[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 106 (Thursday, June 17, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4604-S4607]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Broadband

  Mr. President, on Tuesday, the Commerce subcommittee of which I am 
the ranking member, the Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and 
Broadband, will hold a hearing on building resilient broadband 
networks. My hope is that this hearing will help inform discussions of 
broadband funding in any infrastructure legislation.
  I am particularly looking forward to hearing from Denny Law, the CEO 
of Golden West Telecommunications in South Dakota, who will speak on 
the challenges of deploying reliable and resilient broadband in rural 
areas.
  The pandemic provided the most significant test to date of the 
resiliency of our broadband networks. Overnight, quite literally, our 
networks faced huge new demands. As the Nation locked down, demand for 
broadband shot up. Our phones and tablets and laptops became our main 
way of communicating with friends and family and, for many of us, our 
main way of doing our jobs. Video conferencing exploded--staff 
meetings, strategy meetings, virtual happy hours, telemedicine.
  How did our networks stand up to the demand? Well, they exceeded 
expectations and vindicated the light-touch regulatory approach of the 
United States to broadband policy. While networks in Europe and 
elsewhere slowed streaming speeds in order to keep their networks up 
and running, U.S. networks maintained both their speed and quality. It 
was a real American success story.
  The success of American networks during the pandemic was the result 
of sustained investment by U.S. telecommunications companies, which 
have made network reliability a priority. Congress should continue to 
encourage this kind of private investment and maintain a regulatory 
regime that allows companies to make the kinds of choices and 
investments that have resulted in strong and resilient U.S. networks.
  Going forward, one of our priorities here in Congress has to be 
supporting the continued development of 5G. U.S. companies are already 
building out 5G networks, but there is more work to be done. We need to 
remove regulatory and permitting hurdles to deployment and ensure that 
companies have access to the spectrum they need to build strong 
networks.
  Increasing spectrum availability will spur 5G deployments, and we 
need to build on previous efforts to make spectrum available, like my 
MOBILE NOW Act, legislation that we passed a few years ago. I have also 
repeatedly introduced legislation called the STREAMLINE Small Cell 
Deployment Act to address another key part of the 5G equation, and that 
is infrastructure.
  Mr. President, 5G technology requires not just traditional cell phone 
towers but small antennas called ``small cells'' that can often be 
attached to existing infrastructure, like utility poles or buildings. 
The Federal Communications Commission, under Chairman Pai, modernized 
its regulations for the approval of small cells, but more work can be 
done to expedite small cell deployment.
  The STREAMLINE Act focuses on updating current law to better reflect 
emerging technology and to speed up permitting while respecting the 
role of State and local governments in making deployment decisions.
  Adequate spectrum and the ability to efficiently deploy 
infrastructure are essential for building out strong U.S. 5G networks. 
But there is another key part of the equation, and that is having a 
sufficient workforce to meet the demands of 5G deployment and, later, 
5G maintenance. That is why I have introduced the Telecommunications 
Skilled Workforce Act. My bill would help increase the number of 
workers enrolled in 5G training programs and identify ways to grow the 
telecommunications workforce to meet the demands of 5G.
  As the resident of a rural State, expanding broadband access in rural 
areas has long been a priority of mine here in the U.S. Senate. We have 
made a lot of progress in recent years, but there is more work to be 
done.
  I recently introduced the Rural Connectivity Advancement Program Act, 
along with Senators Hassan, Moran, and Cortez Masto. Our legislation 
would set aside proceeds from spectrum auctions conducted by the FCC to 
build out broadband in unserved areas. It is essential that we expedite 
the deployment of fixed broadband in rural areas because this 
technology is necessary groundwork for 5G deployment. Without reliable 
broadband, rural areas will be excluded from access to 5G.

  Reliable, fast internet is an essential element of our Nation's 
infrastructure. Like roads and bridges and railways and airports, 
strong internet networks keep our economy strong, and any 
infrastructure package should make an investment in broadband and 5G, 
as well as including regulatory relief, like that in my STREAMLINE Act, 
to expedite 5G deployment. However, we need to make sure that any 
Federal money is allocated in the most efficient manner possible and 
distributed responsibly, with coordination by expert Agencies like the 
Federal Communications Commission, to prevent waste.
  We don't want another situation like what happened in the wake of the 
2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which provided more than 
$7 billion to multiple Agencies for rural broadband deployment, a 
majority of which was wasted, resulting in just a fraction of the 
access that was promised.
  I am looking forward to Tuesday's hearing, and I will continue to 
work to advance nationwide 5G deployment and ensure that our rural 
communities receive the full benefits of the 5G revolution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 1652

