[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 22066-22089]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION ACT OF 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT--
                               Continued

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I thank you as well as the chairman of 
our committee, Mr. Hatch, and the ranking member, Mr. Leahy, for 
yielding me a brief amount of time to talk on the Violence Against 
Women Act.
  I commend our leader on Judiciary, Senator Leahy, for his diligent 
work on so many of the issues contained here. I know there are some 
differences on a few. I commend Senator Biden, who has worked long and 
hard on this issue for many years. We all owe him a debt of gratitude 
for his strenuous efforts. I also thank the Senator from California, 
Mrs. Boxer. When Senator Biden first introduced the bill in the Senate, 
Senator Boxer, then Congress Member Boxer, was the House sponsor; I was 
the cosponsor. When she moved on to the Senate, I became the lead House 
sponsor and managed the bill as it was signed into law.
  When it was first enacted in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act 
signaled a sea change in our approach to the epidemic of violence 
directed at women. Until the law, by and large it had been a dirty 
little secret that every night hundreds of women showed up at police 
precincts, battered and bruised, because they were beaten by their 
spouse or their boyfriend or whatever. All too often they were told by 
that law enforcement officer, who really had no education, no training, 
or no place to send the battered woman: Well, this is a domestic 
matter. Go home and straighten it out with your husband.
  So deep were the traditions ingrained that it was very hard to remove 
them. In fact, the expression ``rule of thumb'' comes from the medieval 
law that said a husband could beat his wife with a stick provided that 
stick was no wider than his thumb.
  The Violence Against Women Act took giant strides to take this 
terrible, dirty secret, bring it above ground, and begin really to 
cleanse it. The new law acknowledged that the ancient bias showed 
itself not just in the virulence of the perpetrators of violence but in 
the failure of the system and the community to respond with sufficient 
care and understanding. Shelters grew, police departments were 
educated, the VAWA hotline--which we added to the law as an 
afterthought, I remember, in the conference--got huge numbers of

[[Page 22067]]

