[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 23, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4712-S4715]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 1652
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, last week, I told the story of a mother
who received critical support from an organization called Life Span in
Chicago after her daughter was sexually assaulted by the mother's
husband. The services provided by Life Span were paid for by the
Victims of Crime Act, VOCA.
This week, I want to tell you another story that is even more
troubling, but it dramatizes the need for us to act today, this
afternoon. I am going to use the name ``Sasha,'' not the real name of
the woman involved. She is a mother of three kids, and she was living
with a man who was unpredictable and dangerous.
He tried to kill her--not once but three times. He tried strangling
her, and the third time, she passed out. When she woke up with the kids
nearby, she knew that was it. She couldn't take it anymore. So she went
to a hospital. She was scared to death. She heard about a group called
Harbor House. Harbor House is basically a domestic violence survivors
center.
I would tell my colleagues in the Senate, if you have ever visited a
domestic violence survivors center and met with any of the victims, you
will never forget it. I swear, you will never forget it. I can remember
the first time I met with one of the victims in one of the shelters.
She was crying. Her eyes were red, one eye was blackened, and she
choked back the tears and told me the story of what she lived through.
For some reason--and I am not a psychologist; I can't explain it--she
blamed herself. And it happens so often.
[[Page S4713]]
What happens to these women who are the victims of domestic violence
abuse? Where do they go? Some of them can't find anywhere to go and end
up dying as a result of it. What happens to their kids who witness
these acts of violence in the home when mom is getting strangled by
this man? What happens to them? Well, luckily, we care enough in
America to do something about it. Through VOCA and the Crime Victims
Fund, we send money to Harbor House and Life Span and other agencies
and say: Do your best. Help them put their lives back together again.
Protect them.
Well, I want to fast-forward and tell you that 6 months after Sasha's
experience, things are much better. She lives safely in an apartment.
She still works with adult counselors and youth counselors to get
herself and her kids through this, and she knows that she is not alone.
These VOCA-funded advocates stepped into her life at just the right
moment and saved her life. They may have saved the lives of her
children too.
So when we cut back on funding for whatever reason, we are
jeopardizing the services that I just described that are so critical.
With decreased VOCA funding--if we do nothing today, with decreased
VOCA funding, Harbor House will have to cut its staffers, exactly the
types of professionals who helped Sasha and her family.
The executive director said:
If VOCA is cut, imagine being Sasha and having to go
through all of that alone.
That is why we have to pass this bill. That is why it is so critical.
As I noted last week, VOCA passed in 1984 to establish the Crime
Victims Fund. We can't even count the number of people who have been
helped over the years. Three thousand applicants come through my State
Attorney General's Office in Illinois, and every State has a similar
story to tell of thousands of victims helped by service providers,
victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, trafficking,
and drunk drivers.
And the Crime Victims Fund doesn't receive a dime of taxpayers'
dollars. How about that? What I just described for you doesn't come out
of the Treasury. It is funded through criminal fines, penalties,
forfeited bail bonds, and special assessments collected by the Federal
Government.
Historically, most of the money comes from criminal fines, but in
recent years, deposits have dropped off significantly. That is why we
are here at this moment. They need help, and they need it now.
Monetary penalties from deferred prosecutions and nonprosecution
agreements are currently deposited in the Treasury instead of the fund.
As a result, the shift has had a devastating impact on the fund. That
is why a bipartisan, bicameral group of Members of Congress, working
with advocacy organizations, have come up with this VOCA fix. Our bill
would stabilize the depleted fund by redirecting monetary penalties
from deferred prosecutions and nonprosecution agreements to the victims
and service providers who need the 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 this year. And more cuts are coming if we don't do something
today.
Like Harbor House, advocates across the State and across the country
are begging for help. We don't have any time to waste. Every day that
goes by, we miss an opportunity to help replenish the fund and to put
these services on the street.
So far this year, the fund has already missed out on a total of
nearly $550 million in deposits that could be helping these agencies,
and we are not even halfway through the year. That is why it is
imperative that we pass this bill. The House already did it in March, 3
months ago--broad bipartisan support. Here in the Senate, we have a
broad bipartisan coalition of Senators--36 Democrats and 21
Republicans. We all get it. We are all for crime victims. But we have
been stopped because of an objection on the floor.
Let's end this today. Whatever the merits of any budgetary argument,
for goodness' sake, lives are at stake here. Unfortunately, this
objection about moving forward was made last week, and it probably will
be made again today. It involves Senator Toomey's concern about a
budgetary issue. It is a complicated issue about something called
CHIMPs, for goodness' sake, which he can explain, and I am sure he
will.
