[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 20, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4962-S4974]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 F_____
                                 

         VOCA FIX TO SUSTAIN THE CRIME VICTIMS FUND ACT OF 2021

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
resume legislative session and the Senate begin consideration of H.R. 
1652, under the previous order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1652) to deposit certain funds into the Crime 
     Victims Fund, to waive matching requirements, and for other 
     purposes.


                    Amendment No. 2121, As Modified

  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Toomey amendment be 
called up, as modified with the changes at the desk, and that it be 
reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the 
amendment by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for Mr. Toomey, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2121, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows

   (Purpose: To ensure adequate funding in the Crime Victims Fund is 
  disbursed to victims, their families, and their advocates each year)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. POINT OF ORDER.

       Section 1402 of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (34 U.S.C. 
     20101) is amended by striking subsection (c) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(c)(1) Sums deposited in the Fund shall remain in the 
     Fund and be available for expenditure under this chapter for 
     grants under this chapter without fiscal year limitation, in 
     accordance with paragraph (2). Notwithstanding subsection 
     (d)(5), all sums deposited in the Fund in any fiscal year 
     that are not made available for obligation by Congress in the 
     subsequent fiscal year shall remain in the Fund for 
     obligation in future fiscal years, without fiscal year 
     limitation.
       ``(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), it shall 
     not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives 
     to consider a provision in a bill or joint resolution making 
     appropriations for all or a portion of a fiscal year, or an 
     amendment thereto, amendment between the Houses in relation 
     thereto, conference report thereon, or motion thereon, that 
     would cause the amount of annual disbursals from the Fund to 
     be below the annual average amount that was deposited into 
     the Fund during the 3-fiscal-year period beginning on October 
     1 of the fourth fiscal year before the fiscal year to which 
     the disbursal level applies.
       ``(B) If a point of order is raised by a Member under 
     subparagraph (A), and the point of order is sustained by the 
     Chair, the provision shall be stricken from the measure and 
     may not be offered as an amendment from the floor.
       ``(C) A point of order shall not lie in the Senate or the 
     House of Representatives under this paragraph if the 
     difference between the amount in the Fund as of September 30 
     of the fiscal year immediately preceding the fiscal year to 
     which the annual disbursals described in subparagraph (A) 
     relates and the amount available for obligation through the 
     annual disbursals described in subparagraph (A) is not more 
     than $2,000,000,000.
       ``(3) Paragraph (2) may be waived or suspended in the 
     Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative vote of three-
     fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn, shall be 
     required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of 
     the Chair on a point of order raised under paragraph (2).
       ``(4) This subsection is enacted by Congress--
       ``(A) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such 
     it is deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, 
     but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be 
     followed in that House in the case of a joint resolution, and 
     it supersedes other rules only to the extent that it is 
     inconsistent with those rules; and
       ``(B) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the 
     procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner and 
     to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that 
     House.''.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:15 today 
the Senate vote on the Toomey amendment and on the passage of the bill, 
as amended, if amended, as provided for under the previous order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Montana.


                   Nomination of Tracy Stone-Manning

  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, today, I rise to bring attention to new 
revelations about President Biden's nominee to head the Bureau of Land 
Management, Tracy Stone-Manning's involvement in a tree-spiking 
incident in Idaho, and to share why I oppose her confirmation.
  I would have welcomed having a nominee with such strong ties to 
Montana to be the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, and, until 
recently, I believed, as did most Montanans, based on her testimony 
before the Montana State Legislature, back in 2013, that her role in 
the tree-spiking crime was minimal, her actions were helpful, and she 
helped bring criminals to justice.
  Unfortunately, new information has revealed that this simply was not 
the case. In fact, rather than bringing criminals to justice, Ms. 
Stone-Manning assisted in helping them evade justice for years--for 
years.
  I am going to lay this out because I think it is important that the 
facts are shared before this body. First, it reveals that she withheld 
the truth from investigators for several years. Second, it reveals that 
she harshly criticized Federal law enforcement at the very same time 
she was refusing to tell them the truth. And, third, it reveals that 
she has not taken responsibility or expressed remorse for not speaking 
the truth much, much sooner.
  I know many of my colleagues are probably just tuning into Ms. Stone-
Manning's involvement in a tree-spiking crime committed in 1989 while 
she was a member of an ecoterrorist group called Earth First!
  The picture that she and her advocates have painted about her 
involvement in this crime is that she was the innocent hero who helped 
put bad people in jail. Well, in recent weeks, we have learned there is 
a lot more to this story. It is very alarming. It is very disturbing on 
many levels.
  Ms. Stone-Manning stated to the Montana State Legislature that a 
rather frightening man approached her with a letter while she was on 
campus. Come to find out, that man wasn't a stranger. It was her 
roommate and someone whom she described to the court during the 1993 
trial as someone who was in her main circle of friends.
  Ms. Stone-Manning stated that she simply mailed the anonymous 
letter--that she simply mailed it. But in reality, and as we have since 
found out and as we have explored court records in Idaho, this 
information had not come out, except in the last 45 days.
  The investigation later revealed that this letter had not only been 
collaboratively composed, but after waiting for a few days, it was 
typed by Ms. Stone-Manning on a rented typewriter, which, according to 
her very own testimony, was because she wanted to avoid having it on 
her own computer and avoid having any fingerprints that could be traced 
back to her.
  The words that Ms. Stone-Manning typed and mailed are explicit. It is 
not what you type and send to protect people. They are what you say to 
frighten people.
  I am going to read this letter--it is not very long--that Ms. Stone-
Manning typed on a rented typewriter and personally mailed. It says:

       To Whom It May Concern:
       This letter is being sent to notify you that the Post 
     Office Sale--

  If I can add, the Post Office Sale was a timber sale. They labeled it 
the ``Post Office Sale.''--

     in Idaho has been spiked heavily.
       The reasoning for this action is that this piece of land is 
     very special to the earth. It is home to the Elk, Deer, 
     Mountain Lions, Birds, and especially the Trees.
       The project required that eleven of us spend nine days in 
     God awful weather conditions spiking trees. We unloaded a 
     total of five hundred pounds of spikes measuring 8 to 10 
     inches in length. The sales were marked so that no workers 
     will be injured and so that you assholes know that they are 
     spiked. The majority of trees were spiked within the first 
     ten feet, but many, many others were spiked as high as a 
     hundred and fifty feet.
       I would be more than willing to pay you a dollar for the 
     sale, but you would have to find me first and that could be 
     your WORST nightmare.
       Sincerely, George Hayduke
       P.S. You bastards go in there anyway and a lot of people 
     could get hurt.

  The text of that letter was never made public until very recently, 
just in the last 45 days. Montanans never had the opportunity to read 
what Ms. Stone-Manning typed on the rented typewriter and sent until 
just a few weeks ago.

[[Page S4963]]

  The letter is chilling and it makes you think that, if Ms. Stone-
Manning was really concerned about the tree spiking, she could have 
gone to the authorities immediately in 1989, when this occurred.
  We also now know she had firsthand knowledge about the perpetrators. 
She knew who did it. She knew all of the details about the crime. She 
knew who spiked the trees.
  By the way, why do you spike trees? Why do you put these great big 
spikes in the trees? That is because, if a logger comes in with a saw 
and their blade hits it, they could be severely injured. If one of 
these logs comes through a sawmill, the sawmill operator can be 
severely injured, as has actually happened. We have had some severely 
injured individuals because of the tree spiking. This was the 
ecoterrorism going on several years ago.
  But she withheld this information from law enforcement in 1989, even 
after she was subpoenaed by a grand jury for her hair, her handwriting, 
and fingerprint samples. She didn't report it to law enforcement in 
1990, not in 1991, not in 1992. In fact, she condemned the FBI for 
investigating her in the first place, despite the fact that she knew 
all the details of the crime. In fact, she claimed being investigated 
by the FBI was ``degrading'' and that the ``government does do bad 
things.'' She compared her treatment to how the Government of Panama 
would treat someone.
  Ms. Stone-Manning said all of these things and played the victim, 
despite knowing all the details and players of the crime, despite 
having had the opportunity for 4 years to put bad people behind bars. 
What Ms. Stone-Manning did was actively obstruct an investigation.
  At no time, by the way, did Ms. Stone-Manning ever come forward from 
her own volition. Now, she only came forward after there was a break in 
the investigation. This is now in 1993, after another suspect 
identified her involvement and after her attorney struck an immunity 
deal, not before she was caught.
  In fact, one of the men she had the opportunity to put behind bars 
during the time she remained silent went on to commit an act of--this 
man that she remained silent on went on to commit an act of domestic 
violence. Her cooperation with law enforcement could have prevented 
this.
  None of her actions show any kind of remorse. They didn't then and 
they still don't now. Ms. Stone-Manning has not expressed regret for 
her false and disparaging characterization of Federal investigators.
  This deception and misrepresentation of her involvement, coupled with 
her clear violation of Senate Ethics rules while she served as a U.S. 
Senate staffer, leave the public with no reason to trust her judgment, 
her leadership capabilities, or her ability to remain pragmatic when 
making decisions on behalf of the Bureau of Land Management.
  Ms. Stone-Manning has lost her credibility, and to move forward with 
her nomination would cause more controversy and distrust for the 
leadership at the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Senate, and the 
Biden administration.
  You see, there are 10,000 employees at the Bureau of Land Management 
who report to the Director and they need to have that trust, as well.
  President Obama's former Director of the Bureau of Land Management, 
Bob Abbey, has concluded that Stone-Manning's ``questionable past'' 
brings what he said ``needless controversy'' to the Agency. Obama's 
very own Director of the Bureau of Land Management said that her 
involvement in the tree-spiking crime should disqualify Stone-Manning 
and the Biden administration needs a new nominee.
  I agree with Mr. Abbey because, in Montana and the West and all 
America, we need a Director of the Bureau of Land Management who can 
garner public trust, bring folks together, and lead with integrity.
  Throughout the confirmation process, I have given Ms. Stone-Manning a 
fair shake, an opportunity to answer questions about important policies 
that impact our Montana way of life. However, over the course of the 
last few weeks, this new information has come to light and has led me 
to now actively and publicly oppose her nomination.
  The controversy surrounding this nomination is not and should not be 
about party-line politics. Montanans care about trusting those in 
public service, about integrity. The public trust surrounding Ms. 
Stone-Manning has been wrecked. Her ability to be the Director that the 
Bureau of Land Management needs has been compromised beyond repair.
  As this nomination draws more attention and some continue to contend 
that her actions were commendable, I hope all my colleagues will give 
full consideration to the facts laid out here today. I urge my 
colleagues, especially those who represent western States, to join me 
opposing this nomination. I would urge the Biden administration to pull 
Ms. Stone-Manning's nomination. Nominate someone to lead the Agency who 
can garner the public trust and one who can lead the Agency without the 
significant controversy
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.