calls every week, far more than anybody ever expected. The increased 
penalties for repeat sex offenders did a great deal of good.
  In my State alone, for instance, the act provided $92 million for 
purposes such as shelter, such as education, such as rape crisis 
centers, and such as prevention education for high school and college 
students, and victims' services. But, as impressive as the advances 
were under the original VAWA, we still have a long way to go; this 
horrible activity is ingrained deeply in our society. Building on the 
success of VAWA I, VAWA II--the Violence Against Women Act II--is now 
before us. It is still the case that a third of all murdered women die 
at the hands of spouses and partners and a quarter of all violent 
crimes against women are committed by spouses and partners. Indeed, the 
latest figures from the Bureau of Justice Statistics actually show an 
increase of 13 percent in rape and sexual assault.
  So we have a long way to go. The battle continues. It is why the 
Violence Against Women Act is so important and will make such a 
difference in the lives of women across America. I will not catalog its 
provisions. That has been done by my colleagues before me. I urge my 
colleagues to vote for this legislation.
  In conclusion, let us hope this law will hasten the time when 
violence against women is not a unique and rampant problem requiring 
the attention of this body. Let us pray for the time when women no 
longer need to live in fear of being beaten.
  I yield my time and thank my colleagues.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I see my good friend, the Senator from 
Iowa, on the floor. I yield him 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I thank my good friend from Vermont for 
yielding me this time to voice my support for the reauthorization of 
the Violence Against Women Act. It is an important act that should be 
passed forthwith.
  I was a proud cosponsor of this bill when it passed in 1994, and I am 
an original cosponsor of the reauthorization bill. This is a law that 
has helped hundreds of thousands of women and children in my State of 
Iowa and across the Nation. Iowa has received more than $8 million 
through grants of VAWA. These grants fund the domestic violence hotline 
and keep the doors open at domestic violence shelters, such as the 
Family Violence Center in Des Moines.
  VAWA grants to Iowa have provided services to more than 2,000 sexual 
assault victims just this year, and more than 20,559 Iowa students this 
year have received information about rape prevention through this 
Federal funding.
  The numbers show that VAWA is working. A recent Justice report found 
that intimate partner violence against women decreased by 21 percent 
from 1993 to 1998. This is strong evidence that State and community 
efforts are indeed working. But this fight is far from over. The 
reauthorization of this important legislation will allow these efforts 
to continue without having to worry that this funding will be lost from 
year to year. I commend the Democratic and Republican leadership for 
working to get this bill done before we adjourn.
  I believe my friends on the Republican side of the aisle are 
suffering from a split personality. They are willing to reauthorize the 
Violence Against Women Act, but they are not willing to put a judge on 
the Federal bench who knows more about this law, has done more to 
implement this law than any other person in this country, and that is 
Bonnie J. Campbell, who right now heads the Office of Violence Against 
Women that was set up by this law in 1994. In fact, Bonnie Campbell has 
been the head of this office since its inception, and the figures bear 
out the fact that this office is working, and it is working well.
  Bonnie Campbell's name was submitted to the Senate in March. She had 
her hearing in May. All the paperwork is done. Yet she is bottled up in 
the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  Yesterday, the Senator from Alabama appeared on the CNN news show 
``Burden of Proof'' to discuss the status of judicial nominations. I 
want to address some of the statements he made on that show.
  Senator Sessions said Bonnie Campbell has no courtroom experience. 
The truth: Bonnie Campbell's qualifications are exemplary. The American 
Bar Association has given her their stamp of approval. She has had a 
long history in law starting in 1984 with her private practice in Des 
Moines where she worked on cases involving medical malpractice, 
employment discrimination, personal injury, real estate, and family 
law.
  She was then elected attorney general of Iowa, the first woman to 
ever hold that office. In that position, she gained high marks from all 
ends of the political spectrum as someone who was strongly committed to 
enforcing the law to reducing crime and protecting consumers.
  As I said, in 1995, she led the implementation of the Violence 
Against Women Act as head of that office under the Justice Department. 
Her strong performance in this role is reflected in last month's House 
vote to reauthorize VAWA--415-3.
  Senator Sessions from Alabama says she has no courtroom experience. I 
will mention a few of the judicial nominees who have been confirmed who 
were criticized for having little or no courtroom experience.
  Randall Rader--my friend from Utah might recognize that name--was 
appointed to the U.S. Claims Court in 1988 and then to the Federal 
circuit in 1990. Before 1988, Mr. Rader had never practiced law, had 
only been out of law school for 11 years, and his only post-law-school 
employment had been with Congress as counsel to Senator Hatch from 
Utah. Yet today, he sits on a Federal bench. But Senator Sessions from 
Alabama says Bonnie Campbell has no courtroom experience; that is why 
she does not deserve to be on the Federal court.
  Pasco Bowman serves on the Eighth Circuit. He was confirmed in 1983. 
Before his nomination----
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. He was criticized for his lack of experience because he 
had been in private practice for 5 years out of law school, and the 
rest of that time he was a law professor. Now he is on the Eighth 
Circuit.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield? I want to agree with that.
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. HATCH. I agree with the Senator. I do not think it is critical 
that a person have prior trial experience to be nominated to the 
Federal bench.
  Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that.
  Mr. HATCH. There are many academics who have not had 1 day of trial 
experience. There have been a number of Supreme Court Justices who have 
not had 1 day of trial experience. I do criticize the Senator in one 
regard, and that is for bringing up the name of Randall Rader because 
Randy happened to be one of the best members of our Senate Judiciary 
Committee. He is now one of the leading lights in all intellectual 
property issues as a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals judge. The fact 
is, he has a great deal of ability in that area. I agree with that.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield on that point? I am not 
criticizing Randall Rader.
  Mr. HATCH. I didn't think you were.
  Mr. HARKIN. I am saying here is a guy on the court, probably doing a 
great job for all I know, but he didn't have any courtroom experience 
either.
  Mr. HATCH. I agree with the Senator.
  Let me just say this. I am in agreement with my friend and colleague 
from Iowa. I believe it is helpful to have trial experience, especially 
when you are going to be a trial judge. I do not think it is absolutely 
essential, however. I also believe some of the greatest judges we have 
had, on the trial bench, the appellate bench, and on the Supreme Court, 
never stepped a day into a courtroom other than to be sworn into law to 
practice.
  Mr. HARKIN. I agree with that.
  Mr. HATCH. That isn't the situation.
  Now, I have to say, I appreciate my two colleagues from Iowa in their 
very earnest defense, and really offense, in

[[Page 22068]]