But after last week's argument on this, I went to the advocates who
are telling us that we should send this money as quickly as we can and
said: Is he right? Is this designed, without his amendment, so that
this money will not go to the people who need it?
They said he is wrong. This is not going to happen.
Here is their statement: ``During floor remarks for the unanimous
consent [last week], it was represented the VOCA Fix Act fails to
correct certain structural issues that prevent the funds from reaching
victims and their advocates. The premise of this statement--that these
structural issues impact the distribution of VOCA funds to survivors
and advocates--is not accurate.''
This is from the actual agencies themselves.
``While the use of CHIMPS (Changes in Mandatory Programs) as budget
offsets continues to be a contentious issue, the claim that
Appropriators hoard money rather than releasing it to victim service
providers is false.''
Inaccurate and false.
``In reality, Appropriators have substantially decreased the size of
the budget offset by releasing far more than the amount required by the
proposed substitute, and the proposed substitute intended to
restructure the entire appropriations process is incredibly
controversial.''
In other words, we are going to dive into the deep end of the pool on
budget process, budget rules, and budget regulation while people are
literally drowning in violence--victims of domestic abuse.
For goodness' sake, isn't there a better time and place and a better
group to hold hostage? It shouldn't be these domestic violence cases.
I yield at this point to the Senator from Rhode Island.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I won't speak long, but I wanted to
echo the comments of our distinguished Judiciary chairman, because I
have had a similar experience.
As we were going through COVID, I was hearing from our domestic
violence groups in Rhode Island that two things were happening at once.
Instances were going up. People were trapped together. It was very
difficult to find sanctuary houses to go to, and the experience of
domestic violence was soaring. And while that was going on, the funding
coming into these agencies through VOCA was declining.
Now there is a pretty simple--well, first let me thank the Rhode
Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sojourner House, which
provides sanctuary services, and Progreso Latino, which works in this
space in our Latino community, for their great work. There are a lot of
organizations in this space, and I want to start by appreciating them.
The problem has nothing to do with domestic violence or domestic
violence victims as to the money. The problem is that more and more of
these cases are resolved by deferred prosecution and nonprosecution
agreements, but the funding for VOCA comes out of criminal sentences,
criminal prosecutions. So because of that change in the way these cases
are treated--which is actually a good thing, generally--the money is
diverted, and, as a result, the Crime Victims Fund has reached its
lowest level in 10 years.
The victim assistance grants in Rhode Island fell 50 percent--5-0
percent--cut in half from fiscal year 2016 to fiscal year 2021, from
$7.6 million to $3.8 million, which means that many of these local
organizations that put their heart and soul into protecting these
victims at the worst time in their lives have to deal with 50-percent
cuts.
This is simple. It will allow monetary penalties in those deferred
prosecutions and nonprosecution agreements to flow the same way they
flow when traditional prosecutions take place.
This is endorsed across the board. This is as noncontroversial as you
get--56 State and Territorial attorneys general, more than 1,700 local,
Tribal, State, regional, and national advocacy, government, and law
enforcement organizations.
[[Page S4714]]
Just this year, $545 million has been lost to the VOCA fund because
we haven't corrected this. So I would echo my chairman's remarks and
urge my friend, the Senator from Pennsylvania, to find another point of
leverage, another fulcrum, for his efforts to solve unrelated problems,
but let this problem be solved and let these victims be served.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island.
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 the motion to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have good
news for my colleagues from Illinois and Rhode Island, and that is that
the modification that I am suggesting to the unanimous consent request
proffered by the Senator from Illinois is not complicated. It has
nothing to do with budget rules, and, in fact, it is the simplest thing
in the world.
Now, the Senator from Illinois wants to put more money and money from
a new source into the Crime Victims Fund. I completely agree. I fully
support it. I have liked this idea from the first time I heard of it,
and I supported it.
But there is something that is important to note here. The Crime
Victims Fund is a Federal Government account, and the Senator is very
determined that more money go into that account.
So what do we disagree on? Well, it is very simple. The Senator from
Illinois seems to be equally determined that there can be no
requirement that the money actually come out of that account and go to
crime victims and their advocates. That is the only thing that I want
to do differently. It is to insist that money going into that account
actually comes out and goes to the victims of crime and their
advocates.
Now, if my concern that this money is not going to end up going where
it is advertised to go is not valid, then, I don't know why my
colleagues wouldn't agree to my very narrow amendment which, by the
way, doesn't have a thing to do with budget rules. I don't attempt to
change budget rules in this effort. We should change them, but this
isn't where I am trying to do it. What I am simply trying to do is to
make sure that the money that goes into the account--the increase,
too--actually goes to where it is supposed to go, which is to the
victims of crimes and their advocates.