                         Crime Victims Fund Act

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, when the pandemic began last year, 
Americans across the country were faced with more than one public 
health crisis. While we all feared contracting COVID-19 outside of our 
homes, the most vulnerable members of our community feared a danger 
lurking within the home or, certainly, in the neighborhood--violent 
crime.
  During the first several weeks of the pandemic, police departments 
across America reported a significant increase in arrests or calls 
related to domestic violence. And reports of hate incidents and crimes 
increased, as well, particularly those targeting Asian American and 
Pacific Islander, or what is known as the AAPI community.
  Nearly 4,000 of these hate incidents were reported during the first 
year of the COVID-19 pandemic. AAPI women comprised the majority of the 
victims.
  In my home State of Illinois, some of these victims of violent crimes 
have an indispensable resource they can turn to. It is known as KAN-
WIN, a nonprofit that supports survivors of violence, particularly 
women and members of the immigrant community. KAN-WIN offers a 24-hour 
hotline, legal advocacy, transitional housing, sexual assault services, 
and many more resources to survivors of violent crimes. They also offer 
programming to support children who have grown up in a traumatic 
environment.
  During the pandemic, organizations like KAN-WIN have been a beacon of 
hope for some of the most vulnerable members of our community. But 
these beacons of hope are at the risk of growing dark, unless we in 
this Senate today take immediate action by passing the VOCA Fix to 
Sustain the Crime Victims Fund Act. This legislation, which I am proud 
to have introduced with Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, will 
replenish the Crime Victims Fund, which Congress established in 1984 
with the passage of the Victims of Crime Act, known as VOCA.
  The Crime Victims Fund helps abused children, survivors of domestic 
violence, and other victims of violent crime access the professional 
services they desperately need. It also assists victims with expenses 
like medical bills, counseling, funeral costs, loss of wages. And, 
importantly, the Crime Victims Fund supplies grants to thousands, 
literally thousands of victim service providers across the Nation, like 
KAN-WIN.
  In KAN-WIN's case, the Crime Victims Fund pays for the salary of 
their Children's Advocate. That advocate reached out to my office and 
wrote the following: ``The entire Children's Program at KAN-WIN will 
have to be eliminated'' if the VOCA Fix to sustain the Crime Victims 
Fund does not pass the Senate. Without this legislation, 
``linguistically and culturally sensitive services and counseling, 
education assistance, economic assistance, medical assistance, art 
activities that help regulate children's emotions, parent-child 
relationship assistance, and other case management services'' will be 
cut.
  The kids who receive help from KAN-WIN are far from the only people 
who would be hurt if the Crime Victims Fund runs dry. Children's 
Advocacy Centers in Illinois report that a significant cut in VOCA 
funding would result in more than 1,500 children being deprived of 
services they need to overcome trauma.

[[Page S4964]]

  The Chicago Children's Advocacy Center writes: ``One of the most 
important uses of VOCA funds is for mental health therapy for sexually 
abused children.'' Without that funding, they will have to ``cut the 
number of children we provide therapy to and more children would go 
without life-changing treatment to heal from their abuse. Even a small 
cut in VOCA would mean up to 100 children would go without healing 
services.''
  We have a serious problem across America--and I have seen in 
Illinois, particularly in the city of Chicago--of gun violence. There 
are so many guns. The city is awash in guns. Too many young people get 
their hands on them every day.
  The Fourth of July weekend, 104 people were shot in the city of 
Chicago. 104; 19 died. Last weekend, 50. The numbers are staggering. We 
have a mass shooting in the city of Chicago every weekend. It has 
become, sadly, expected. It breaks your heart.
  I went to the juvenile facility of Cook County several years ago and 
talked to the counselors who are meeting with the adolescents who have 
been charged in these gun crimes. Some of these adolescents spend a 
year or two in that facility waiting for trial. I asked these 
counselors: Who are these kids? What has happened to them to the point 
where they can take a gun and just shoot wantonly into a crowd, killing 
infants and children and grandmothers and innocent people?
  The counselor said to me: There are many things. There are hardly any 
serious mental illnesses that you can think of that we don't find in 
these kids. But the one thing we find, Senator, consistently is they 
are the victims of trauma.
  Now, by classic definition, trauma is some physical injury, but 
trauma today is viewed in a much larger context. It goes back to a 
template that was established by Kaiser Permanente and the CDC called 
adverse childhood experiences--ACEs for short. Most psychologists and 
child counselors know exactly what I am talking about.
  ACEs, these adverse childhood experiences, can be as simple as 
witnessing a violent crime or returning to a home where the parent is 
not a positive force--perhaps the only parent is drug-addicted or an 
alcoholic or not home at all--or having a situation in which you are 
never sure where home is. So many kids in school talk about moving back 
and forth from one relative to another. All of these things take their 
toll on little kids. It is part of the traumatic experience.
  These counselors of these gun-toting adolescents at the Cook County 
facility say that over 90 percent of them are victims of trauma. Stop 
and think: Is it possible that that simple thing that happened in a 
child's life could have that kind of impact? Well, I am afraid it is. 
For many of us, just to think back on your childhood, of the most 
memorable moment in your childhood--I hope it is a good memory, one 
that you smile with, but it could be a terrible memory, too, the loss 
of someone you love or some other tragic event. Well, that is what has 
happened to these kids. This trauma in their lives runs the risk of 
changing them and even making them potentially dangerous to the 
innocent people they live around.
  That is why, when we talk about the Victims of Crime Act and giving 
these kids counseling, a child who witnesses a domestic violence 
incident in the home, where their mother is being beaten or worse, how 
in the world do you erase that from your memory? You only hope that you 
can find someone--some mentor, some counselor--who can talk you through 
it. That is what the VOCA does. The victims of crime have an 
opportunity to access those professional services before they do the 
damage that they do.
  So how did we get to this point where we are even debating whether to 
fund this? Why is the Crime Victims Fund so dangerously close to 
running out of money when we know we need it so much?
  It comes down to how the fund is funded. See, the money for the 
victims of crime doesn't come from taxpayer dollars. Traditionally, it 
comes from criminal fines, penalties, forfeited bail bonds, and special 
assessments collected by the Federal Government. Historically, these 
criminal fines have accounted for the largest portion of the funding, 
but in recent years, deposits in the Crime Victims Fund have dropped 
significantly as the Justice Department has increasingly used deferred 
prosecution and nonprosecution agreements. Monetary penalties from 
these deferred prosecutions and nonprosecution agreements are currently 
deposited into the General Treasury, not into the Crime Victims Fund. 
As a result, the shift in sentencing has resulted in a devastating 
impact on the fund.
  That is why the bipartisan, bicameral coalition of lawmakers has 
worked with advocacy organizations to write a fix to the VOCA law to 
sustain the Crime Victims Fund. Our bill would stabilize the Crime 
Victims Fund by redirecting monetary penalties from deferred 
prosecutions and nonprosecution agreements to the victims and service 
providers that desperately need the financial support.
  If you think that is an easy and obvious fix, you don't understand 
Congress. To have all of the different committees of jurisdiction take 
a look at it and all of the Members take a look at it and to come up 
with a solution, it doesn't happen every day. One of the reasons it 
happened here in the Senate is that one of my colleagues, whom I want 
to put in the Record as a major positive force, Senator Tammy Baldwin 
of the State of Wisconsin. She took a real personal interest in this, 
and I thank her for it. She brought us together and came up with a 
solution and worked out the details--and there were many--until we 
could all agree. I thank her personally and specifically during the 
course of this opening remark.
  The reduced deposits into the fund have had a devastating impact. She 
knew it. I knew it. Everyone does. As of this year, victim assistance 
grants have been reduced by more than $600 million nationwide, and even 
more catastrophic cuts are looming if we don't fix it today. So far in 
2021, this Crime Victims Fund has already missed out on nearly $550 
million in deposits. We are not even halfway through the year. Imagine 
how much more money this fund is going to lose if we don't pass this 
bill.
  There is no time to waste. Every day that goes by, we miss an 
opportunity to help replenish this fund. More importantly, we miss an 
opportunity to help a crime victim. It may be a medical bill. It could 
be a funeral cost. It could be counseling for that child whom I 
described earlier. Missing that opportunity may mean that the life of 
that child will never quite be the same.
  The Senate must immediately pass this bill. The House already did it 
in March--in March. It is time for us to get around to it. So, with 
broad bipartisan support in the House, we should be inspired in the 
Senate by our bipartisan coalition backing the bill. Sixty-three 
Senators--forty-two Dems, twenty-one Republicans--not bad. We have all 
come together for the VOCA fix.
  Over the past few months, an objection has prevented us from moving 
forward on this legislation. We have been literally waiting for weeks 
to pass this bill. Today, we have a chance to do it and to send it to 
the President's desk. That is why, this afternoon, we are going to take 
two votes. The first is on an amendment from Senator Toomey. It doesn't 
address the substance of the programs that I mentioned; it addresses 
the budget process. There is mention, of course, in this bill, but his 
change would reach far beyond any single piece of legislation. We will 
consider it. I will be opposing it, and others will get their chance to 
vote. Then we will face final passage on the House-passed bill.
  A broad coalition of victims' rights advocates, service providers, 
and law enforcement organizations are urging the vote I just described 
against the Toomey amendment and for the final bill. They recently 
wrote to us, saying: ``The VOCA Fix Act is a narrowly tailored, 
carefully negotiated, technical fix bill to address the immediate needs 
of survivors, and the Senate must act now to pass this critical 
legislation without any amendments. . . . Every delay allows potential 
funds that should be deposited into the Crime Victims Fund to serve 
victims to instead be deposited into the General Treasury. The House 
passed the VOCA Fix Act more than four months ago with overwhelming 
bipartisan support; we urge the Senate to similarly pass the House-
passed VOCA Fix Act, as is, immediately.''