favor of Bonnie Campbell. She is a very nice woman and a very good 
person. Personally, I wish I could have gotten her through. But it 
isn't all this side's fault. As the Senator knows, things exploded here 
at the end because of continual filibusters on motions to proceed and 
misuse of the appointments clause, holds by Democrats, by the Democrat 
leader, on their own judges, and other problems that have arisen that 
always seem to arise in the last days.
  So I apologize to the distinguished Senator I couldn't do a better 
job in getting her through. But I agree with him, and I felt obligated 
to stand and tell him I agreed with him, that some of our greatest 
judges who have ever served have never had a day in court. I might add, 
some of the worst who have ever served have never had a day in court 
also. I think it is only fair to make that clear. But there are also 
some pretty poor judges who have been trial lawyers, as well. So it 
isn't necessarily any particular experience.
  Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator would yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. I am just pointing out what the Senator from Alabama, who 
is a member of the Judiciary Committee, said.
  Mr. HATCH. I understand.
  Mr. HARKIN. I was not saying anything about the Senator from Utah. I 
was just pointing out, as he just did, some good judges on the 
appellate level never had trial experience.
  Mr. HATCH. If the Senator would yield again, if we made that the 
criterion, that you have to have a lot of trial experience, I am afraid 
we would hurt the Federal Judiciary in many respects because there are 
some great people----
  Mr. HARKIN. I agree.
  Mr. HATCH. Who have served in very distinguished manners who have not 
had trial experience. I think it is helpful, but it does not 
necessarily mean you are going to be a great judge.
  I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, I will note 
the big difference between Judge Rader and Bonnie Campbell. I think 
Judge Rader is a very good judge. I supported him. Judge Rader got an 
opportunity to have a vote on his nomination, and he was confirmed. 
Bonnie Campbell, who was nominated way back in March, has never been 
given a vote. There is a big difference.
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. LEAHY. It is not trial experience. There is a big difference. She 
deserved a vote just as much as anybody else. She never got the vote. 
Had she gotten the vote, then I think she would have been confirmed. It 
is not a question of Judge Rader, whom I happen to like, who is a close 
personal friend of mine, and whom I supported; it is a question of who 
gets a vote around here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time yielded to the Senator from Iowa has 
expired.
  Mr. LEAHY. I assumed the time of the Senator from Utah was coming 
from his side.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yielded to him.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I yield the Senator 2 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized for 2 more 
minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I just point out, J. Harvie Wilkinson is another judge in 
the Fourth Circuit. Again, he never had any courtroom experience 
either.
  I am just pointing out, the Senator from Alabama yesterday, on the 
same TV show, said Bonnie Campbell was nominated too late. Nonsense. 
Gobbledy-gook.
  Bonnie Campbell was nominated on March 2 of this year. The four 
judicial nominees who were confirmed just last week were nominated 
after Bonnie Campbell. Why didn't Senator Sessions from Alabama stop 
them from going out of committee? They were nominated after Bonnie 
Campbell. Three of them were nominated, received their hearings, and 
were reported out of the committee during the same week in July. Bonnie 
Campbell had her hearing in May, and she has since been bottled up in 
committee.
  I keep pointing out, in 1992 President Bush nominated 14 circuit 
court judges. Nine had their hearing, nine were referred, and nine were 
confirmed--all in 1992. I guess it was not too late when the 
Republicans had the Presidency, but it is too late if there is a 
Democrat President.
  Here is the year: 2000. Seven circuit court judges have been 
nominated; two have had their hearing, one has been referred, and one 
has been confirmed--one out of seven.
  So who is playing politics around this place?
  The Senator from Alabama said the Judiciary Committee is holding 
hearings, just as they did in the past.
  In 1992, there were 15 judicial hearings; this year, there have been 
8.
  The Senator from Alabama also said some Republican Senators claim 
Bonnie Campbell is too liberal.
  But Bonnie Campbell has bipartisan support. Senator Grassley, law 
enforcement people, and victims services groups also all support her. 
Is that the test?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes have expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. May I have 2 more minutes?
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, how much time remains for the Senator 
from Vermont?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 9 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield 1 more minute to the Senator.
  Mr. HARKIN. Thirty seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 30 seconds.


      Unanimous Consent Request--Nomination Of Bonnie J. Campbell

  Mr. HARKIN. Since this may be my only opportunity today, I will do 
it, as I will every day we are in session.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee 
be discharged from further consideration of the nomination of Bonnie J. 
Campbell, that after the two rollcall votes at 4:30----
  Mr. HATCH. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HATCH. I will wait until the Senator finishes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I wanted to finish--that the Senate proceed to this 
nomination, with debate limited to 2 hours equally divided and, 
further, that the Senate vote on this nomination at the conclusion of 
the yielding back of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I get a little tired of some of these 
comments about judges when we put through 377 Clinton-Gore judges, only 
5 fewer than Ronald Reagan, the all-time high. I get a little tired of 
the anguishing.
  There has never been, to my recollection, in my 24 years here, a time 
where we have not had problems at the end of a Presidential year. 
Whether the Democrats are in power or we are in power, there is always 
somebody, and others--quite a few people--who foul up the process. But 
that is where we are. And to further foul it up is just not in the 
cards.
  Senator Harkin has spoken at length about one nominee: Bonnie J. 
Campbell. Let me respond.
  It always is the case that some nominations ``die'' at the end of the 
Congress. In 1992, when Democrats controlled the Senate, Congress 
adjourned without having acted on 53 Bush nominations. I have a list 
here of the 53 Bush nominees whose nominations expired when the Senate 
adjourned in 1992, at the end of the 102nd Congress. By comparison, 
there are only 40 Clinton nominations that will expire when this 
Congress adjourns. My Democratic colleagues have discussed at length 
some of the current nominees whose nominations will expire at the 
adjournment of this Congress, including Bonnie Campbell. I ask 
unanimous consent that this list of 53 Bush nominations that Senate 
Democrats permitted

[[Page 22069]]

to expire in 1992 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 53 BUSH NOMINATIONS RETURNED BY THE DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED SENATE IN 1992
                    AT THE CLOSE OF THE 102D CONGRESS
 