So you have to ask yourself: Why would somebody oppose the proposal
that this money actually be required to go to victims and their
advocates? Why would somebody oppose that?
Maybe it is because there is some other place that some of this money
is meant to go, and that is at the heart of this. See, under the
ridiculous rules we operate under, if the money doesn't end up going to
crime victims and their advocates, then, it frees up additional money
to be spent on whatever anybody else wants to spend it on. The money
that is withheld from the people who are supposed to get it, crime
victims and their advocates, creates the opportunity to spend more on
who knows what.
Now, would anyone actually do this or is this just a theoretical
construct that I have made up? Well, let's take a look at the recent
history. The fact is, since 2000, in the year 2000, over $80 billion
that could have and should have gone to crime victims and their
advocates was intentionally withheld so that more money could be spent
in other categories.
What this chart shows is the amount of money year in and year out. It
starts in 2000. You see these low bars. Well under a billion dollars
was actually allocated to crime victims.
There was much more money going into those accounts--much more
money--because, you see, how much going into the account isn't the only
thing that matters. What is actually, ultimately, much more important
is how much comes out of the account and goes to the crime victims. And
only when I and some of my colleagues started raising hell about this--
the dishonesty, the deception, the fact that the crime victims and
their advocates weren't getting nearly what they were supposed to be
getting--only then--this is the red line that represents when we
started doing this--that is when the allocations started to change.
This graph represents the huge surge in funds that we have been
sending to crime victims and their advocates in recent years because
some of us were no longer willing to tolerate this and we were raising
Cain about what had been going on.
Now, what I am simply trying to do is to prevent us from going back
to what was routine around here, what was standard operating procedure,
which was to deceive people, pretend that money was going to end up
going to the Crime Victims Fund when everybody knew it wasn't.
Now, why would I be concerned that we might be going back in that
direction? Well, I will tell you why. President Biden has been very
instructive about this. In his budget that he released just months ago,
he actually specifies that in his budget he wants money to be diverted
from the crime victims fund, which is mentioned by name, and one other
fund, so that more money can be spent on other purposes.
This is my concern. This isn't something that has been made up. This
is President Biden in his budget asking us to go right back to what we
used to do.
So, then, when I come down here and I suggest one modification to the
very constructive idea that we add this settlement money to the fund,
and the modification is that the money actually has to go to crime
victims and their advocates, that is objected to. People are insistent
that we not have a requirement that this money actually be allocated.
So someone might think that that is a pretty strong body of evidence
that suggests that maybe all of this money isn't going to end up where
it is supposed to go.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator modify his
request to include my amendment, which is at the desk; that it be
considered and agreed to; and 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 objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if you
listen to this explanation, there is one thing missing and it is
critical. There is a suggestion that this money for the Crime Victims
Fund is being spent for another purpose. You never heard that, did you?
It said it could be, maybe it will be, it might be--but it hasn't been.
Listen to what they say, these people in the advocacy groups are
jealously watching every penny. They want every dollar, just as you do
and I do. And what do they say about your argument?
The premise of your statement that these structural issues impact the
distribution of the victims funds to survivors and advocates is not
accurate. It goes on to say that the claim that appropriators hoard the
money rather than releasing it to victims services is false. This is
from the very agencies receiving the money.
Are they in on the deal, Senator?
I don't think so. They are desperate for these funds, and without
them, they are going to have a serious cutback in services.
The proposed substitute intended to restructure the entire
appropriations process is incredibly controversial, and you know it and
I know it as a member of the Appropriations Committee. Yet you are
tangling up this relief for the victims of crime, victims of domestic
abuse, women who are seeking shelter and hospital care and trying to
care for their children and what they are going through. You want to
hold back on the possibility--the possibility--that somebody is going
to spend this on something else, even though you have no proof that it
has been done--none.
And the people who are the advocates for these groups are saying to
you: What you are saying is inaccurate and false.
And you won't give it up.
[[Page S4715]]
I would suggest: Pick another target. Find some other group to make
your budget point of order. Please don't take this out on these people
who are in the most desperate situations in their life. This is not the
time and place to raise this budget debate. I seriously hope that you
will think about them for a moment.
I object to your modification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the original request?
Mr. TOOMEY. Reserving the right to object, this is an amazing
argument that the Senator from Illinois is making. He is saying: Don't
worry. He would never do what the Senator from Pennsylvania is
suggesting might happen and which, by the way, always used to happen,
and, which, by the way, the President is asking us to do. We would
never do it. Oh, but I will object to a requirement that the money
actually go where we say it is going to go.
I think that tells us all we need to know. So I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.