[[Page S4965]]

  More than 1,700 national, regional, State, Tribal, and local 
organizations are begging us to do this and do it today so we can send 
it to the President and ensure that the victims are able to maintain 
access to the services they desperately need. We owe it to the victims 
to get this done.
  I see my colleague on the floor who is the cosponsor of this bill 
with me. He was the Senate Judiciary Committee's chairman in the 
previous Congress, and I have that honor in this Congress. I am glad 
that we could get together, a Democrat and a Republican, again. We have 
cosponsored things before, and we will continue to. I want to thank 
Senator Graham for his leadership and in joining on this effort. I 
think it is a good one, and we need more of them
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank Senator Durbin.
  Madam President, it has been a pleasure working with Senator Durbin 
on this to, hopefully, get it over the line this afternoon. I think 
most Americans, if they understood what we were trying to do, would be 
enthusiastically behind the effort.
  As for the deferred prosecution and nonprosecution agreements, the 
revenues from those procedures--for lack of a better word--go into the 
General Treasury, not the Crime Victims Fund, and we are fixing that. 
We have had a reduction in funds available in South Carolina. We have 
lost $3.2 million for VOCA crime victims funding for the South Carolina 
Network of Children's Advocacy Centers' 27 members. Because of this 
quirk in the law, the Crime Victims Fund is at a historic low, and it 
is affecting operations in the field.
  Attorney General Alan Wilson has been great to work with. With 
Senators Feinstein and Grassley, we have been a team on this on the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Senator Durbin went through the ins and outs of what we are doing 
here. I just want to add this: This was not easy. There are a lot of 
stakeholders in this, and there are a lot of committees of 
jurisdiction.
  I want to thank Senator Baldwin, who has been a driving force behind 
it. That is absolutely true. All of the committees could have easily 
said no, but this is one time we wanted to get to yes because the lack 
of funding is beginning to affect the operations of groups that are 
just indispensable when it comes to providing relief to crime victims.
  I would urge a ``yes'' vote. This has been a bipartisan process from 
day one. It has been going on about a year. It is now time to correct 
the quirk in the law to get these funds over to the Crime Victims Fund 
from the General Treasury.
  Senator Toomey's amendment, I will oppose. I appreciate Senator 
Toomey very much, but I think that most of the groups and all of the 
law enforcement groups are opposed to the Toomey amendment, and I will 
reluctantly do so.
  I hope we can get a really big vote on final passage because we need 
to prove to the American people that we can do things together. There 
is nothing that should bring us together more than helping victims of 
crime and making sure this fund has the resources it deserves to 
provide the treatment needed. This rise in crime has made this more 
relevant, not less.
  As for Senator Durbin, as always, I have enjoyed working with him, 
and we will continue to find common ground where we can. So I urge a 
``yes'' vote on its final passage here in a couple of hours.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Rosen). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Indiana.


                       Unanimous Consent Request

  Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, I rise today because, in a practical place 
like the State of Indiana, believe it or not, we actually balance our 
budget every year. We have commonsense things in place that if you are 
going to receive some benefits of some sort, maybe you do something 
where we can help to get you to where you do not need the benefits.
  In this case, this is again something that was not broken and is now 
being fixed in a way that takes enterprising States like the State of 
Indiana, like Texas, like Arizona, places that wanted the ability in 
administering their share of Medicaid, to have ways to try to get folks 
into a position where they could get back on their feet, seek work, and 
do things that would make sense for trying to maybe earn their way into 
that benefit somewhat.
  Do we believe Washington has all the answers? I think that is what 
you believe when you get rid of something that was working in many 
places.
  I am in the camp that, as much as I know the Federal Government has 
to weigh in and do things, but if the argument is that we have been 
knocking it out of the park here, that we have been getting things done 
that really work, if it wasn't done in the context that of every dollar 
we spend here, we borrow 23 cents--and in the time I have been here, 2 
and a half years, have been probably the loudest voice on trying to fix 
healthcare.
  Part of that issue is in my own party, where I think we are 
apologists for a broken healthcare industry. The other side of the 
aisle wants to just spend money to try to fix it without fixing the 
underlying issues that drive so many of the problems in this country, 
where we deal with them in a sustainable way in our State governments, 
in our local governments. If we take away that flexibility, then we are 
defaulting to a system that has not been solving the problems.
  Today, we are here specifically talking about the Medicaid Program. 
The way it works currently, the Federal Government pays for half the 
benefits, and the States pay for half the benefits. The Social Security 
Act authorizes a framework of flexibility so enterprising, innovative 
States can maybe do something to bring down the cost of these programs 
and wean us off the need for them primarily in the long run.
  Since President Biden has taken office, several State waivers that 
were previously approved under the Trump administration have been 
revoked. It has happened in Texas. It has happened in Arkansas. It has 
happened in Arizona. And now they are coming after a place like Indiana 
that has a system that works so well that we are even in the process of 
giving some revenues back to our citizens this coming year, where 
revenues were so far above forecast, we are still taking care of issues 
at the State level and doing what we ought to be considering: returning 
resources to the taxpayer.
  This isn't even that. This is trying to retain the flexibility where 
it has been working. It is called the Gateway to Work Program, and it 
is not like it is overbearing. It just requires 20 hours per month of 
work, job searching, school, or community service. It was designed in a 
way that engages the individual needing the benefit and that can 
improve their quality of life over the long run.
  It has had a long history. The pilot was first approved by CMS in 
2007. It has been renewed as recently as 2018. Yet the Biden 
administration, right now, by taking these actions--these flexibilities 
would have been in place until 2025. It is stopping prematurely what I 
believe is essential if we are going to ever live within our means 
here, finding better ways to do it and more sustainable ways to pay for 
it. We should have that flexibility.
  With this in mind, I will introduce the Let States Set Medicaid 
Requirements Act. This legislation will empower States to have the 
flexibility that they have had that has been making progress. It will 
encourage behaviors that will improve healthcare outcomes. It has 
precedence in other Federal programs when it comes to earning 
unemployment benefits or food assistance. This bill is commonsense 
policy that I think needs to be put into place so that flexibility 
cannot arbitrarily be taken away.
  I yield to my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, for everything from emergency room visits 
to mental health care, Medicaid funding is vital to the health of our 
most

[[Page S4966]]

vulnerable citizens. More than 4 million of my constituents, including 
half of all the children in the State, depend on the stability of the 
State's Medicaid Program.
  Unfortunately, the Biden administration has put the healthcare of 
these individuals in jeopardy by rescinding a previous approval of 
Texas's 1115 waiver extension. Basically, that waiver would allow the 
State to manage the program in a way that maximizes the benefit and 
save money where possible, mainly through managed care.
  Now, those are some pretty bureaucratic terms, the 1115 waiver, but 
here is the short of it: Texas stands to lose $11 billion to provide 
healthcare for underserved patients as a result of this unilateral and 
unjustified rescission by the Biden administration. All of this was 
done for an unconstitutional purpose: to force Texas to accept the 
Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion--something the Supreme Court 
of the United States has said they cannot constitutionally force. Two 
anonymous Federal officials, in a Washington Post story, reported as 
much in a recent story.
  I said earlier, when this happened to Texas, that if the 
administration can do it to Texas, they can do it to anyone, any State 
in this Chamber. My friend Senator Braun's home State of Indiana and 
Senator Young's State of Indiana now is the latest victim, and I 
appreciate their commitment to ending this game of political chicken.
  These actions not only unjustifiably jeopardize the health of 
millions of vulnerable people, they also erode the trust States have 
when they negotiate with the Federal Government, where apparently a 
deal is not a deal. States will never view their Federal partners as 
working in good faith if these agreements are invalidated by a 
successor administration.
  If we don't stand up against these reckless actions now, which State 
will be next? It may not be a Medicaid 1115 extension. It may be some 
other policy by the Biden administration. But how far in this case will 
this administration go to commandeer State resources in forcing a 
Medicaid expansion?
  I am proud to stand alongside of Senator Braun and Senator Young in 
the fight to protect the healthcare of the most vulnerable Americans in 
my State and across the country.
  I yield to the junior Senator from Indiana. I beg your pardon, Mr. 
President; maybe the senior Senator or--never mind.
  Mr. YOUNG. I thank my colleague very much for his reflections on what 
is really at stake here, Mr. President.
  Last month, the Biden administration's Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services notified the State of Indiana that it was withdrawing 
approval of the State's Gateway to Work Program. So what does this 
actually mean to rank-and-file Hoosiers? Well, it means that the 
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has decided to revoke 
Indiana's ability to determine appropriate work requirements and 
appropriate community engagement expectations for Medicaid recipients 
in our State. It means that this administration regards work as some 
form of punishment, and efforts to transition to a position of self-
reliance are somehow inappropriate.
  Now, we Republicans believe in people. We believe in people. We 
believe in self-reliance. We believe that the vast majority of 
Americans, Americans of modest means, don't want to be trapped in 
Government programs.
  Medicaid should ideally be a service which is a temporary support for 
people who really need it. The goal should be to prepare individuals 
for a life of dignity, and that includes securing a vocation, finding a 
measure of self-reliance in life.
  Now, Indiana wasn't the only State to receive this bad news. Arizona 
officials also received word that their Medicaid work expectations were 
being revoked. Just a few months ago, this administration likewise 
pulled all work expectations from the States of Arkansas, New 
Hampshire, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
  Indiana's Gateway to Work Program, again revoked by CMS, would have 
merely asked Medicaid recipients to report 20 hours of work or 
volunteer or school or other activities every month. This is really 
important. These community engagement activities are designed to 
improve quality of life, to improve the quality of the recipient's life 
over the long-term and to help Hoosiers transition from Medicaid to 
full employment. This is what people want.
  When we think of the American dream, we think of the ability to go 
out and start a family and be part of a larger community and to be able 
to meaningfully participate in a nation's civic life and to secure a 
vocation.
  Most would regard the goals of Indiana's Gateway to Work program as 
commendable. However, according to CMS, this program would result in 
significant coverage losses and harm to beneficiaries--harm to 
beneficiaries--a misleading statement that ignores the extensive list 
of individuals exempt from this requirement: students, pregnant women, 
the medically frail or the incapacitated, those with disabilities, and 
a bunch of others.
  Now, luckily for Hoosiers, the State of Indiana had not yet 
implemented the Gateway to Work program at the time of CMS's notice 
because of the unique challenges presented by the pandemic; meaning 
that Medicaid recipients would not face immediate disruption of their 
benefits.
  Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for other Americans across the 
country. And we are here to fight for them. This includes Texas, where 
the administration's decision to revoke that State's waiver put in 
jeopardy healthcare for 4 million Americans. That doesn't sound very 
compassionate to me.
  Up to this point, Medicaid waivers have allowed the States the 
ability, the freedom--the freedom under our federalist system--to test 
new policy approaches within the Medicaid Program, allowing them to 
design and improve their programs in ways that best fit their own 
populations and maybe serve as models for other States where successes 
are elicited and proven.
  But with the Biden administration's recent actions, with their one-
size-fits-all mandates and mindset, States will now need to be on 
guard. CMS may decide to revoke its waiver authority at any given time. 
This means any attempt by a State to improve its Medicaid Program 
carries a serious risk of disrupting healthcare for the program's 
beneficiaries if that innovation could ultimately be revoked. God 
forbid we try and improve a government program. But I guess Medicaid is 
perfect, and we can't find room for improvement. Certainly, we can't 
rely on the States to come up with improvements. Any improvements that 
might be made would have to come from Washington, DC. This is the sort 
of mindset we seem to be dealing with.
  But for a nation that has always valued quality and innovation in 
healthcare, for Americans who believe we should empower all of our 
citizens, and for leaders who believe we have a responsibility to 
provide the least among us the necessary tools to stand on their own 
two feet, this is an unsustainable situation.
  So I urge my colleagues to act now and stand up for their State's 
ability to set their own Medicaid requirements that meet the needs of 
their own citizens.
  And with that, I yield to my esteemed colleague from Indiana, who has 
been working very hard on this issue, Senator Braun.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill, which is at the 
desk. Further, I ask 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. Is there objection?
  Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, first of all, I want to say about my two 
colleagues, I have very much enjoyed talking healthcare with the 
Senator from Indiana, the lead sponsor of this. We have had a lot of 
very productive discussions about the role of healthcare in America.
  I strongly support the proposition that the Federal Government 
doesn't know all the answers here. Sometimes my friends say I am the 
Senator from innovation because I am always trying to promote 
innovation. That is what section 1332 is all about.