                  Nominee                               Court
 
Sidney A. Fitzwater of Texas..............  Fifth Circuit.
John G. Roberts, Jr. of Maryland..........  D.C. Circuit.
John A. Smietanka of Michigan.............  Sixth Circuit.
Frederico A. Moreno of Florida............  Eleventh Circuit.
Justin P. Wilson of Tennessee.............  Sixth Circuit.
Franklin Van Antwerpen of Penn............  Third Circuit.
Francis A. Keating of Oklahoma............  Tenth Circuit.
Jay C. Waldman of Pennsylvania............  Third Circuit.
Terrance W. Boyle of North Carolina.......  Fourth Circuit.
Lillian R. BeVier of Virginia.............  Fourth Circuit
James R. McGregor.........................  Western District of
                                             Pennsylvania.
Edmund Arthur Kavanaugh...................  Northern District of New
                                             York.
Thomas E. Sholts..........................  Southern District of
                                             Florida.
Andrew P. O'Rourke........................  Southern District of New
                                             York.
Tony Michael Graham.......................  Northern District of
                                             Oklahoma.
Carlos Bea................................  Northern District of
                                             California.
James B. Franklin.........................  Southern District of
                                             Georgia.
David G. Trager...........................  Eastern District of New
                                             York.
Kenneth R. Carr...........................  Western District of Texas.
James W. Jackson..........................  Northern District of Ohio.
Terral R. Smith...........................  Western District of Texas.
Paul L. Schechtman........................  Southern District of New
                                             York.
Percy Anderson............................  Central District of
                                             California.
Lawrence O. Davis.........................  Eastern District of
                                             Missouri.
Andrew S. Hanen...........................  Southern District of Texas.
Russell T. Lloyd..........................  Southern District of Texas.
John F. Walter............................  Central District of
                                             California.
Gene E. Voigts............................  Western District of
                                             Missouri.
Manual H. Quintana........................  Southern District of New
                                             York.
Charles A. Banks..........................  Eastern District of Arizona.
Robert D. Hunter..........................  Northern District of
                                             Alabama.
Maureen E. Mahoney........................  Eastern District of
                                             Virginia.
James S. Mitchell.........................  Nebraska.
Ronald B. Leighton........................  Western District of
                                             Washington.
William D. Quarles........................  Maryland.
James A. McIntyre.........................  Southern District of
                                             California.
Leonard E. Davis..........................  Eastern District of Texas.
J. Douglas Drushal........................  Northern District of Ohio.
C. Christopher Hagy.......................  Northern District of
                                             Georgia.
Louis J. Leonatti.........................  Eastern District of
                                             Missouri.
James J. McMonagle........................  Northern District of Ohio.
Katharine J. Armentrout...................  Maryland.
Larry R. Hicks............................  Nevada.
Richard Conway Casey......................  Southern District of New
                                             York.
R. Edgar Campbell.........................  Middle District of Georgia.
Joanna Seybert............................  Eastern District of New
                                             York.
Robert W. Kostelka........................  Western District of
                                             Louisiana.
Richard E. Dorr...........................  Western District of
                                             Missouri.
James H. Payne............................  Oklahoma.
Walter B. Prince..........................  Massachusetts.
George A. O'Toole, Jr.....................  Massachusetts.
William P. Dimitrouleas...................  Southern District of
                                             Florida.
Henry W. Saad.............................  Eastern District of
                                             Michigan.
 

  Mr. HATCH. I would note that the Reagan and Bush nominations that 
Senate Democrats allowed to expire Congresses included the nominations 
of minorities and women, such as Lillian BeVier, Frederic Moreno, and 
Judy Hope.
  I do not have any personal objection to the judicial nominees who my 
Democratic colleagues have spoken about over the last few weeks. I am 
sure that they are all fine people. Similarly, I do not think that my 
Democratic colleagues had any personal objections to the 53 judicial 
nominees whose nominations expired in 1992, a the end of the Bush 
presidency.
  Many of the Republican nominees whose confirmations were blocked by 
the Democrats have gone on to great careers both in public service and 
the private sector. Senator Jeff Sessions, Governor Frank Keating, and 
Washington attorney John Roberts are just a few examples that come to 
mind.
  I know that it is small comfort to the individuals whose nominations 
are pending, but the fact of the matter is that inevitably some 
nominations will expire when the Congress adjourns. I happens every two 
years. I personally believe that Senate Republicans should get some 
credit for keeping the number of vacancies that will die at the end of 
this Congress relatively low. As things now stand, 13 fewer nominations 
will expire at the end this year than expired at the end of the Bush 
Presidency.
  Madam President, I rise today to express my pride and gratitude that 
the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 will pass the Senate today and 
soon become law. This important legislation provides tools that will 
help women in Utah and around the country who are victims of domestic 
violence break away from dangerous and destructive relationships and 
begin living their lives absent of fear.
  I commend all of my fellow Senators and colleagues in the House of 
Representatives with whom I worked to ensure the Violence Against Women 
Act is reauthorized through the year 2005. The Republican and 
Democratic Senators and Representatives who worked to make sure that 
this legislation passed understood and understand that violence knows 
no boundaries and it can affect the lives of everyone.
  This has been a truly bipartisan effort of which everyone can be 
extremely proud. Specifically, I thank Senator Joseph Biden for his 
unyielding commitment to this bill. His leadership and dedication has 
ensured VAWA's passage. I must say, though, that all along I remained 
more optimistic than he that we would pass this bill I promised him we 
would.
  I want to take a moment to briefly summarize some of the important 
provisions in this legislation. First, the bill reauthorizes through 
fiscal year 2005 the key programs included in the original Violence 
Against Women Act, such as the STOP and Pro-Arrest grant programs. The 
STOP grant program has succeeded in bringing police and prosecutors, 
working in close collaboration with victim services providers, into the 
fight to end violence against women. The STOP grants were revised to 
engage State courts in fighting violence against women by targeting 
funds to be used by these courts for the training and education of 
court personnel, technical assistance, and technological improvements.
  The Pro-Arrest grants have helped to develop and strengthen programs 
and policies that mandate and encourage police officers to arrest 
abusers who commit acts of violence or violate protection orders. These 
grants have been expanded to include expressly the enforcement of 
protection orders as a focus for the grant program funds. The changes 
also make the development and enhancement of data collection and 
sharing systems to promote enforcement of protection orders a funding 
priority. Another improvement requires recipients of STOP and Pro-
Arrest grant funds, as a condition of funding, to facilitate the filing 
and service of protection orders without cost to the victim in both 
civil and criminal cases.
  Additionally, the legislation reauthorizes the National Domestic 
Violence Hotline and rape prevention and education grant programs. It 
also contains three victims of child abuse programs, including the 
court-appointed special advocate program. The Rural Domestic Violence 
and Child Abuse Enforcement Grants are reauthorized through 2005. This 
direct grant program, which focuses on problems particular to rural 
areas, will specifically help Utah and other states and local 
governments with large populations living in rural areas.
  Second, the legislation includes targeted improvements that our 
experience with the original Act has shown to be necessary. For 
example, VAWA authorizes grants for legal assistance for victims of 
domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault. It provides funding 
for transitional housing assistance, an extremely crucial complement to 
the shelter program, which was suggested early on by persons in my home 
state of Utah. It also improves full faith and credit enforcement and 
computerized tracking of protection orders by prohibiting notification 
of a batterer without the victim's consent when an out-of-state order 
is registered in a new jurisdiction. Another important addition to the 
legislation expands several key grant programs to cover violence that 
arises in dating relationships. Finally, it makes important revisions 
to the immigration laws to protect battered immigrant women.
  There is no doubt that women and children in my home state of Utah 
will benefit from the improvements made in this legislation. Mr. 
President, this is the type of legislation that can effect positive 
changes in the lives of all Americans. It provides assistance to 
battered women and their children when they need it the most. It 
provides hope to those whose lives have been shattered by domestic 
violence.
  I am proud to have worked with the women's groups in Utah and 
elsewhere in seeing that VAWA is reauthorized. With their help, we have 
been able to make targeted improvements to the original legislation 
that will make crucial services better and more available to women and 
children who are trapped in relationships of terror. I am proud of this 
achievement and what it will do to save the lives of victims of 
domestic violence.
  In closing, I again want to thank Senators Biden and Abraham, 
Congressman Bill McCollum, and Congresswoman Connie Morella for their 
leadership on and dedication to the issue of domestic violence. 
Legislators from both sides of the aisle in both

