Essentially, their argument is that unless Republicans choose to
completely agree with President Obama's egregious constitutional
violation of executive power to implement major changes in our
immigration laws--an issue which is clearly the responsibility of the
people's elected representatives--then Republicans will be responsible
for any lapse in DHS funding.
So to put all this in perspective regarding this situation and the
assertion that a few of my colleagues have made, let me give you some
thoughts. First, let's remember how we got into this situation to start
with. In 2008, a Presidential candidate by the name of Barack Obama
said the following:
I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest
problems that we are facing right now have to do with trying
to bring more and more power into the executive branch and
not go through Congress at all. And that's what I intend to
reverse when I am President of the United States of America.
He went on to say when he was President:
[[Page S918]]
America is a nation of laws, which means that as President,
I am obligated to enforce that law. I don't have a choice
about that. That's part of my job. But I can advocate for
changes in the law so that we can have a country that is
respectful of the law but also continues to be a great
country of immigrants.
Here is the key statement:
With respect to the notion that I can just suspend
deportations through executive order, that is just not the
case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has
passed.
I could go on and on about what the President has said about his
limitation of powers both as a candidate and as the President of the
United States. Of course, he has violated and trampled on every word he
has said, broken many promise he has made, and taken just the reverse
position on everything he said about this issue on the Senate floor as
a Senator and now as President.
So Republicans have responded by simply saying: ``That is a violation
of your Executive power. We think these issues ought to be debated and
worked through the people's representatives, as they have been in the
past.''
Because there is an association between the Department of Homeland
Security funding and funding for certain aspects of immigration,
Republicans thought it would be worthwhile to bring a debate to the
floor so the public could hear what we have to say on this issue and so
that we could make adjustments through this process.
Having suffered through 6 years of this Presidency--4 years for me--
led by a then majority leader of the Democratic Party, with Republicans
not being allowed to debate on the floor any significant issues that
perhaps did not fit the Democratic agenda, new management has taken
over here and opened up the process so that we can again be the
people's representatives and speak and debate on the floor, offer
amendments--winning some, losing some--and come to a conclusion.
Looking for the right vehicle, the only real vehicle, that would
allow us to at least debate and offer our amendments in opposition to
what the President is trying to do has been totally stifled through
Democrat filibustering, not even allowing us to move forward with the
bill. So we are stuck here in a difficult situation, wanting to address
this egregious abuse of the power constitutionally designated to the
President and at the same time needing to fund our necessary security
needs through the Department of Homeland Security.
By not allowing us to even bring this issue to the floor of the
Senate and debate it back and forth, offering amendments to address
each Senator's various concerns, we neglect to move forward on
legislation that addresses these two important needs: Number 1, the
funding of our national security through DHS, and Number 2, the issue
of the President's constitutional overreach.
So we stand here frustrated with our inability to be able to go
forward in the way the American people expect us to go forward, in the
way this Senate has traditionally operated. Here we stand in a
stalemate because one party says: ``No, we don't even want to let you
talk about it.'' One party says: ``No, we don't even want to take it
up, offer our amendments.'' Maybe they are afraid they will not pass.
That is how it works here.
The irony is that at least eight Democrats, as I count, were very
critical when the President issued his Executive order regarding
immigration. They basically said: ``Yes, that does exceed his powers,
and he should not have done that.''
Here is an opportunity for them to weigh in with their votes instead
of just their rhetoric. Yet they will not even allow that to happen.
So we are caught here in this dilemma. But let me make a couple of
things absolutely clear, at least from my perspective. I do not believe
a departmental shutdown is the appropriate response to this issue.
Funding and paying for essential functions of the Department of
Homeland Security at a time when threats have never been higher is
absolutely critical. So we have to achieve that by whatever means.
By the same token, addressing this egregious constitutional violation
and the President's broken promises relative Executive power on
immigration is a key issue the American people want debated now. It
needs to be debated. Both sides have agreed that we need immigration
reform. But it ought to be done through the people's representatives
and not through the wishes of the President of the United States when
he does not have the power to make these changes.
So I trust that we will be able to work through this in the next
several days leading up to our recess or the end of this month when we
have to come to a conclusion. We are working hard to do that. We just
would like the opposing party, the Democrat Party, to allow its Members
to say where they stand, to offer changes, to offer alternatives, and
to offer amendments. It is important enough for us to do what we were
sent here to do, and that is to represent the people in this country on
the critically important issues that lie before us.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the bill before us proves the axiom that
big things come in small packages. This bill, the Amy and Vicky Child
Pornography Victim Restitution Improvement Act, may only be several
pages long, but it is a very big bill.