[[Page S4967]]

  My other colleague from Indiana is a very valued member of the 
Finance Committee. So I want it understood that I think Indiana 
Senators, they are 100 percent straight shooters who I enjoy talking 
healthcare with.
  Let me say, respectfully, why I have a difference of opinion with 
respect to this issue.
  My sense is that what my colleagues from Indiana want to do is based 
on a premise that comes from the Trump administration, which I think is 
flawed. The premise is that those on Medicaid really don't work and 
don't want to work.
  Having run the legal aid program for the elderly before I came to the 
Senate and was codirector of the Oregon Gray Panthers--and, again, it 
is a good discussion. People have differences of opinion. I think those 
on Medicaid overwhelmingly--overwhelmingly would like to be able to 
work and do work, and that is what the difference of opinion is here.
  As I understand it, Senator Braun wants States to have the authority 
to condition access to Medicaid on work. Now, his colleague from 
Indiana noted some exceptions and the like, which sounds like it is of 
some value, but the basic proposition is conditioning access to 
Medicaid on work.
  It has been my experience--and I have made a practice of it over the 
years, having been in public life, to go back and talk to people on 
Medicaid. I think overwhelmingly they want to and do work.
  It seems to me, as we emerge from the economic effects of the COVID 
crisis--and my colleague and I are going to work, for example, on 
unemployment insurance, where I hope, again, to bring flexibility to 
the States. For example, my colleague on the Finance Committee knows 
that we certainly had a lot of serious technology issues with respect 
to the unemployment insurance programs of the States. So one of the 
areas I will propose, as we continue our work this year, is that the 53 
systems should have a uniform baseline. And I think we are going to 
have good support, Democrats and Republicans, on it. The key feature 
will be, of course, giving States the flexibility to innovate, 
consistent with having a uniform baseline.
  So I want my colleagues, both of them, to understand--Senator Braun, 
who I have had some good conversations with, with respect to 
healthcare; and Senator Young, who is on the Finance Committee--I very 
much look forward to working with both of them on these healthcare 
issues.
  For the reasons that I am describing today, I am objecting at this 
time. But I think there are a lot of areas where both parties can come 
together with respect to healthcare. For these reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard
  Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, my friend from Oregon, we have had a 
discussion not only on this particular issue. I respect his point of 
view. And I think we both agree, though, that when it comes to 
healthcare, it is something that is breaking the bank in this country.
  When it is 20 percent of our GDP, and it is 10 to 12 percent in most 
other developed countries, it has got to be a problem with the 
underlying industry and the way government has gone about trying to 
address it.
  I am one in my own business, 13 years ago, who declared that no one 
should go broke because they get sick or have a bad accident, and then 
took the tools that were out there with a system that didn't give you 
many to work with, have found a way to make it sustainable, to put skin 
in the game for my own employees, to get them to get better care for 
themselves, and to do things that weren't the same things we have been 
doing, which have not improved the situation.
  Medicaid is paid for half by States, half by the Federal Government. 
I think it does entitle States to have more flexibility on account of 
it. But what I would ask my colleagues on my side of the aisle is to 
look at holding the industry more accountable by being competitive, 
transparent, engaging the healthcare consumer, and that the other side 
of the aisle doesn't just push through for spending more Federal 
dollars, where the proof is in the pudding. Neither approach has been 
working.
  It is a tapeworm on the economy. Warren Buffett has got it correct. 
We need to put our heads together.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                               H.R. 1652

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, just about a month ago, I was on the 
floor. Senator Durbin from Illinois was here. We were on the floor at 
that time to ask for unanimous consent to pass legislation to fix a 
technical issue with the VOCA deposit.
  As my colleagues will remember, VOCA is designed to help sustain the 
Crime Victims Fund Act, or that is the legislation that we had 
introduced at that time. Just to refresh memories, I would like to 
reiterate why this fix to the victims fund is so essential.
  Effectively, what we are talking about here is stability; 
sustainability; and, really, certainty.
  I had an opportunity in late June to host a roundtable with members 
from the victim services groups from around the State. We were focused 
on the impact of the VOCA deposit issue specific to Alaska and what it 
meant for those who provide the services for victims, whether these are 
the child advocacy centers, whether these are the domestic violence 
shelters and the centers, abused women networks. But I was really blown 
away by the testimony from so many in these organizations. They were 
facing a 36-percent cut to the VOCA funds in just this past fiscal 
year.
  When you think about what the impact of cuts at 36 percent means to 
any organization, it is, obviously, very, very limiting. But for some 
of these organizations, we are talking about a quarter of their budget. 
A quarter of their annual budget could be lost just like that.
  What they shared with me was that this was everything for them. This 
was the difference of being able to answer the phone from somebody who 
has been abused; is in an awful, tragic situation; doesn't know where 
to go, and they phone that number and there is nobody to take that 
call, nobody to respond, nobody to save those lives.
  It is a matter of not just having the individual there to answer the 
phone, but, again, when we think about the types of services that are 
provided by these victim services organizations, they are there for, 
truly, the most vulnerable at an exceptionally vulnerable moment in 
their lives.
  I was able to hear from those who were gathered at this roundtable, 
to hear firsthand on the increases in victimization that we have seen 
in my home State of Alaska during this past year, as we have seen this 
impact from COVID. But the impacts of this increase on our providers 
have really been astounding.
  Alaska CARES, for example, saw a 173-percent increase in children 
hospitalized in the pediatric ICU for serious physical abuse and fatal 
neglect.
  Think about that. They had a 173-percent increase in these kids who 
are being hospitalized, and they have said they were seeing significant 
brain trauma, significant brain injury. I heard about unprecedented 
increases that we are seeing in child torture, which our child advocacy 
centers are witnessing firsthand. Really, when you think about that, it 
has to just haunt you to the core.
  The Alaska chapter of Volunteers of America, which receives VOCA 
funds to provide at-risk youth and children with vital mental health 
services, shared a story. They introduced me to Alice.
  Alice is a teen who experienced numerous traumatic events in her 
young life, including child sexual assault and neglect. By receiving 
services through VOCA, she is pulling her life together. She is 
learning coping skills, learning to make those positive choices.
  So when we think about the role that these victim services play, 
these providers who, again, are there for truly the most vulnerable at 
the most vulnerable times that they may face, it should make us want to 
do everything we can to ensure that they have the resources available 
for them.
  The longer Congress delays this inevitable fix, the larger cuts 
victim services in Alaska and in every State in our Nation are going to 
face. I think

[[Page S4968]]

we all recognize this has been a difficult time, but for those who are 
trying to serve victims through a global pandemic, it has really been 
so much harder. It has been 10 times harder. Our providers are 
exhausted. They are burned out. And now they are faced with massive 
cuts.
  Now, my colleague from Pennsylvania has some legitimate budget 
concerns that he hopes to address through an amendment we will take up 
later today. His concerns with changes in mandatory spending are valid, 
and I respect that, but this VOCA fix legislation is not the mechanism 
to address these concerns. I fear that if his amendment should pass, it 
will delay and perhaps derail this much needed fix.
  Again, we are hearing from victims. We are hearing from survivors. We 
are hearing from victim service organizations. They are asking us--they 
are asking us--they are begging us for a fix now to the VOCA deposit. I 
am not hearing too many of them ask for CHIMP reform. The use of CHIMPs 
is controversial. Our legislation, which would fix the VOCA deposit, is 
not.
  We cannot fail the many who dedicate their lives to serving victims 
and survivors. There was an Alaska organization at the VOCA roundtable 
who said it very neatly. She said: It is a representation of our values 
as a society how we help those who are most vulnerable.
  We have the ability today to do what is right, so I would urge my 
colleagues to vote aye on the VOCA Fix Act.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hyde-
Smith and I be allowed to use a prop or two during our next 
presentation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered


         Tribute to Mississippi State University Baseball Team

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, thank you very much.
  My first prop is a front-page story from the Northeast Mississippi 
Daily Journal on Thursday, July 1, 2021. It says:

       Hail State! Bulldogs are national champions. Mississippi 
     State celebrates after winning the College World Series 9-0 
     against Vanderbilt after the deciding Game 3 on Wednesday in 
     Omaha. See full coverage: Sports, 1B.

  That is my other prop, and that headline says:

       Best in Show. Decisive win delivers first national title 
     for the Mississippi State Bulldogs.