[[Page 22070]]

Houses of Congress have been committed to ensuring that this 
legislation becomes law. I am proud to have worked with my fellow 
legislators to achieve this goal, which will bring much needed 
assistance to the victims of domestic violence.
  Madam President, I am not just talking about violence against women 
legislation and the work that Senator Biden and I have done through the 
years to make it a reality. I actually worked very hard in my home 
State to make sure we have women-in-jeopardy programs, battered women 
shelters, psychiatric children programs, and other programs of 
counseling, so that they can be taken care of in conjunction with the 
Violence Against Women Act and the moneys we put up here. In fact, we 
hold an annual charitable golf tournament that raises between $500,000 
and $700,000 a year, most of which goes for seed money to help these 
women-in-jeopardy programs, children's psychiatric, and other programs 
in ways that will help our society and families.
  I believe in this bill. I believe it is something we should do. I 
think everybody ought to vote for it, and I hope, no matter what 
happens today, we pass this bill, get it into law, and do what is right 
for our women and children--and sometimes even men who are also covered 
by this bill because it is neutral. But I hope we all know that it is 
mostly women who suffer. I hope we can get this done and do it in a way 
that really shows the world what a great country we live in and how 
much we are concerned about women, children, families, and doing 
something about some of the ills and problems that beset us.
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes 15 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, let me use 1 more minute, and I will make 
a couple more comments. I want to express my strong support for the 
underlying bill in this conference report dealing with victims of sex 
trafficking. I am proud to have worked with my colleagues on the 
Foreign Relations Committee, led by Senators Brownback and Wellstone 
for much of this past summer, on the significant criminal and 
immigration provisions in this legislation. This is an important 
measure that will strengthen the ability of law enforcement to combat 
international sex trafficking and provide needed assistance to the 
victims of such trafficking. I think we can all be very proud of this 
effort.
  Before I conclude, Mr. President, I want to thank all of the 
committed staff members on both sides of the aisle and on several 
committees for their talented efforts to get this legislation done.
  First, on Senator Biden's staff, I thank Alan Hoffman, chief of Staff 
for his tireless commitment, as well as current counsel Bonnie Robin-
Vergeer and former counsel Sheryl Walters. They are truly 
professionals.
  On Senator Abraham's staff, I'd like to thank Lee Otis, and her 
counterpart on Senator Kennedy's staff, Esther Olavarria.
  On the Foreign Relations Committee, I'd like to express my thanks to 
staff Director Biegun and the committed staffs of Senator Brownback and 
Wellstone, including Sharon Payt and Karen Knutson.
  And finally, Mr. President, there are many dedicated people on my own 
staff who deserve special recognition. I thank my chief counsel and 
staff director, Manus Cooney, as well as Sharon Prost, Maken Delrahim, 
and Leah Belaire.
  I ask unanimous consent that a joint managers' statement be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Mr. President, we are very pleased that the Senate has 
     taken up and passed the Biden-Hatch Violence Against Women 
     Act of 2000 today. We have worked hard together over the past 
     year to produce a bipartisan, streamlined bill that has 
     gained the support of Senators from Both sides of the aisle.
       The enactment of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 
     signaled the beginning of a national and historic commitment 
     to the women and children in this country victimized by 
     family violence and sexual assault. Today we renew that 
     national commitment.
       The original Act changed our laws, strengthened criminal 
     penalties, facilitated enforcement of protection orders from 
     state to state, and committed federal dollars to police, 
     prosecutors, battered women shelters, a national domestic 
     violence hotline, and other measures designed to crack down 
     on batterers and offer the support and services that victims 
     need in order to leave their abusers.
       These programs are not only popular, but more importantly, 
     the Violence Against Women Act is working. The latest 
     Department of Justice statistics show that overall, violence 
     against women by intimate partners is down, falling 21 
     percent from 1993 (just prior to the enactment of the 
     original Act) to 1998.
       States, counties, cities, and towns across the country are 
     creating a seamless network of services for victims of 
     violence against women--from law enforcement to legal 
     services, from medical care and crisis counseling, to 
     shelters and support groups. The Violence Against Women Act 
     has made, and is making, a real difference in the lives of 
     millions of women and children.
       Not surprisingly, the support for the bill is overwhelming. 
     The National Association of Attorneys General has sent a 
     letter calling for the bill's enactment signed by every state 
     Attorney General in the country. The National Governors' 
     Association support the bill. The American Medical 
     Association. Police chiefs in every state Sheriffs. District 
     Attorneys. Women's groups. Nurses, Battered women's shelters. 
     The list goes on and on.
       For far too long, law enforcement, prosecutors, the courts, 
     and the community at large treated domestic abuse as a 
     ``private family matter,'' looking the other way when women 
     suffered abuse at the hands of their supposed loved ones. 
     Thanks in part to the original Act, violence against women is 
     no longer a private matter, and the time when a woman has to 
     suffer in silence because the criminal who is victimizing her 
     happens to be her husband or boyfriend has past. Together--at 
     the federal, state, and local levels--we have been steadily 
     moving forward, step by step, along the road to ending this 
     violence once and for all. But there is more that we can do, 
     and more that we must do.
       The Biden-Hatch Violence Against Women Act of 2000 
     accomplishes two basic things:
       First, the bill reauthorizes through Fiscal Year 2005 the 
     key programs included in the original Violence Against Women 
     Act, such as the STOP, Pro-Arrest, Rural Domestic Violence 
     and Child Abuse Enforcement, and campus grants programs; 
     battered women's shelters; the National Domestic Violence 
     Hotline; rape prevention and education grant programs; and 
     three victims of child abuse programs, including the court-
     appointed special advocate program (CASA).
       Second, the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 makes some 
     targeted improvements that our experience with the original 
     Act has shown to be necessary, such as--
       (1) Authorizing grants for legal assistance for victims of 
     domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault;
       (2) Providing funding for transitional housing assistance;
       (3) Improving full faith and credit enforcement and 
     computerized tracking of protection orders;
       (4) Strengthening and refining the protections for battered 
     immigrant women;
       (5) Authorizing grants for supervised visitation and safe 
     visitation exchange of children between parents in situations 
     involving domestic violence, child abuse, sexual assault, or 
     stalking; and
       (6) Expanding several of the key grant programs to cover 
     violence that arises in dating relationships.
       Although this Act does not extend the Violent Crime 
     Reduction Trust Fund, it is the managers' expectation that if 
     the Trust Fund is extended beyond Fiscal Year 2000, funds for 
     the programs authorized or reauthorized in the Violence 
     Against Women Act of 2000 would be appropriated from this 
     dedicated funding source.
       Several points regarding the provisions of Title V, the 
     Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 2000, bear special 
     mention. Title V continues the work of the Violence Against 
     Women Act of 1994 (``VAWA'') in removing obstacles 
     inadvertently interposed by our immigration laws that many 
     hinder or prevent battered immigrants from fleeing domestic 
     violence safely and prosecuting their abusers by allowing an 
     abusive citizen or lawful permanent resident to blackmail the 
     abused spouse through threats related to the abused spouse's 
     immigration status. We would like to elaborate on the 
     rationale for several of these new provisions and how that 
     rationale should inform their proper interpretation and 
     administration.
       First, section 1503 of this legislation allows battered 
     immigrants who unknowingly marry bigamists to avail 
     themselves of VAWA's self-petition procedures. This provision 
     is also intended to facilitate the filing of a self-petition 
     by a battered immigrant married to a citizen or lawful 
     permanent resident with whom the battered immigrant believes 
     he or she had contracted a valid marriage and who represented 
     himself or herself to be divorced. To qualify, a marriage