In 1994, by enacting the Violence Against Women Act, Congress
required that defendants who commit certain crimes pay restitution to
their victims. I had a lot to do with that bill. These are crimes--such
as the sexual exploitation of children--that have a particularly
devastating impact on victims, and they need help to put their lives
back together.
Last year, in a case titled ``Paroline v. United States,'' the
Supreme Court concluded that the restitution statute cannot provide the
restitution that Congress promised for child pornography victims. The
only way to fix this problem is to amend the restitution statute in a
way that accounts for the insidious and evil nature of child
pornography itself.
The Supreme Court held in Paroline that under the statute as
currently written, a victim can seek restitution only for losses that
are directly related to an individual defendant's distribution or
possession of specific images of her abuse. That is not only virtually
impossible to prove, but it pretends that defendants and images are
isolated and self-contained. The truth is that in the Internet age,
defendants are part of a growing, shifting, and constantly active group
of individuals who keep the victimization going. As the Supreme Court
put it in Paroline last year, each viewing of child pornography is a
repetition of the child's abuse. Everyone who drives the trafficking in
those images repeats that abuse and contributes to a victim's losses.
Some of them will be caught and prosecuted, while others will hide in
the shadows and seek safety in numbers.
The harsh reality for a victim is that the Internet has multiplied
the number of individuals who harm her and, at the same time, made it
harder to identify them so she can seek restitution--or should I say,
she really can't seek restitution.
The bill before us today addresses this cruel catch-22. This bill is
named for Amy and Vicky, the victims in two of the most widely viewed
child pornography series in the world.
When I reintroduced this bill on January 28, I also shared the story
of Andy, a young man in Utah who is the victim in another widely
distributed child pornography series.
He is the named victim in more than 700 cases but has been granted
restitution under Paroline in only one-quarter of the cases in which he
has sought it and actually received restitution in just two of those
cases.
This bill provides judges with options for calculating a victim's
total losses and imposing restitution in different kinds of cases. That
is not always easy for the very reason that I just described. A judge
must impose restitution in an individual case for losses that flow from
ongoing harm. But that is the diabolical nature of child pornography,
and we must equip the criminal justice system to address it.
This bill helps victims in another important way. Today a victim must
chase every single defendant to seek restitution, only to be told that
she
[[Page S919]]
must seek the impossible and, therefore, receive next to nothing. In
addition to providing a way for judges to require meaningful
restitution in individual cases, this bill allows defendants who harm
the same victim to seek contribution from each other to spread that
restitution cost.
Let me put it as simply as I can. The current statute maximizes a
victim's burden and minimizes her restitution. This bill minimizes a
victim's burden and maximizes her restitution.
Both Amy and Vicky personally endorse this bill. National victim
advocacy groups also support it, including the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children, the National Organization for Victim
Assistance, the National Crime Victim Law Institute, the National
Center for Victims of Crime, the National Task Force to End Sexual and
Domestic Violence Against Women, and the Rape, Abuse and Incest
National Network.
Last October I received a letter endorsing this bill signed by the
attorneys general of 43 States--22 Republicans and 21 Democrats. This
has, in fact, been a truly bipartisan effort.
The senior Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, has been my partner
from the start in developing this legislation and has been a champion
for crime victims for many years. It is important to have him on this
bill. He is one of the great leaders in the Senate today, and we intend
to do more together in the future.
The cosponsors include 22 Republicans and 17 Democrats. Big things
really do come in small packages.
I have been contacted by advocates working with dozens of countries
around the world to tackle the problem of child pornography and
exploitation. They emphasize the need for meaningful restitution and
say that this legislation can be an example for other countries to
follow.
Congress in 1994 required full restitution for child victims of
sexual exploitation. The Supreme Court last year confirmed that the
restitution statute cannot keep that promise to victims of child
pornography.
Enacting this legislation shows Congress at its best, stepping up and
taking the action necessary to address this problem. Amy, Vicky, and
Andy are counting on us.
This is an extremely important bill. It means that victims of child
pornography--usually videos that are shipped all around the world and
seen by, maybe, millions--have the chance of being able to get true
restitution under this bill. Before that, they would have to go and sue
everyone who was involved, and there is no way they could find that
out, no way they could really do that, no way they could really get
restitution and justify the attorneys' fees, and no way they could
really vindicate themselves and show these people, these horrible
people who do these things to children, that they are not going to get
away with it anymore.