  Senator Hyde-Smith and I could not be more delighted to rise this 
afternoon and recognize Mississippi State University and their baseball 
team on their first national championship in school history in any 
sport.
  The Bulldogs had been to the College World Series 11 times in the 
past, and that in itself is a remarkable achievement. They even got to 
the championship series once in 2013. But this year was the year it all 
finally came together under Head Coach Chris Lemonis.
  They say good pitching wins baseball games, and in this case, it 
certainly helped Mississippi State win the College World Series.
  The hype had been building around MSU by the time they arrived in 
Omaha in mid-June. After beating Texas and then Virginia and then again 
beating Texas on a walk-off hit in the bottom of the ninth, the Dawgs 
advanced to the championship round to face Vanderbilt.
  The Bulldogs dropped the season opener, but the next day, on the 
strength of pitching from Houston Harding and Preston Johnson, who 
combined to throw a four-hitter, State bounced back with a 13-to-2 
victory. They carried that momentum into game 3, where Will Bednar and 
Landon Sims took the mound and held Vandy to one single hit. The 
Bulldogs won in a 9-to-0 shutout to bring the national title home for 
the first time ever to Starkville, MS.
  I want to offer my congratulations to Mississippi State Head Coach 
Chris Lemonis, who was named Coach of the Year by Collegiate Baseball 
Newspaper.
  Congratulations are also in order for Will Bednar, who won Most 
Outstanding Player at the College World Series and outfielder Tanner 
Allen, the SEC Player of the Year. He was also named the American 
Baseball Coaches Association National Player of the Year.
  In addition, six Bulldogs were named to this year's College World 
Series All-Tournament Team: Logan Tanner, Luke Hancock, Lane Forsythe, 
Tanner Allen, Rowdey Jordan, and Will Bednar.
  I want to commend the Mississippi State Bulldogs team for their 
tireless work throughout this season and for their outstanding 
achievement. They have made Mississippi State and the entire Magnolia 
State of Mississippi proud.
  In the words of the late Jack Cristil, the voice of the Bulldogs for 
many, many years, you can wrap this one up in the maroon and white.
  I yield to my colleague from Mississippi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi
  Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Mr. President, I am so pleased to join my colleague 
in congratulating Mississippi State University's baseball team on its 
recent 2021 NCAA College World Series championship, the first NCAA 
championship in school history.
  Mississippi State capped off its extraordinary season by defeating an 
incredibly talented Vanderbilt University team 9 to 0 in game 3. My 
house was full. We were all cheering. Their impressive and remarkable 
run through this year's College World Series is a testament to the rich 
tradition of the MSU baseball program, which has now appeared in 12 
NCAA College World Series in its history, including most recently 3 
consecutive series. The inspiring performance of this baseball team 
continues to be celebrated all over our State. Maroon is everywhere.
  I truly appreciate the hard work, skill, and dedication that earned 
these athletes the first NCAA Division I baseball championship for 
Mississippi State, which are aptly described in the accompanying 
resolution.
  We take pride in the legacy and inspiring example of these young men 
and their coaches. Thank you for such a wonderful and historic season. 
Hail State.
  (Rings cowbell.)
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                              The Economy

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to oppose 
Democrats' latest multitrillion-dollar spending spree.
  It has only been 4 months since the Democrats passed a $1.9 trillion 
spending bill, and it was done through Congress on a party-line vote. 
Not a single Republican voted for the bill. The Democrats put the whole 
thing on a credit card. The bill is going to be paid for by our kids 
and our grandkids, and they are going to have to pay for it with 
interest.
  To me, that bill was completely unnecessary. It was a big payoff to 
the people who run the Democratic Party--$86 billion for union bosses, 
hundreds of billions for bankrupt blue States, and free vacation time 
for DC bureaucrats. There was a big expansion of Medicaid. There was an 
even bigger expansion of ObamaCare. Millions of dollars went for so-
called climate justice.
  The bill flooded the country with cash, and it did so without adding 
goods or services to the country. So what happens? Well, prices go up. 
It is no wonder that prices have gone up since Joe Biden took office.
  Experts from both parties warned that the so-called stimulus bill 
would actually cause inflation, and that includes President Obama's 
economic adviser Larry Summers. Critics also included former Obama 
economic adviser Jason Furman. I want to make sure I get the quote 
right. He said: ``I don't know any economist that was recommending 
something the size of what [we passed].'' Didn't know a single 
economist who recommended it.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said we don't need any 
stimulus funding. Well, that didn't stop the Democrats. The 
Congressional Budget Office said our economy would be back to normal, 
they said, this summer without a dime of additional spending.
  Democrats, of course, ignored the experts. They got their hands on 
America's credit card, and they just couldn't resist using it.
  One measure of inflation is now the highest it has been in nearly 30 
years.

[[Page S4969]]

Filling up a pickup truck in my home State of Wyoming--and I was there 
again this past weekend--is now about $25 more expensive than it was 
the day Joe Biden was inaugurated. For 3 months in a row, prices have 
gone up faster than wages. In effect, the American people, because of 
the inflation exceeding wages and growth, have taken a pay cut.
  Two things I hear about every weekend in Wyoming: one, the cost of 
things, and then I hear from small businesses trying to hire people, 
trying to get people back to work.
  We know, nationally, nearly half of all the unemployed people have 
been making more money by staying at home than they would have by going 
to work. That is because Washington Democrats continue to pay them 
unemployment bonuses on top of the unemployment earnings that they make 
in their own State. States have unemployment programs to compensate 
people who are out of work, but Washington Democrats said: Not enough. 
We are going to pay everybody a big bonus on top of that.
  At the end of June, a poll estimated that 1.8 million people were 
staying home from work because they were making more money not working 
than they would make by working. These people aren't lazy. They are 
logical. They see what the incentives are. Democrats are printing 
money, and people are not going to work because they are getting paid 
to stay home. No wonder that we have inflation combined with a record 
number in this country of unfilled jobs.
  Both inflation and worker shortages were created by this Democratic 
spending bill. It seems the Democrats still haven't learned basic 
economics, and now the Democrats are getting ready to make the same 
mistake all over again. This time, it is even on a bigger scale. The 
Democrats are spending taxpayer dollars like it is Monopoly money.
  Democrats are getting ready to cram another bill through Congress on 
another party-line vote, ignoring all the warning signs. Even the 
Treasury Secretary, the Secretary of the Treasury, Janet Yellen, 
admitted last week--she said ``several more months of rapid 
inflation''; ``several more months of rapid inflation.''
  Democrats see the inflation and say: Don't worry about it. We will 
just send you another government check. Democrats seem to want the 
entire country getting a government check.
  The latest spending spree massively expands ObamaCare, just like the 
last one. This new spending spree would lower the age of Medicare even 
though life expectancy has gone up since Medicare was created.
  This reckless spending spree would also give amnesty to millions and 
millions of illegal immigrants. The amnesty includes nothing to 
strengthen our borders. That is where the work needs to be done. It 
just creates more incentives to come here illegally. No wonder we are 
seeing the highest numbers of illegal aliens in 20 years, right now. 
Many illegal immigrants have admitted they came here because Democrats 
promised to give them government benefits: free healthcare, plus the 
assurance that they could stay in this country.
  The spending spree is larded up with giveaways to the Democrats' 
favorite groups: union bosses, trial lawyers, leftwing professors. It 
includes taxpayer funding for full-time professional climate activists.
  So this morning, this very morning, Representative Ocasio-Cortez of 
New York and 80 other Members and Democrats sent a letter to Senator 
Schumer demanding funding of these activists. Senator Schumer went 
straight to the floor, and he said he would include it.
  Now, these full-time climate activists would get a government 
paycheck, free healthcare, free childcare, free college tuition, free 
housing--part of the Democrats' goal of replacing middle-class jobs 
with government checks.
  The majority leader came to the floor and talked about hiring 
hundreds of thousands of climate activists--a climate corps. Think 
about all the activists against the Keystone Pipeline, against drilling 
in the Arctic. They would now be paid by the Federal Government.
  This bill that we are going to be considering, the budget that the 
Democratic Party is bringing forth, also includes supersizing the 
Internal Revenue Service. In total, the bill is the single most 
expensive spending bill in the history of this Nation. It costs almost 
as much as America's entire role in World War II. It might not be 
infrastructure, but it is a bullet train to socialism.
  This new spending bill raises taxes. Yet it gives carve-outs to rich 
people in blue States and owners of electric vehicles.
  Let me be very clear. Not one Republican is going to vote for this 
budget bill--not one in the House, not one in the Senate--not for this 
loaded, reckless spending spree with all the taxes included. That is 
why all it takes is one Democrat in the Senate or a handful in the 
House to stop this freight train to socialism.
  This means all eyes will now be on the Democratic caucus. Chuck 
Schumer and Nancy Pelosi want absolutely every one of them to walk the 
plank. One Democrat could stop this sprint to socialism, stop this 
massive amnesty, stop these crippling tax increases. If none do, every 
single Democrat will be held responsible for the consequences of their 
actions.
  The consequences mean more inflation, with higher costs of gas, 
goods, groceries, more worker shortages, and more debt for our Nation. 
Democrats did enough damage with their last spending blowout. The new 
spending spree is twice as big, and the timing is even worse.
  I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                               H.R. 1652

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak about the 
legislation we are going to be voting on later today, including an 
amendment that I have, and it has to do with the Crime Victims Fund. 
And I just want to explain and remind my colleagues just how important 
the Crime Victims Fund is.
  This is a very, very major funding source for people who do some of 
the most important work in America. I know. I have met these folks. I 
have toured their facilities all across Pennsylvania. I am referring to 
the advocates for victims of crimes. And these advocates, my goodness, 
the heinous and horrendous crimes that they guide people's recovery 
from--I am at a loss for words to describe what these folks do often 
for children, often for very vulnerable people who are victims of these 
heinous crimes.
  Well, thank God there are people who dedicate their lives, 
professionals who dedicate their lives to helping people with their 
recovery, to helping people who are victims to cope with what can be 
horrific reliving of the experience when they have to recount it to law 
enforcement or go through physical exams and on and on. It is very, 
very difficult work, and it is very, very important to help completely 
innocent victims get through what is undoubtedly the worst experience 
in their lifetime.
  So the Crime Victims Fund provides resources for the people who help 
the victims of crime and for victims themselves. It is important to 
point out that the fund is funded entirely by the proceeds from 
criminal penalties. There is no taxpayer money in this fund. There 
never has been. It is entirely from criminal penalties.
  And there is a statute that created this account in the Federal 
Government that requires the money that goes into it, these criminal 
penalties, to go to the victims and their advocates. But it doesn't say 
when the money has to go, and so that gave rise to a serious problem 
that developed.
  For years, it turns out that money that was put into this fund--money 
from criminal penalties that went into the fund--didn't go to victims, 
didn't go to the advocates for victims. It was intentionally withheld 
because we had these crazy budget rules that created an incentive to 
withhold it.
  The way the budget rule worked is, if there was money in the fund 
that did not go to the victims of crime and their advocates, as it is 
supposed to, under the budget rules, you could pretend that that was a 
savings, and it would therefore allow you to spend more money in other 
areas. It was effectively a way to circumvent spending caps, and that 
is how it was used.
  Year in and year out, money was systematically withheld from victims 
of

[[Page S4970]]

crime and their advocates, and it was a big problem. I will give you a 
sense of scale. In 2014, for instance, only $745 million was obligated, 
despite a balance of $9 billion. There was over $8 billion in funding 
that was supposed to go to crime victims and their advocates 
intentionally withheld. In 2013, only $730 million was obligated out of 
a little over an $8 billion balance. There was over $7 billion 
intentionally withheld.
  From 2001 to 2014, the value of the funds--the money going in--
increased by almost 600 percent. Funding for victims of crime and their 
advocates increased by 39 percent.
  This was wrong. It was an abuse. It was based on an arcane and 
ridiculous budget rule, and it had a very, very deleterious effect. So 
when I discovered this, I began fighting this aggressively. It was 
brought to my attention by the people who serve victims of crime.
  These groups came to me and asked me to help them in the struggle for 
them to get the resources they needed to meet the unmet needs of 
victims of crime all over my State and, I am sure, all over the 
country.
  For instance, in 2015, the National Children's Alliance sent me a 
letter, and they said:

       The [Crime Victims Fund] caps have been set too low; 
     deposits--

  Meaning the criminal penalties going into the fund--

     have skyrocketed while disbursements have remained almost 
     flat. . . . We look forward to further working with you to 
     make all of the statutory changes needed to update the VOCA 
     Crime Victims Fund and in turn better meet the needs of all 
     victims and survivors of crime.