[[Page 22071]]

     ceremony, either in the United States or abroad, must 
     actually have been performed. We would anticipate that 
     evidence of such a battered immigrant's legal marriage to the 
     abuser through a marriage certificate or marriage license 
     would ordinarily suffice as proof that the immigrant is 
     eligible to petition for classification as a spouse without 
     the submission of divorce decrees from each of the abusive 
     citizen's or lawful permanent resident's former marriages. 
     For an abused spouse to obtain sufficient detailed 
     information about the date and the place of each of the 
     abuser's former marriages and the date and place of each 
     divorce, as INS currently requires, can be a daunting, 
     difficult and dangerous task, as this information is under 
     the control of the abuser and the abuser's family members. 
     Section 1503 should relieve the battered immigrant of that 
     burden in the ordinary case.
       Second, section 1503 also makes VAWA relief available to 
     abused spouses and children living abroad of citizens and 
     lawful permanent residents who are members of the uniformed 
     services or government employees living abroad, as well as to 
     abused spouses and children living abroad who were abused by 
     a citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent in 
     the United States. We would expect that INS will take 
     advantage of the expertise the Vermont Service Center has 
     developing in deciding self-petitions and assign it 
     responsibility for adjudicating these petitions even though 
     they may be filed at U.S. embassies abroad.
       Third, while VAWA self-petitioners can include their 
     children in their applications, VAWA cancellations of removal 
     applicants cannot. Because there is a backlog for 
     applications for minor children of lawful permanent 
     residents, the grant of permanent residency to the applicant 
     parent and the theoretical available of derivative status to 
     the child at that time does not solve this problem. Although 
     in the ordinary cancellation case the INS would not seek to 
     deport such a child, an abusive spouse may try to bring about 
     that result in order to exert power and control over the 
     abused spouse. Section 1504 directs the Attorney General to 
     parole such children, thereby enabling them to remain with 
     the victim and out of the abuser's control. This directive 
     should be understood to include a battered immigrant's 
     children whether or not they currently reside in the United 
     States, and therefore to include the use of his or her parole 
     power to admit them if necessary. The protection offered by 
     section 1504 to children abused by their U.S. citizen or 
     lawful permanent resident parents is available to the abused 
     child even though the courts may have terminated the parental 
     rights of the abuser.
       Fourth, in an effort to strengthen the hand of victims of 
     domestic abuse, in 1996 Congress added crimes of domestic 
     violence and stalking to the list of crimes that render an 
     individual deportable. This change in law has had unintended 
     negative consequences for abuse victims because despite 
     recommended procedures to the contrary, in domestic violence 
     cases many officers still makes dual arrests instead of 
     determining the primary perpetrator of abuse. A battered 
     immigrant may well not be in sufficient control of his or her 
     life to seek sufficient counsel before accepting a plea 
     agreement that carries little or no jail time without 
     understanding its immigration consequences. The abusive 
     spouse, on the other hand, may understand those consequences 
     well and may proceed to turn the abuse victim in to the INS.
       To resolve this problem, section 1505(b) of this 
     legislation provides the Attorney General with discretion to 
     grant a waiver of deportability to a person with a conviction 
     for a crime of domestic violence or stalking that did not 
     result in serious bodily injury and that was connected to 
     abuse suffered by a battered immigrant who was not the 
     primary perpetrator of abuse in a relationship. In 
     determining whether such a waiver is warranted, the Attorney 
     General is to consider the full history of domestic violence 
     in the case, the effect of the domestic violence on any 
     children, and the crimes that are being committed against the 
     battered immigrant. Similarly, the Attorney General is to 
     take the same types of evidence into account in determining 
     under sections 1503(d) and 1504(a) whether a battered 
     immigrant has proven that he or she is a person of good moral 
     character and whether otherwise disqualifying conduct should 
     not operate as a bar to that finding because it is connected 
     to the domestic violence, including the need to escape an 
     abusive relationship. This legislation also clarifies that 
     the VAWA evidentiary standard under which battered immigrants 
     in self-petition and cancellation proceedings may use any 
     credible evidence to prove abuse continues to apply to all 
     aspects of self-petitions and VAWA cancellation as well as to 
     the various domestic violence discretionary waivers in this 
     legislation and to determinations concerning U visas.
       Fifth, section 1505 makes section 212(i) waivers available 
     to battered immigrants on a showing of extreme hardship to, 
     among others, a ``qualified alien'' parent or child. The 