This bill eliminates all of that. This bill makes it possible for the
victims of pornography and childhood exploitation to be able to recover
and to get restitution for the very poor treatment they have undergone.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Amy and
Vicky Child Pornography Victim Restitution Improvement Act, which my
good friend Senator Orrin Hatch has requested a vote on this afternoon.
First, I thank Senator Hatch for his work on this important
legislation. I was proud to work alongside him as the Democratic
cosponsor of his bill, and he has been an absolute force in pushing
this bill in the Judiciary Committee and to the floor today. We have
had a great partnership and have worked on many things together, and I
think I join every one of my 99 colleagues in telling the Senator from
Utah how much respect we have for him.
Our bill does one important thing. It fixes a flaw in our restitution
system for pornography victims. You see, in this day and age, victims
of child pornography face ongoing harm every time a video or picture of
them is shared and viewed on the Internet. As the Supreme Court
explained about a victim:
These sexual abuse crimes are compounded by the
distribution of images of her abuser's horrific acts, which
meant the wrongs inflicted upon her were in effect repeated;
for she knew her humiliation and hurt were and would be
renewed into the future as an ever-increasing number of
wrongdoers witnessed the crimes committed against her.
The horror of sexual abuse can be long lasting. It can constitute the
loss of income, medical care, psychiatric counseling, and therapy. The
victims of sexual abuse, therefore, are absolutely in the right to seek
restitution from those evil criminals who perpetuate the original crime
by sharing and viewing images of the crime.
A 2014 Supreme Court case, Paroline v. United States, placed a heavy
burden on the child pornography victims trying to recover restitution.
The tragic effect of the Supreme Court's decision in the Paroline case
was this: The more widely viewed the pornographic image of a victim and
the more offenders there are, the more difficult it is for the victim
to recover for her anguish and her damages.
For the perpetrators of child pornography, there should not be safety
in numbers.
Now, the bill that Senator Hatch has led on and I was proud to
cosponsor rights this wrong. Our bill provides a method for these
victims to seek restitution for the total harm they endured from this
horrific victimization. Specifically, the Amy and Vicky Act does three
things that reflect the nature of these crimes. First, it considers the
total harm to the victim, including from individuals who may not yet
have been identified. Second, it requires real and timely restitution.
And, third, it allows defendants who have contributed to the same
victims' harm to spread the restitution cost among themselves.
These specific changes are supported by the attorneys general of 43
States and countless national victim advocacy groups, such as the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and they have wide
bipartisan support in the Senate.
Once again, I commend my colleague Senator Hatch for the great work
he has done on this and other things.
As I said while he was not in the Chamber, I look forward to our
working on many other causes together. He is a great leader and very
well respected by me and all of his colleagues.
I urge my colleagues to pass this important measure to give more
power to the victims of sexual abuse to seek redress, closure, and
justice for the crimes--the dastardly crimes--committed against them.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I yield back all time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.
Under the previous order, amendment No. 250 is agreed to.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To improve the bill)
On page 4, beginning on line 22, strike ``sexual conduct
(as those terms are defined in section 2246)'' and insert
``sexual contact (as those terms are defined in section 2246)
or sexually explicit conduct (as that term is defined in
section 2256)''.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, shall it pass?
Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator form Nevada (Mr. Reid) is
necessarily absent.
[[Page S920]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 55 Leg.]
YEAS--98
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Vitter
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Moran
Reid
The bill (S. 295), as amended, was passed, as follows:
S. 295
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 ``Amy and Vicky Child
Pornography Victim Restitution Improvement Act of 2015''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The demand for child pornography harms children because
it drives production, which involves severe and often
irreparable child sexual abuse and exploitation.
(2) The harms caused by child pornography are more
extensive than the harms caused by child sex abuse alone
because child pornography is a permanent record of the abuse
of the depicted child, and the harm to the child is
exacerbated by its circulation. Every viewing of child
pornography is a repetition of the victim's original
childhood sexual abuse.
(3) Victims suffer continuing and grievous harm as a result
of knowing that a large, indeterminate number of individuals
have viewed and will in the future view images of their
childhood sexual abuse. Harms of this sort are a major reason
that child pornography is outlawed.
(4) The unlawful collective conduct of every individual who
reproduces, distributes, or possesses the images of a
victim's childhood sexual abuse plays a part in sustaining
and aggravating the harms to that individual victim. Multiple
actors independently commit intentional crimes that combine
to produce an indivisible injury to a victim.
(5) It is the intent of Congress that victims of child
pornography be fully compensated for all the harms resulting
from each and every perpetrator who contributes to their
anguish.