  In 2016, the Court Appointed Special Advocates wrote:

       Since 2000, when Congress began capping disbursement from 
     the Crime Victims Fund to prevent fluctuations in deposits, 
     funding has not kept pace with the needs of victims, 
     including the growing population of child victims in America.

  In 2015, I got a letter from the Pennsylvania Coalition Against 
Domestic Violence, and they said:

       The most frustrating thing for someone who has done policy 
     work is that there is money available for these unmet needs.

  That is all true. There was money available. It was because money was 
deposited into the fund. It was just being systematically withheld from 
the victims of crime and their advocates.
  But I got the message, and I think these folks were exactly right. So 
in response to these groups, I began working closely with appropriators 
on both sides of the aisle to address this problem and worked 
extensively with Senator Shelby and his staff. The fact is, since about 
2015, appropriators, the folks who control the effective allocation of 
this, have voluntarily obligated appropriate levels of disbursements 
since 2015, and the chart illustrates this very clearly.
  Everything to the left of the green line is prior to 2015. You can 
see these very, very low levels--less than $1 billion every year--
despite huge amounts of money being poured in; and then afterwards, 
starting in 2015, large, large increases in disbursements from the 
fund. Very, very important.
  This has changed the circumstances for advocates of crime. They have 
grown enormously. I know this. In Pennsylvania, they have been able to 
hire more counselors. They have been able to open more facilities to 
treat and to help these victims of crime.
  This is tremendous progress, but there is no guarantee that it is 
going to continue. So I have sought to make this simple principle: The 
idea that the money flowing into the fund should also flow out of the 
fund to the victims. I have tried to make this a permanent arrangement.
  Now, let me be very clear. I am not trying to change budget rules. I 
am not trying to reopen some general budget. This is one egregious 
example of a category of budget flaws, and I am not trying to change 
it. I would love to change that. I should qualify that. I am trying to 
change it in other venues, but not here, not today. Today, all I am 
trying to do is something very, very narrow and very specific, and that 
is to make sure that victims of crimes and their advocates get the 
money they are supposed to get. It is really and truly as simple as 
that.
  I have introduced legislation to do just this, repeatedly--you know, 
legislation that would simply require that we appropriate the 
appropriate dollar amounts each year. It was reported favorably out of 
the Senate Budget Committee in 2015. It was unanimously adopted in the 
congressional Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019.
  So there is broad bipartisan support for this idea. But we have never 
been able to get it across the finish line. Again, I am not trying to 
change all the budget rules, just this one fund. I just want to make 
sure that crime victims get the money that the statute says they are 
supposed to get.
  The Senator from Illinois, I believe, is the Senator who has 
introduced legislation that would create a new category of resources 
for the Crime Victims Fund, and that is specifically to add deferred 
and nondeferred prosecution agreement payments to the Crime Victims 
Fund. So it wouldn't be just criminal judgments. It would also be these 
prosecution agreements.
  I fully support that money going into the Crime Victims Fund. It is a 
new, important source of revenue that can help to serve these victims 
of crime. There are no tax dollars involved. I support this goal. I 
support this legislation. I just want to make sure that we don't go 
back to these days, that weren't so terribly long ago, when money going 
into the fund stayed in the fund because it served people's purposes.
  And that is a problem I have with the underlying legislation in its 
current form. That legislation has no requirement whatsoever that any 
increase in funding will actually be matched by an increase in outflows 
for victims and their advocates.
  You see, making the fund bigger doesn't by itself guarantee that 
there will be any more money for victims of crime or their advocates. 
Ensuring that money goes into the fund is just not enough. We saw this. 
We need to ensure that more money is actually leaving the fund and 
going to victims, not remaining unspent so as to offset some other 
category of spending, who knows what.
  I was appreciative back in 2018 for the endorsement from the National 
Organization for Victim Assistance, who wrote:

       A permanent solution is needed. . . . There is no mechanism 
     to stop Congress from diverting money from victims in the 
     future, should it choose to do so.

  Well, my amendment solves this problem. It is very simple. It would 
just require a reasonable minimum level for victims and advocates based 
on the amounts that have been deposited into the Crime Victims Fund 
from both of the sources.
  As I say, Congress has been adhering to this voluntarily since 2016. 
What my amendment would do is it would simply create a point of order. 
If legislation came to the floor that violated this principle and that 
went back to these days of withholding--intentionally withholding--
money that should be going to victims of crime, then that legislation 
would be subject to a point of order. Now, 60 Senators could override 
that point of order, but at least it would create the presumption and 
an incentive for appropriation legislation to actually provide the 
funding to victims and their advocates that it is supposed to.
  I should also be clear. The policy only creates a spending floor. It 
would be at the discretion of the appropriators first and Congress as a 
whole later to decide if they wanted to disburse more money than what 
the floor contemplates, but the floor would at least prevent the worst 
of these abuses.
  So you can imagine my surprise when some of the folks who are big 
advocates for putting more money into the fund are adamantly opposed to 
my language that would actually require that money to also come out of 
the fund and go to the intended beneficiaries.
  You have to ask yourself, Why would someone oppose such a 
requirement? It is hard not to think that maybe one of the reasons that 
some people are adamant that they not be required to actually disburse 
this money is maybe they are thinking about going back to what used to 
happen routinely around here.
  Remember, if the money is withheld from victims, if we go back to 
when the money didn't make it out the door to victims, why, that amount 
that is withheld can be spent on other things, and that is a powerful 
incentive for a

[[Page S4971]]