     reference intended here is to the current definition of a 
     qualified alien from the Personal Responsibility and Work 
     Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, found at 8 U.S.C. 
     1641.
       Sixth, section 1506 of this legislation extends the 
     deadline for a battered immigrant to file a motion to reopen 
     removal proceedings, now set at 90 days after the entry of an 
     order of removal, to one year after final adjudication of 
     such an order. It also allows the Attorney General to waive 
     the one year deadline on the basis of extraordinary 
     circumstances or hardship to the alien's child. Such 
     extraordinary circumstances may include but would not be 
     limited to an atmosphere of deception, violence, and fear 
     that make it difficult for a victim of domestic violence to 
     learn of or take steps to defend against or reopen an order 
     of removal in the first instance. They also include failure 
     to defend against removal or file a motion to reopen within 
     the deadline on account of a child's lack of capacity due to 
     age. Extraordinary circumstances may also include violence or 
     cruelty of such a nature that, when the circumstances 
     surrounding the domestic violence and the consequences of the 
     abuse are considered, not allowing the battered immigrant to 
     reopen the deportation or removal proceeding would thwart 
     justice or be contrary to the humanitarian purpose of this 
     legislation. Finally, they include the battered immigrant's 
     being made eligible by this legislation for relief from 
     removal not available to the immigrant before that time.
       Seventh, section 1507 helps battered immigrants more 
     successfully protect themselves from ongoing domestic 
     violence by allowing battered immigrants with approved self-
     petitions to remarry. Such remarriage cannot serve as the 
     basis for revocation of an approved self-petition or 
     rescission of adjustment of status.
       There is one final issue that has been raised, recently, 
     which we would like to take this opportunity to address, and 
     that is the eligibility of men to receive benefits and 
     services under the original Violence Against Women Act and 
     under this reauthorizing legislation. The original Act was 
     enacted in 1994 to respond to the serious and escalating 
     problem of violence against women. A voluminous legislative 
     record compiled after four years of congressional hearings 
     demonstrated convincingly that certain violent crimes, such 
     as domestic violence and sexual assault, disproportionally 
     affect women, both in terms of the sheer number of assaults 
     and the seriousness of the injuries inflicted. Accordingly, 
     the Act, through several complementary grant programs, made 
     it a priority to address domestic violence and sexual assault 
     targeted at women, even though women, of course, are not 
     alone in experiencing this type of violence.
       Recent statistics justify a continued focus on violence 
     targeted against women. For example, a report by the U.S. 
     Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics issued in 
     May 2000 on Intimate Partner Violence confirms that crimes 
     committed against persons by current or former spouses, 
     boyfriends or girlfriends--termed intimate partner violence--
     is ``committed primarily against women.'' Of the 
     approximately 1 million violent crimes committed by intimate 
     partners in 1998, 876,340, or about 85 percent, were 
     committed against women. Women were victims of intimate 
     partner violence at a rate about 5 times that of men. That 
     same year, women represented nearly 3 out of 4 victims of the 
     1,830 murders attributed to intimate partners. Indeed, while 
     there has been a sharp decrease over the years in the rate of 
     murder of men by intimates, the percentage of female murder 
     victims killed by intimates has remained stubbornly at about 
     30 percent since 1976.
       Despite the need to direct federal funds toward the most 
     pressing problem, it was not, and is not, the intent of 
     Congress categorically to exclude men who have suffered 
     domestic abuse or sexual assaults from receiving benefits and 
     services under the Violence Against Women Act. The Act 
     defines such key terms as ``domestic violence'' and ``sexual 
     assault,'' which are used to determine eligibility under 
     several of the grant programs, including the largest, the 
     STOP grant program, in gender-neutral language. Men who have 
     suffered these types of violent attacks are eligible under 
     current law to apply for services and benefits that are 
     funded under the original Act--and they will remain eligible 
     under the Violence Against Women Act of 2000--whether it be 
     for shelter space under the Family Violence Protection and 
     Services Act, or counseling by the National Domestic Violence 
     Hotline, or legal assistance in obtaining a protection order 
     under the Legal Assistance for Victims program.
       We anticipate that the executive branch agencies 
     responsible for making grants under the Act, as amended, will 
     continue to administer these programs so as to ensure that 
     men who have been victimized by domestic violence and sexual 
     assault will receive benefits and services under the Act, as 
     appropriate.
       We append to this joint statement a section by section 
     analysis of the bill and a more detailed section by section 
     analysis of the provisions contained in Title V.
       Thank you.