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in the city of Chicago, which I am proud 
to represent, there is an organization called Life Span. This is an 
incredible group of people who dedicate their

[[Page S4605]]

lives to providing comprehensive services for the survivors of domestic 
violence and sexual assault.
  Every day they respond to horrifying cases of abuse. They help 
thousands of women and children access the support they need to address 
trauma and to rebuild their lives.
  For example, Life Span recently assisted a woman after her teenage 
daughter was sexually assaulted by the woman's husband. Life Span was 
able to help the mother and daughter navigate the overwhelming 
challenges of pursuing justice against the abuser and offer support to 
the daughter throughout this horrible process.
  When the mother pursued a divorce from the abuser, Life Span filed a 
petition and is representing the mother as she navigates issues of 
child support and allocation of custody.
  The three Life Span staffers that the mother and daughter have 
interacted with all provided critical bilingual and bicultural support. 
They have provided this crucial service for this family during an 
incredibly traumatic experience. And all three of these staffers are 
funded by assistance provided through the Victims of Crime Act, or 
VOCA. Life Span told me that without VOCA funding, ``none of these 
personnel . . . would be able to have done this job.''
  Congress passed the Victims of Crime Act in 1984 to establish the 
Crime Victims Fund. This fund provides grants to State victim 
compensation and assistance programs, which assist victims with 
expenses like medical bills, funeral expenses, and the loss of wages 
during recovery.
  How often I have heard Members of Congress come to the floor and in 
committee speak about the plight of the victims of crime. This is an 
effort--an overt effort by Congress--to make sure that we are there 
when they desperately need us.
  The fund also provides funds to thousands of victims service 
providers, like Life Span, across the Nation. These providers offer 
programs serving victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, child 
abuse, trafficking, and drunk driving.
  The Crime Victims Fund doesn't receive a dime of taxpayer dollars. 
How about that? It is funded through criminal fines, penalties, 
forfeited bail bonds, and special assessments collected by the Federal 
Government.
  Historically, most of the money in the fund comes from those criminal 
fines. But in recent years, deposits into the fund have dropped 
significantly, as the Justice Department began relying more on deferred 
prosecutions and nonprosecution agreements.
  Monetary penalties from these deferred prosecutions and 
nonprosecution agreements are currently deposited into the general 
Treasury instead of this fund, and, as a result, this shift has had a 
devastating impact on the fund and the services available to crime 
victims in America.
  That is why a bipartisan, bicameral coalition of Members of Congress 
worked with the advocacy organizations on a fix to the VOCA law to 
sustain the Crime Victims Fund.
  Our bill would stabilize the depleted fund by redirecting monetary 
penalties from deferred prosecutions and nonprosecution agreements to 
the victims and service providers that desperately need help.
  The reduced deposits into the fund have already had a devastating 
impact. Victim assistance grants have been reduced by more than $600 
million in 2021, and more cuts are looming if we don't do something.
  The executive director of Life Span in Chicago told me that VOCA 
funds 44 percent of the agency's services--about $1.6 million annually. 
A substantial loss in VOCA funds would mean that they would have to cut 
back staff who provide legal services, affecting an estimated 880 
clients
  Life Span is not alone. Advocates across the State of Illinois and 
across the country have reached out and shared what these cuts would 
mean for their agencies and the victims they serve.
  The Center for Prevention of Abuse in Peoria, IL, noted:

       We never want to be in a position where we are made to turn 
     away people who need [our] specialized services and whole-
     hearted, dedicated care. Our teams are already stretched thin 
     as they live the promise of our mission day in and day out. 
     Fewer VOCA dollars means less staff and a lessened ability to 
     help those who need to find safety, food, shelter, 
     empowerment, freedom, and peace.