lot of folks around here. You can see how it was done.
  Now, I have heard people say, some of my opponents say: Don't worry. 
We have no intention of diverting any of this money. Just trust us, 
they say.
  If they have no intention of diverting the money, then why are they 
so adamant that they not be required to disburse it to its intended 
beneficiaries?
  Well, we don't really have to speculate anymore because the President 
of the United States, President Biden, has been very clear about his 
intentions. In his budget, he has explicitly called for withholding 
this money from victims. It is right here in black and white. You don't 
have to be creative here. You don't have to be conspiratorial. The 
President has declared to the world in a published budget that he wants 
to withhold the money from crime victims. In fact, he laid it out 
there. It is in table S-8 of his budget.
  I think this is a well-founded concern that we might go back to that 
practice. And in any case, if nobody wants to go back to that practice, 
then why wouldn't they agree to a requirement that this money actually 
be disbursed?
  Now, over the course of debating this, much has been made of a letter 
that has been signed by some victims' organizations. Let's look at this 
for what it is. Organizations that depend overwhelmingly on 
congressional appropriations are asked to sign a letter by the very 
people who control whether or not they get funding, and the letter is 
advocating against codifying the stable increased funding that would 
benefit those folks.
  I think we know what is going on there. I want to thank the many 
groups that are supporting this amendment: the Committee for a 
Responsible Federal Budget, Heritage Action, FreedomWorks, the R Street 
Institute, Taxpayer Protection Alliance, Americans for Prosperity, and 
others.
  But, folks, this isn't complicated and it isn't about overhauling 
budget rules and it isn't about anything that is terribly complicated 
or arcane. It is about ensuring that crime victims and their advocates 
get the money they are supposed to get.
  I urge my colleagues to stand with me and support this amendment and 
make sure that the neediest and some of the most vulnerable among us--
victims of crime--receive the increased funding they deserve.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from Vermont
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will oppose this amendment today. I base 
it on my experience as an advocate for victims of crime that began when 
I was a prosecutor, certainly during the time when I was the Vice 
President of the National District Attorneys Association and on their 
executive board.
  If you look at the Victims of Crime Act Fix bill, it has passed the 
House. It would deposit the proceeds in deferred prosecution agreements 
and nonprosecution agreements into the Crime Victims Fund. And I 
mention this because in recent years, deposits into the fund have 
shrunk significantly. They actually threatened the ability to sustain 
payments to crime victims.
  Senator Toomey's amendment would create a point of order if 
expenditures from the Crime Victims Fund fall below the 3-year average. 
The current 3-year average is $583 million, assuming the CBO estimate 
of collections in fiscal year 2021 is $750 million.
  The Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agency Subcommittee, 
Appropriations, has worked to ensure the release of the fund is more 
than the 3-year average. For example, in fiscal year 2021, the CJS bill 
allows spending of $2 billion--$2.015 billion out of the fund. Now, 
that is $1.5 billion more than the 3-year average of fiscal years 2018, 
2019, and 2020.
  I mention all of this because I support the crime victims. I spent a 
career supporting and advocating for them. I did that, as I said, 
before I was in the Senate, when I was a prosecutor.
  But this amendment offered by Senator Toomey impinges on the ability 
of the Appropriations Committee to do its job. If it were adopted, here 
is what would happen. It would create a point of order. It would delay 
the movement of any appropriations bill that the Crime Victims Fund is 
part of.
  I just put over on the--talking about the average--we have been 
releasing more than the 3-year average of the fund over the last 
several fiscal years, but then there could be a time when there is not 
enough funds to keep it sustainable.
  And that is why we are here to vote on the underlying bill, the VOCA 
Fix Act. That would direct deposits from nonprosecution agreements and 
deferred prosecution agreements to go into the Crime Victims Fund so we 
can continue to spend out of the fund at or above current levels. And 
without it, the spending would continue to fall.
  Victims groups like the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence are 
asking for clean passage of this act.
  I went down through it and looked at the various States. I mention a 
couple: the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the 
Children's Advocacy Centers of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Coalition 
Against Rape authored an opinion piece on July 5. They ask for clean 
passage of the VOCA Fix Act.
  By the way, this bill also has nearly 60 cosponsors, including a 
number of my Republican colleagues like Senators Murkowski, Graham, 
Cornyn, and Grassley. And the Senate bill is identical to the one 
before us, H.R. 1652.
  Now, if we don't include amendments, if we pass this bill, we can get 
it to the President for signature immediately. We can help to ensure 
deposits into the Crime Victims Fund. That means all crime victims are 
going to be helped. I want that passage without an amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter from the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, the National 
Latin@ Network for Healthy Families, Council of State Governments, 
Futures Without Violence, and numerous others be placed in the Record 
at the conclusion of my remarks
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    July 13, 2021.
     Hon. Member,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: The organizations below, comprising the 
     national VOCA stakeholder workgroup, are writing today to 
     urge you to support a floor vote on the House-passed H.R. 
     1652, the VOCA Fix to Sustain the Crime Victims Fund Act of 
     2021 (``VOCA Fix Act'') by allowing a vote on the bill. We 
     further urge you to vote in favor of the VOCA Fix Act and to 
     oppose controversial amendments.
       The bipartisan and bicameral VOCA Fix Act, introduced in 
     the Senate as S. 611 by Senators Durbin, Graham, Baldwin, 
     Grassley, Feinstein, Cornyn, Klobuchar, and Murkowski, is a 
     narrowly-focused, carefully negotiated technical fix to 
     address an immediate crises--massive cuts to Victim of Crime 
     Act (``VOCA'') victim service grants and insufficient funding 
     for victim compensation.
       VOCA grants are funded by monetary penalties associated 
     with Federal criminal convictions--they are not funded with 
     taxpayer money. In recent years, deposits into the VOCA's 
     Crime Victims Fund (``CVF'' or ``the Fund'') have dropped 
     dramatically, due to the Department of Justice's increasing 
     reliance on deferred prosecution and non-prosecution 
     agreements (DPAs/NPAs). Unlike criminal convictions, monetary 
     penalties associated with DPAs/NPAs are deposited into the 
     General Fund of the Treasury--they do not go into the Crime 
     Victims Fund, despite being outcomes based on the same 
     crimes.
       The VOCA Fix Act fixes this discrepancy by making a 
     technical fix to deposit monetary penalties associated with 
     DPAs/NPAs into the CVF instead of the General Fund, in 
     alignment with the original intent of the statute. It also 
     increases funding for state victim compensation programs and 
     includes other provisions outlined in this letter of support, 
     signed by more than 1,710 national, regional, state, Tribal, 
     and local organizations and government agencies.
       The VOCA Fix Act passed the House with overwhelming 
     bipartisan support, but it has stalled in the Senate due to 
     attempts to use the non-controversial VOCA Fix Act to force a 
     vote on the controversial use of Changes in Mandatory 
     Programs (``CHIMPs'') in the Appropriations process. 
     Recognizing the critical need to pass the VOCA Fix Act 
     without further delay, Senators are pursuing a consent 
     agreement to vote on both the VOCA Fix Act and an amendment 
     by Senator Toomey relating to the use of the VOCA CHIMP. We 
     urge you to support a floor vote on the VOCA Fix Act by 
     letting the unanimous consent agreement to go through. Upon 
     the acceptance of the consent agreement, we urge you to vote 
     in favor of the VOCA Fix Act.
       We also urge you to vote against Senator Toomey's amendment 
     to limit the use of the VOCA offset by requiring 
     Appropriators to release the average of the past three years' 
     deposits from the CVF annually. We recognize Senator Toomey's 
     desire to help survivors, but his amendment is not the best

[[Page S4972]]

     way to do so. While on the surface, this proposal may seem 
     reasonable, it actually has the potential to be harmful. The 
     average of the past three years' deposits was less than $500 
     million. If there was no balance in the Fund to offset the 
     low deposits, victim service grants would have been $200 
     million--a cut of 95% compared to four years ago. The cuts to 
     grants over the last few years have been catastrophic, but a 
     cut of 95% would completely decimate the entire victim 
     service infrastructure. The $2 billion balance allowed by 
     Senator Toomey's amendment is less than yearly disbursement 
     over the past five years and is insufficient to meet the 
     needs of survivors.
       It is also important to note that funding is not being 
     diverted from victims to pay for other programs, as stated by 
     those seeking to amend the VOCA Fix Act. When the CVF is used 
     as a paper offset, funds are not transferred to pay for other 
     programs--they remain in the Fund. Moreover, despite claims 
     to the contrary, Appropriators are not hoarding money in the 
     Fund to use as an offset. Over the past several years, they 
     have reduced the balance in the Fund from $13 billion in 
     Fiscal Year 2017 to an anticipated $2.5 billion at the end of 
     this fiscal year by increasing grants to victim service 
     providers. While $2.5 billion may seem like a large balance, 
     in actuality, it would only cover one year's VOCA grants at 
     Fiscal Year 2020 levels, which were already at a five-year 
     low. The amendment has the potential to bring down future 
     funding bills and cause a government shutdown, and a bill 
     with this language would not pass the House of 
     Representatives. We ask that you join us in opposing this 
     amendment.
       Victims, survivors, and victim service organizations are 
     telling us that they are cutting services, laying off staff, 
     and even closing. They are asking for the VOCA Fix Act--they 
     are not asking for CHIMP reform. While we wait for passage, 
     survivors and advocates have watched criminal settlements 
     totaling more than $545 million directed towards the General 
     Fund rather than into the Crime Victims Fund this calendar 
     year, because this technical fix has not passed. Ultimately, 
     there may be merit in holding a conversation about the 
     structure of Congressional spending bills, but the VOCA Fix 
     Act is not the appropriate forum. The use of CHIMPs is 
     controversial; the VOCA Fix Act is not.
       The VOCA Fix Act is a narrowly tailored, carefully 
     negotiated technical fix bill to address the immediate needs 
     of survivors, and the Senate must act now to pass this 
     critical legislation without any amendments. On behalf of a 
     broad and committed group of national, regional, state, 
     Tribal, and local stakeholders, we urge you to support a vote 
     on the VOCA Fix Act, to vote in favor of the VOCA Fix Act, 
     and to vote against the Toomey amendment. Every delay allows 
     potential funds that should be deposited into the Crime 
     Victims Fund to serve victims to instead be deposited into 
     the General Treasury. The House passed the VOCA Fix Act more 
     than four months ago with overwhelming bipartisan support; we 
     urge the Senate to similarly pass the House-passed VOCA Fix 
     Act, as is, immediately.
       For more information, contact Denise Edwards, Rachel 
     Graber, Terri Poore, Monica McLaughlin, Daisy Pagan, and Dan 
     Eddy.
           Respectfully,
       Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, Casa de Esperanza: 
     National Latin@ Network for Healthy Families and Communities, 
     Council of State Governments Justice Center, Futures Without 
     Violence, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, National Alliance to 
     End Sexual Violence, National Association of Crime Victim 
     Compensation Boards, National Association of VOCA Assistance 
     Administrators, National Children's Alliance, National 
     Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National Criminal 
     Justice Association, National District Attorneys Association, 
     National Network to End Domestic Violence, National 
     Organization for Victim Assistance, National Organization of 
     Sisters of Color Ending Sexual Assault, Ujima, Inc.: The 
     National Center on Violence Against Women in the Black 
     Community.

  Mr. LEAHY. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I join Senator Leahy and others who have 
come to the floor this afternoon to urge clean passage of the VOCA Fix 
Act so that we can secure greater deposits into the Crime Victims Fund 
and ensure continued support for crime victims.
  I am currently the chair of the Commerce, Justice, and Science 
Appropriations Subcommittee. Senator Moran from Kansas is my ranking 
member. Before that, Senator Moran was chair of the committee, and I 
was the ranking member. Together, we have committed to a target of 
spending from the fund at a minimum of the 3-year average of 
collections. That is a practice that was started by former 
Appropriations Committee and CJS Chair Senator Mikulski, along with 
Senator Shelby, back in 2015.
  All deposits made into the Crime Victims Fund should stay in the 
fund. Our subcommittee directs the amount that is released by the 
Justice Department from the fund for victim services. But every dollar 
stays in the fund and is available in future years if it is not used 
for victim services.
  If Senator Toomey's amendment passes, if appropriations bills contain 
less than the 3-year average, either the entire cap falls, depleting 
the fund in one fiscal year or, more likely, the appropriations bill 
would be stopped from moving forward on the floor.
  Now, I appreciate what Senator Toomey is trying to do. He wants to 
address budget reform and the impact of mandatory spending, but this is 
not the way to do that. That needs a thoughtful process that goes 
through the committee that there is debate on. This should not be done 
as an amendment to a bill that is at a process that is critical to help 
the victims of crime.
  Victims groups and direct service providers are asking for the clean 
passage of this act, the VOCA Fix Act. They are urging us to vote no on 
Senator Toomey's amendment.
  We have all heard from victims groups requesting clean passage of 
this bill. I have heard from individuals and organizations from across 
New Hampshire, as Senator Leahy said, organizations like the New 
Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence and the 
Granite State Children's Alliance which both benefit from the Crime 
Victims Fund because they get funding for those people who are injured.
  This bill has already passed the House. If we pass this legislation 
today without amendment, it can be quickly signed into law, and we can 
get these much needed changes to shore up collections into the fund so 
that the victims of crime can get the help that they need. It will make 
a meaningful impact to ensure there is adequate funding for survivors 
now and in years to come.
  I would urge a ``no'' vote on the Toomey amendment.
  I yield the floor
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before we proceed to a vote on final 
passage of the VOCA Fix Act, on which I teamed up with Senators Durbin, 
Graham, and other members of the Judiciary Committee, we first will 
turn to the Toomey amendment.
  This amendment is loosely based on a bill introduced by Senator 
Toomey in 2015. That 2015 measure, entitled the ``Fairness for Victims 
of Crime Act,'' would have created a budgetary point of order against 
legislation that required the Crime Victims Fund to disburse less than 
the average amount collected by the Fund over the previous 3 fiscal 
years.
  The Senate held a field hearing on this legislation, which was 
introduced by Senator Toomey, the same year. The Budget Committee, of 
which I am a member, then approved the legislation by unanimous voice 
vote. I still support the premise behind this bill, which is to promote 
fairness for crime victims and restore the original intent of the 
Victims of Crime Act.
  Some years ago, appropriators placed an arbitrary cap on the amount 
of money that could flow out of the Crime Victims Fund each year. The 
imposition of this cap meant not only that billions of dollars 
accumulated, unspent, in the fund in later years, but also that this 
sum could be used as an offset to support other projects backed by 
congressional appropriators. Meanwhile, the availability of so much 
unspent money in the Crime Victims Fund made it an extremely tempting 
target for budget dealmakers. On one occasion in 2015, during the Obama 
administration, budget negotiators simply rescinded at least a billion 
dollars of the fund for a budget deal.
  As noted by Senator Toomey today, the President's budget proposal for 
the coming fiscal year indicates that he proposes to rely on $26 
billion in the Crime Victims Fund and cancellations in the Children's 
Health Program to offset an equivalent amount in new discretionary 
spending. Table S-8 to the President's budget shows that this is the 
intention.
  Every last penny brought into the Victims of Crime Act Fund is 
supposed to help victims rather than serve as a funding gimmick for 
other projects supported by appropriators and the White House. It is 
for this reason that I support the Toomey amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, is there a scheduled vote?

