[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 187 (Thursday, November 21, 2019)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1495]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JACKIE SPEIER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 21, 2019

  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the following 
letter I sent to the U.S. Attorney General concerning H.R. 4729, the 
Courtney Wild Crime Victims' Rights Act.

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                Washington, DC, November 21, 2019.
     Hon. William Barr,
     U.S. Attorney General,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Attorney General Barr: I write to raise concerns about 
     a court filing recently made by prosecutors in the 
     Department, who cited my recent legislative efforts to 
     support Jeffrey Epstein's victims as being in opposition to 
     their currently pending petition before the Eleventh Circuit. 
     I hope that you will direct your prosecutors to correct the 
     misimpression that their inaccurate representation has 
     created.
       I introduced H.R. 4729, the Courtney Wild Crime Victims' 
     Rights Reform Act (the ``CVRA Reform Act''), in the House of 
     Representatives on October 17, 2019. The bill was inspired by 
     the challenges faced by the victims of serial sexual predator 
     Jeffrey Epstein in Florida, who were left in the dark as 
     prosecutors hashed out a secretive and shockingly lenient 
     plea deal. Among other things, my bill would clarify the 
     scope of rights guaranteed by the Crime Victims' Rights Act 
     (``CVRA''), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3771(a), by stating what the law 
     already provides in more explicit terms and conforming the 
     text to the original intent of Congress.
       In an attempt to deny the rights of Epstein's victims in 
     Florida, attorneys in the Department latched onto my bill and 
     misrepresented its intent in a brief recently submitted to 
     the Eleventh Circuit. Brief of the United States, In re 
     Courtney Wild, No. 19-13843 (11th Cir. Oct. 31, 2019). In 
     particular, the Department stated that my CVRA Reform Act 
     would ``amend the CVRA to state that its rights are extended 
     to cover non-prosecution agreements.'' Id. at 43.
       That is not what my bill would do. It would not 
     ``extend[]'' the CVRA's rights to non-prosecution agreements, 
     since the CVRA already covers non-prosecution agreements. 
     Rather, the bill would merely clarify that the CVRA covers 
     non-prosecution agreements.
       This is exactly what was said in the press release the 
     Department's attorneys cited:
       The Crime Victims' Rights Reform Act will:
       Clarify that victims of federal crimes have the right to 
     confer with the Government and be informed about key pre-
     charging developments in a case, such as . . . non-
     prosecution agreements.
       Press Release, Rep. Speier Introduces Bipartisan Courtney 
     Wild Crime Victims' Rights Reform Act of 2019 to Rectify 
     Injustices Faced by Epstein's Victims (Oct. 17, 2019) 
     (emphasis added), available at https://speier.house.gov/
media-center/press-releases/rep-speier-introducesbipartisan-
courtney-wild-crime-victims-rights.
       Your prosecutors are obviously attempting to suggest that 
     it is my view, and the view of my legislative co-sponsors, 
     that existing law does not provide protection to Courtney 
     Wild and other victims. But, as the press release states, the 
     legislation is designed to ``clarify'' what we understood to 
     already be existing law and Congressional intent under the 
     CVRA.
       The CVRA already provides that crime victims have CVRA 
     rights during the entirety of a criminal case--at every 
     stage, from the initial investigation all the way through any 
     disposition and sentence. Earlier in the Epstein case, the 
     District Court rejected the Department's crabbed 
     interpretation, relying on numerous court opinions correctly 
     holding that the rights guaranteed by the CVRA ``extend to 
     the pre-charge stage of criminal investigations and 
     proceedings.'' Doe v. United States, 950 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 
     1267 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (collecting cases); see also In re 
     Dean, 527 F.3d 391, 394 (5th Cir. 2008). When Congress 
     enacted the CVRA, it intended to protect crime victims 
     throughout the criminal justice process--from the 
     investigative phases to the conclusion of a case. Congress 
     could not have been clearer in its direction that using 
     ``best efforts'' to enforce the CVRA was an obligation of 
     ``[o]fficers and employees of the Department of Justice and 
     other departments and agencies of the United States engaged 
     in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime.'' 
     18 U.S.C. Sec. 377l(c)(l) (emphasis added).
       This is not the first time the Department has 
     misinterpreted legislative history in trying to deny victims 
     their rights. For example, in 2011 Senator Kyl, one of the 
     sponsors of the CVRA, was compelled to put a statement into 
     the Congressional Record when the Justice Department twisted 
     his words. See Letter from Jon Kyl, U.S. Sen. to Eric H. 
     Holder, Jr., Att'y Gen. (June 6, 2011), reprinted in 157 
     Cong. Rec. S3608 (daily ed. June 8, 2011). Senator Kyl was 
     responding to a 2010 Office of Legal Counsel opinion in which 
     the Department cited his statements in support of the CVRA's 
     passage to arrive at the (incorrect) position that CVRA 
     rights only ``are guaranteed from the time that criminal 
     proceedings are initiated (by complaint, information, or 
     indictment) and cease to be available if all charges are 
     dismissed either voluntarily or on the merits (or if the 
     Government declines to bring for-mal charges after the filing 
     of a complaint).'' Office of Legal Counsel, Mem. Op., The 
     Availability of Crime Victims' Rights Under the Crime 
     Victims' Rights Act of 2004 (Dec. 17, 2010, publicly released 
     May 20, 2011). Congress responded by clarifying that the CVRA 
     includes ``[t]he right to be informed in a timely manner of 
     any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement.'' Pub. L. 
     114-22, title I, Sec. 113(a), 129 Stat. 240.
       Despite Congress' clear intention to provide rights to 
     victims throughout the criminal process, the Department has 
     consistently read the CVRA narrowly and shirked its 
     statutorily required ``best efforts.'' That is one reason I 
     was compelled to write the CVRA Reform Act--to get the 
     Department to follow through on the CVRA's promises. I am 
     displeased that my legislation and accompanying press release 
     were misinterpreted, and I trust that you will direct your 
     prosecutors to correct with the Eleventh Circuit their 
     erroneous description of the proposed legislation.
           Sincerely,
     Jackie Speier

                          ____________________