  There is no time to waste. Every day that goes by, we miss an 
opportunity to help replenish this fund. In 2021, the fund has already 
missed out on approximately $400 million in deposits. We are not even 
halfway through the year. Imagine how much more money the fund may lose 
if we don't do something.
  That is why it is imperative that the Senate immediately pass this 
bill. The House already did it in March, with broad bipartisan support, 
and here in the Senate we have a bipartisan coalition of 56 Senators--
36 Democrats and 20 Republicans--cosponsoring the legislation. We could 
send this bill to the President's desk today. We should have sent it to 
him weeks ago. Unfortunately, there is an objection that has prevented 
us from moving forward.
  In a recent letter to Leader Schumer, victims' rights and law 
enforcement organizations said that, ``The objectors are, in effect, 
holding victim services hostage in an ideological quest to overhaul the 
Appropriations process by eliminating budgetary offsets.''
  What a target to choose if you want to change the procedure of the 
committee--crime victims?
  I agree with the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence and so 
many other groups. More than 1,700 that are begging us to do something 
and stop holding this critical legislation.
  The passage of this legislation today would ensure that victims are 
able to maintain these critical services. Don't we owe it to them after 
the promise of help to come through?
  At this point, I would like to turn to my colleague Senator 
Murkowski.
  And I ask unanimous consent that Senators Murkowski, Toomey, and I be 
able to complete our remarks prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I want to acknowledge and thank my 
colleague and friend from Illinois for his leadership on this issue. He 
has outlined well the situation in front of us with regard to the 
status of the Crime Victims Fund.
  Again, this is a nontaxpayer source of funding, which is designed to 
help the millions of victims of crimes--those who have been violated, 
those who are extraordinarily vulnerable. And we are at a place where, 
as he has indicated, we have a proposal here that could help address 
how this fund is replenished to, again, ensure that those who have been 
made victims can receive some level of compensation.
  We are kind of stuck here this morning, which is extraordinarily 
unfortunate. Folks back home in Alaska are just starting their day, and 
they are looking with anticipation and hope and, quite honestly, 
prayers that today might be the day that they get good news on this.
  Right now, I have about 30 organizations in Alaska, including our 
domestic violence shelters, our child advocacy centers, our victim 
advocacy organizations--they have all been notified that they are going 
to expect a 35-percent cut to their funding, effective the 1st of July, 
so just in a couple of weeks here.
  And because of this broken VOCA deposit issue, this cut is set to 
affect their funds for not only this year but for next year going 
forward.
  So think about it. You are the shelter in Kodiak, where I was just 6, 
8 weeks or so ago. When you are told you have a 35-percent cut to your 
budget coming and you have a small community, where are you going to 
find those resources? Because, believe you, me, the individuals who 
still require those services are not staying at home and saying: Well, 
I guess we didn't have the services here on this big island of Kodiak; 
so I am just going to stay put.
  The need is still there. In fact, the need is more enhanced or 
exacerbated than ever before. We have seen this as a follow-on from 
COVID. We have seen those aftereffects, that aftershock, when you have 
been in an isolated situation where you have been forced to kind of 
shelter in place, if you will, but your home is not a safe shelter. It 
is not a shelter in that sense of the word. But you don't have 
services. And so where do you go? You stay with your abuser. You stay 
in the situation that is unsound, unsafe, because you don't have 
anyplace to turn. So the need out there is considerable.

[[Page S4606]]