(6) Congress intends to adopt and hereby adopts an
aggregate causation standard to address the unique crime of
child pornography and the unique harms caused by child
pornography.
(7) Victims should not be limited to receiving restitution
from defendants only for losses caused by each defendant's
own offense of conviction. Courts must apply a less
restrictive aggregate causation standard in child pornography
cases, while also recognizing appropriate constitutional
limits and protections for defendants.
SEC. 3. MANDATORY RESTITUTION.
Section 2259 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (3) and
inserting the following:
``(3) Definition.--(A) For purposes of this subsection, the
term `full amount of the victim's losses' includes any costs
incurred by the victim for--
``(i) lifetime medical services relating to physical,
psychiatric, or psychological care;
``(ii) lifetime physical and occupational therapy or
rehabilitation;
``(iii) necessary transportation, temporary housing, and
child care expenses;
``(iv) lifetime lost income; and
``(v) attorneys' fees, as well as other costs incurred.
``(B) For purposes of this subsection, the term `full
amount of the victim's losses' also includes any other losses
suffered by the victim, in addition to the costs listed in
subparagraph (A), if those losses are a proximate result of
the offense.
``(C) For purposes of this subsection, the term `full
amount of the victim's losses' also includes any losses
suffered by the victim from any sexual act or sexual contact
(as those terms are defined in section 2246) or sexually
explicit conduct (as that term is defined in section 2256) in
preparation for or during the production of child pornography
depicting the victim involved in the offense.'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d);
(3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Determining Restitution.--
``(1) Harmed by one defendant.--If the victim was harmed as
a result of the commission of an offense under section 2251,
2251A, 2252, 2252A, or 2260 by 1 defendant, the court shall
determine the full amount of the victim's losses caused by
the defendant and enter an order of restitution for an amount
that is not less than the full amount of the victim's losses.
``(2) Harmed by more than one defendant.--If the victim was
harmed as a result of offenses under section 2251, 2251A,
2252, 2252A, or 2260 by more than 1 person, regardless of
whether the persons have been charged, prosecuted, or
convicted in any Federal or State court of competent
jurisdiction within the United States, the court shall
determine the full amount of the victim's losses caused by
all such persons, or reasonably expected to be caused by such
persons, and enter an order of restitution against the
defendant in favor of the victim for--
``(A) the full amount of the victim's losses; or
``(B) an amount that is not more than the amount described
in subparagraph (A) and not less than--
``(i) $250,000 for any offense or offenses under section
2251(a), 2251(b), 2251(c), 2251A, 2252A(g), or 2260(a);
``(ii) $150,000 for any offense or offenses under section
2251(d), 2252(a)(1), 2252(a)(2), 2252(a)(3), 2252A(a)(1),
2252A(a)(2), 2252A(a)(3), 2252A(a)(4), 2252A(a)(6),
2252A(a)(7), or 2260(b); or
``(iii) $25,000 for any offense or offenses under section
2252(a)(4) or 2252A(a)(5).
``(3) Maximum amount of restitution.--No order of
restitution issued under this section may exceed the full
amount of the victim's losses.
``(4) Joint and several liability.--Each defendant against
whom an order of restitution is issued under paragraph (2)(A)
shall be jointly and severally liable to the victim with all
other defendants against whom an order of restitution is
issued under paragraph (2)(A) in favor of such victim.
``(5) Contribution.--Each defendant who is ordered to pay
restitution under paragraph (2)(A), and has made full payment
to the victim equal to or exceeding the statutory minimum
amount described in paragraph (2)(B), may recover
contribution from any defendant who is also ordered to pay
restitution under paragraph (2)(A). Such claims shall be
brought in accordance with this section and the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. In resolving contribution claims, the
court may allocate payments among liable parties using such
equitable factors as the court determines are appropriate so
long as no payments to victims are reduced or delayed. No
action for contribution may be commenced more than 5 years
after the date on which the defendant seeking contribution
was ordered to pay restitution under this section.'';
(4) in subsection (d), as redesignated, by striking ``a
commission of a crime under this chapter,'' and inserting
``or by the commission of (i) an offense under this chapter
or (ii) a series of offenses under this chapter committed by
the defendant and other persons causing aggregated losses,'';
and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of the Amy and Vicky Child Pornography Victim
Restitution Improvement Act of 2015, the Attorney General
shall submit to Congress a report on the progress, if any, of
the Department of Justice in obtaining restitution for
victims of any offense under section 2251, 2251A, 2252,
2252A, or 2260.''.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________