[[Page S4973]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. To the Senator from Illinois, it is scheduled 
for 5:15.
  Mr. DURBIN. The first vote is on the Toomey amendment followed by a 
vote on passage of the bill, amended or unamended?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would just say in conclusion--and I thank the Senator 
from New Hampshire and the Senator from Vermont for their comments on 
this measure.
  If you listen carefully to the Senator from Pennsylvania, there is 
one thing he did not say. He did not say that any surplus in this fund 
was spent for another purpose.
  He seems to worry about the allocation of the balance each year of 
the fund. I would think a fiscal conservative would want to make 
certain that the money spent is spent properly, not overspending in 
some years and underspending in others.
  That is exactly what the appropriators are asking for here, the 
ability to moderate and to regulate the amount of money as it is spent, 
as it is needed. That seems like a pretty fiscally conservative point 
of view and a responsible one.
  I urge my colleagues to follow the advice of the Senators from 
Vermont and New Hampshire and to oppose the Toomey amendment and 
support the passage of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, my understanding is that I would have 1 
minute to close out debate on this; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute, and the Senator is 
recognized.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Could I claim that minute now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Thank you very much.
  Listen, it is very clear that we have very broad agreements on a 
provision in this legislation that will dramatically increase the money 
that goes into the fund. What my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle object to is a requirement that the money actually go out of the 
fund to the victims and their advocates.
  And we know that, systemically, money was withheld from this fund for 
years, and we know that President Biden has stipulated in his current 
budget that it must happen again.
  I am simply saying, if we all agree that this nontaxpayer money 
coming from criminal penalties and nondeferred agreements, if it is 
supposed to go into this account, the Crime Victims Fund, which I 
support, it should actually have to go to the victims of crime and 
their advocates.
  If my amendment passes, this bill could be passed by the House later 
that same day or the next day. It could be on the President's desk 
before the end of the week, easily. If it were to pass and be signed 
into law, then we would be assured that appropriation bills would be 
brought to the floor with the proper allocation done. So I urge the 
support of my amendment, and then the adoption of the underlying bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am not going to read the lengthy 
statement from the coalition of victims' rights advocates and law 
enforcement organizations opposing the Toomey amendment and the many 
organizations that have asked us to vote no on the amendment and yes on 
the Victims of Crime Act.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the entire 
statement
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                    July 13, 2021.
     Hon. Member,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.

       Dear Senator: The organizations below, comprising the 
     national VOCA stakeholder workgroup, are writing today to 
     urge you to support a floor vote on the House-passed H.R. 
     1652, the VOCA Fix to Sustain the Crime Victims Fund Act of 
     2021 (``VOCA Fix Act'') by allowing a vote on the bill. We 
     further urge you to vote in favor of the VOCA Fix Act and to 
     oppose controversial amendments.
       The bipartisan and bicameral VOCA Fix Act, introduced in 
     the Senate as S. 611 by Senators Durbin, Graham, Baldwin, 
     Grassley, Feinstein, Cornyn, Klobuchar, and Murkowski, is a 
     narrowly-focused, carefully negotiated technical fix to 
     address an immediate crises--massive cuts to Victim of Crime 
     Act (``VOCA'') victim service grants and insufficient funding 
     for victim compensation.
       VOCA grants are funded by monetary penalties associated 
     with Federal criminal convictions--they are not funded with 
     taxpayer money. In recent years, deposits into the VOCA's 
     Crime Victims Fund (``CVF'' or ``the Fund'') have dropped 
     dramatically, due to the Department of Justice's increasing 
     reliance on deferred prosecution and non-prosecution 
     agreements (DPAs/NPAs). Unlike criminal convictions, monetary 
     penalties associated with DPAs/NPAs are deposited into the 
     General Fund of the Treasury--they do not go into the Crime 
     Victims Fund, despite being outcomes based on the same 
     crimes.
       The VOCA Fix Act fixes this discrepancy by making a 
     technical fix to deposit monetary penalties associated with 
     DPAs/NPAs into the CVF instead of the General Fund, in 
     alignment with the original intent of the statute. It also 
     increases funding for state victim compensation programs and 
     includes other provisions outlined in this letter of support, 
     signed by more than 1,710 national, regional, state, Tribal, 
     and local organizations and government agencies.
       The VOCA Fix Act passed the House with overwhelming 
     bipartisan support, but it has stalled in the Senate due to 
     attempts to use the non-controversial VOCA Fix Act to force a 
     vote on the controversial use of Changes in Mandatory 
     Programs (``CHIMPs'') in the Appropriations process. 
     Recognizing the critical need to pass the VOCA Fix Act 
     without further delay, Senators are pursuing a consent 
     agreement to vote on both the VOCA Fix Act and an amendment 
     by Senator Toomey relating to the use of the VOCA CHIMP. We 
     urge you to support a floor vote on the VOCA Fix Act by 
     letting the unanimous consent agreement to go through. Upon 
     the acceptance of the consent agreement, we urge you to vote 
     in favor of the VOCA Fix Act.
       We also urge you to vote against Senator Toomey's amendment 
     to limit the use of the VOCA offset by requiring 
     Appropriators to release the average of the past three years' 
     deposits from the CVF annually. We recognize Senator Toomey's 
     desire to help survivors, but his amendment is not the best 
     way to do so. While on the surface, this proposal may seem 
     reasonable, it actually has the potential to be harmful. The 
     average of the past three years' deposits was less than $500 
     million. If there was no balance in the Fund to offset the 
     low deposits, victim service grants would have been $200 
     million--a cut of 95% compared to four years ago. The cuts to 
     grants over the last few years have been catastrophic, but a 
     cut of 95% would completely decimate the entire victim 
     service infrastructure. The $2 billion balance allowed by 
     Senator Toomey's amendment is less than yearly disbursement 
     over the past five years and is insufficient to meet the 
     needs of survivors.
       It is also important to note that funding is not being 
     diverted from victims to pay for other programs, as stated by 
     those seeking to amend the VOCA Fix Act. When the CVF is used 
     as a paper offset, funds are not transferred to pay for other 
     programs--they remain in the Fund. Moreover, despite claims 
     to the contrary, Appropriators are not hoarding money in the 
     Fund to use as an offset. Over the past several years, they 
     have reduced the balance in the Fund from $13 billion in 
     Fiscal Year 2017 to an anticipated $2.5 billion at the end of 
     this fiscal year by increasing grants to victim service 
     providers. While $2.5 billion may seem like a large balance, 
     in actuality, it would only cover one year's VOCA grants at 
     Fiscal Year 2020 levels, which were already at a five-year 
     low. The amendment has the potential to bring down future 
     funding bills and cause a government shutdown, and a bill 
     with this language would not pass the House of 
     Representatives. We ask that you join us in opposing this 
     amendment.
       Victims, survivors, and victim service organizations are 
     telling us that they are cutting services, laying off staff, 
     and even closing. They are asking for the VOCA Fix Act--they 
     are not asking for CHIMP reform. While we wait for passage, 
     survivors and advocates have watched criminal settlements 
     totaling more than $545 million directed towards the General 
     Fund rather than into the Crime Victims Fund this calendar 
     year, because this technical fix has not passed. Ultimately, 
     there may be merit in holding a conversation about the 
     structure of Congressional spending bills, but the VOCA Fix 
     Act is not the appropriate forum. The use of CHIMPs is 
     controversial; the VOCA Fix Act is not.
       The VOCA Fix Act is a narrowly tailored, carefully 
     negotiated technical fix bill to address the immediate needs 
     of survivors, and the Senate must act now to pass this 
     critical legislation without any amendments. On behalf of a 
     broad and committed group of national, regional, state, 
     Tribal, and local stakeholders, we urge you to support a vote 
     on the VOCA Fix Act, to vote in favor of the VOCA Fix Act, 
     and to vote against the Toomey amendment. Every delay allows 
     potential funds that should be deposited into the Crime 
     Victims Fund to serve victims to instead be deposited into 
     the General Treasury. The House passed the VOCA Fix Act more 
     than four months ago with overwhelming bipartisan support; we 
     urge the Senate to similarly pass the House-passed VOCA Fix 
     Act, as is, immediately.
       For more information, contact Denise Edwards, Rachel 
     Graber, Terri Poore,

[[Page S4974]]

     Monica McLaughlin, Daisy Pagan, and Dan Eddy.
           Respectfully,
       Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, Casa de Esperanza: 
     National Latin@ Network for Healthy Families and Communities, 
     Council of State Governments Justice Center, Futures Without 
     Violence, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, National Alliance to 
     End Sexual Violence, National Association of Crime Victim 
     Compensation Boards, National Association of VOCA Assistance 
     Administrators, National Children's Alliance, National 
     Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National Criminal 
     Justice Association, National District Attorneys Association, 
     National Network to End Domestic Violence, National 
     Organization for Victim Assistance, National Organization of 
     Sisters of Color Ending Sexual Assault, Ujima, Inc.: The 
     National Center on Violence Against Women in the Black 
     Community.

  Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2121

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2121, offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Toomey.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 271 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--60

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 2121) was rejected.
  The bill was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters). The bill having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mr. PADILLA. 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 bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 272 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Markey
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Paul
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 100, the nays are 
0.
  The 60-vote threshold having been achieved, the bill is passed.
  The bill (H.R. 1652) was passed.

                          ____________________