  We had a situation last summer of devastating loss, with five village 
residents in different villages who had died in domestic violence 
murders over a course of 10 days. These are small villages where 
everybody knows everybody, and the loss of one person--an elder, a 
child, or a victim--is extraordinary. And so we looked at that, and we 
said: Well, that is exacerbated by COVID and what has happened.
  But, no, this has been a situation for us long prior to COVID, in 
terms of, unfortunately, the levels that we see of domestic violence, 
sexual assault, the victimization that we see--so being there to 
provide funding for services to help prevent these deaths, the trauma 
that children experience when they are in the room, the murders that 
affect families for generations. There is a story in the news just 
today--a domestic situation, the husband and the wife. The husband took 
the wife's life and then took his own, and it was a 6-year-old with an 
iPad who notified the authorities.
  I think about the reality of what a 35-percent cut means, what it 
means when you say your service providers are faced with $6 million 
less in funding for victims services. The shelters are calling out to 
us for help. One domestic violence shelter in the State is facing the 
reality of laying off six full-time jobs within their organization. 
This is unacceptable.
  I understand that there are concerns. Senator Toomey is going to 
speak to them. But this legislation doesn't change how Federal tax 
money is spent. It provides a technical fix by directing additional 
nontaxpayer dollars from criminal monetary penalties into this fund. So 
we are sitting at a point where the longer that Congress delays this 
fix, the larger the cuts that victims services in my State and all 
around the country will face.
  This has been a hard time for us, and I think we recognize it, but 
for those who are trying to serve victims, for those who are trying to 
serve the most vulnerable at an exceptionally vulnerable time in their 
lives, it makes it 10 times harder. Our providers are exhausted, they 
are burned out, and now they are faced with massive cuts. We simply 
cannot fail them.
  I would urge us to look past the politics on this. This is what these 
victims' advocates are saying: Please don't use us as the political 
lever here. So I join not only with Senator Durbin but with the many in 
this body who would urge that we pass this technical fix to VOCA.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Alaska 
for her heartfelt remarks.
  There are innocent people who are victims of domestic violence whose 
fate depends on what we do right here and now. This is an important 
budgetary debate that the Senator from Pennsylvania is raising. I ask, 
please don't use these people in this desperate situation as a pressure 
point. Let's try to reconcile this on a rational basis without 
jeopardizing them.
  As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1652, which was received 
from the House and is at the desk; further, that the bill be considered 
read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). Is there objection?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, let me 
say I think I agree with 98, 99 percent of what I just heard from my 
colleagues.
  In the 11 years I have been in the Senate, I have lost track of how 
many rape crisis centers and how many child advocacy centers I have 
visited. They have expanded the number, fortunately, because they have 
gotten additional resources from Congress. They do some of the most 
important work I know of--incredibly painful work--in helping a child 
through an appalling, traumatic experience when there is a law 
enforcement need to get information that can further traumatize a 
child. I mean, the work these folks do is amazing, it is essential, and 
the Senator from Alaska is exactly right in that there is a real need 
here.
  The good news is that there is a real, very clear, and easy path 
forward here. The legislation that the Senator from Illinois is 
proposing creates a new source of money for the Crime Victims Fund. It 
is a new category, it is substantial, and it is going to be new 
resources for the advocates for crime victims to better be able to 
continue to do their very, very important work, and I fully support 
that.
  So where do we disagree? Here is where we disagree: The legislation 
does require a lot of money--new money--to go into the Crime Victims 
Fund. The Senator from Illinois is exactly correct in that it is not 
taxpayer money; it is money from the settlements for criminal and civil 
penalties. I fully support that. What their legislation doesn't do, 
however, is require a dime of that money to actually get to the 
advocates of crime. It is very nice to put a lot of money into an 
account that has a name on it that is the Crime Victims Fund. That is 
very nice, and I support that, but I would like to take one more step 
and make sure the money actually gets to the victims of crime and their 
advocates.
  Now, there is a little bit of budgetary information that explains 
why, if we don't adopt my approach here, this money will not get to the 
victims of crime and their advocates. You see, the appropriations 
process, the spending process around here, always operates under some 
limit. It could be a statutory limit or a limit passed by a budget 
resolution, but there is a limit. There is no limit as to how much 
people want to spend around here, but there is a limit as to how much 
they actually can.
  We have a very perverse budgetary rule, and that rule says that, in 
any given year, if there is money in this Crime Victims Fund--mind you, 
not tax dollars, but if there is money in it--and Congress doesn't give 
it to the crime victims as it is supposed to, you can pretend that it 
is a savings, and it allows you to spend more than you would otherwise 
be able to spend on any number of other things, on anything--tanks, 
buildings, roads, whatever. That is the dynamic. That is what happens 
here. It actually creates an incentive, however perverse this is, for 
Congress not to allocate this money to the victims of crime and to 
their advocates. By not doing so, they get to claim a savings which 
isn't real--but that is the way the budget rules work--and spend that 
money elsewhere.
  Now, you might say: Well, who would do a thing like that? Oh. Ha. 
Well, it used to happen all the time. In 2014, there was $9 billion 
available in the Crime Victims Fund, but in order to spend more money 
elsewhere, less than $1 billion was actually allocated to victims of 
crime and their advocates, so they got $8 billion of difference that 
they could spend on whatever else they wanted, and they did. In 2013, 
it was the same story.
  This was going on routinely until 2015 when I and some of my 
colleagues said: Wait a minute. This isn't right. This money is 
supposed to be going to crime victims, and it is not.
  That is the first and most objectionable problem. It is also 
dishonest because there is no savings of taxpayer money here; this is 
just not giving crime victims the money from criminals that they are 
supposed to get. It is outrageous
  For a while, we got some cooperation, and they did less of this. In 
other words, more of the money that was supposed to go to crime victims 
for a while did, in fact, go there. But I am very concerned--and I have 
been concerned since 2015--that, at any point in time, we will go back 
to this process. So I introduced legislation called the Fairness for 
Crime Victims Act. I introduced it in 2015. What it does is it just 
requires that the money going into the fund actually go to the victims 
of crime and their advocates, and there are various mechanisms for 
doing it. The bill was reported out of the Senate Budget Committee in 
2015, and it was unanimously adopted by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 
2019.
  I have been working as closely as I can with the appropriators to 
address this so that we will actually send to crime victims the money 
that is supposed to go to them. Since 2000, over $82 billion of money 
has not been allocated to crime victims, as it should have been, 
precisely because of this mechanism.
  Some might say: Well, hasn't it gotten better? Yes. The answer is 
that it has. But how do I know it is going to get worse? How do I know 
we are going to go right back to this? I will tell you

[[Page S4607]]

how I know. All I have to do is read the President's budget.
  President Biden's budget, if you look at table S-8, explicitly calls 
for withholding money from victims of crime and advocates for those 
victims from the Crime Victims Fund and also the Children's Health 
Insurance Program so as to spend more money in other areas. It is right 
here: ``changes in mandatory program offsets: $26 billion.'' It says 
the limitation enacted will come from the Crime Victims Fund program 
and cancelations in the Children's Health Insurance Program. This is 
not like wild speculation; this is President Biden's budget, saying: 
Oh, here is what I want to spend, and part of how I will spend it--part 
of how we will get there--is by withholding money that should be going 
to victims of crime.
  So I am fully in support of this new allocation of money into the 
account, but money in the account doesn't solve the problem. We need 
one more step, that is all--the step that says we are actually going to 
send it to victims of crime instead of whatever spending people in this 
town decide they prefer. That is what this is about. That is what the 
difference is.
  We have developed a process. We have worked with people on both sides 
of the aisle, and we have passed legislation in committee to do it. We 
want to simply require the money that is meant for victims of crime and 
their advocates to get to them, and we are being told it won't all get 
to them under the status quo.
  There is a simple solution here. There is a simple path forward. I 
think there is a genuine, sincere agreement, among everybody who has 
spoken, about the need for this service. All I am asking is that we 
actually have a mechanism to get them the money rather than to do what 
we all know is coming: Pretend they are going to get all of this money 
when, in fact, it is going to be diverted to other purposes.
  Therefore, I ask that the Senator modify his request to include my 
amendment, which is at the desk; that it be considered and agreed to; 
that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; 
and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the modification?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I am 
disappointed that the Senator from Pennsylvania is adamant in his 
position, even though we are dealing with victims of crime, victims of 
domestic violence, and victims of child abuse. Like Illinois, 
Pennsylvania has experienced a nearly 70-percent cut in VOCA funding 
since 2018, and more cuts are on the horizon because of his strategy.
  Here is what it boils down to: If you listen carefully to what the 
Senator from Pennsylvania has said, he is not suggesting that the money 
is being spent for other purposes but is suggesting that it could be. 
In fact, there is a conscious effort by the Appropriations subcommittee 
to make sure, if all of the money is not spent in 1 year, that enough 
will be maintained to stabilize the fund for future years. That is 
thoughtful, and that is what we like to hear, but we are in a desperate 
moment now wherein we need the money and need it at this moment.
  I understand my colleague's concern about the scorekeeping in the 
budget. It is an important issue, even though it is esoteric. But to do 
it in relation to the Crime Victims Fund seems entirely misplaced. 
While this adjustment does not, in fact, transfer money from the fund 
to other priorities, it is just a budgeting gimmick that he is 
suggesting.
  This is not the right place or time to do this when thousands of 
people across the United States are in desperate need of shelter to get 
out of an abusive home; of help for their children who have witnessed 
murders; and of dealing with court proceedings that may be 
unintelligible to the average person to try to protect their families 
and themselves. To think that we are engaged in this high-level budget 
debate at this moment at their expense is just not right.
  I urge my colleague to withdraw his amendment and allow the 
legislation to proceed. We can debate the budget within the budget 
resolution and the appropriations process but not at the expense of 
crime victims across America. If he will not withdraw his amendment, I 
must object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the modification.
  Is there an objection to the original request?
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I will 
just say briefly that, clearly and certainly, this is not a 
scorekeeping debate, and this is not about budgets. This is about 
whether victims of crime and their advocates will actually get the 
money that we say they are going to get. It is not about what could be; 
it is about what has been. This money was routinely raided for other 
purposes until we brought a stop to it recently, and it is about what 
will be because the Biden administration is telling us it intends to do 
this.
  In order to ensure that crime victims and their advocates actually 
get the money that we say they are going to get, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.