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that two section-
by-section summaries of the Violence Against Women Act be printed in 
the Record.

[[Page 22072]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Division B, The violence Against Women Act of 2000--Section-by-Section 
                                Summary

     Sec. 1001. Short Title
       Names this division the Violence Against Women Act of 2000.
     Sec. 1002. Definitions
       Restates the definitions ``domestic violence'' and ``sexual 
     assault'' as currently defined in the STOP grant program.
     Sec. 1003. Accountability and Oversight
       Requires the Attorney General or Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services, as applicable, to require grantees under any 
     program authorized or reauthorized by this division to report 
     on the effectiveness of the activities carried out. Requires 
     the Attorney General or Secretary, as applicable, to report 
     biennially to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees on 
     these grant programs.

Title I--Strengthening Law Enforcement to Reduce Violence Against Women

     Sec. 1101. Improving Full Faith and Credit Enforcement of 
         Protection Orders
       Helps states and tribal courts improve interstate 
     enforcement of protection orders as required by the original 
     Violence Against Women Act of 1994. Renames Pro-Arrest Grants 
     to expressly include enforcement of protection orders as a 
     focus for grant program funds, adds as a grant purpose 
     technical assistance and use of computer and other equipment 
     for enforcing orders; instructs the Department of Justice to 
     identify and make available information on promising order 
     enforcement practices; adds as a funding priority the 
     development and enhancement of data collection and sharing 
     systems to promote enforcement or protection orders.
       Amends the full faith and credit provision in the original 
     Act to prohibit requiring registration as a prerequisite to 
     enforcement of out-of-state orders and to prohibit 
     notification of a batterer without the victim's consent when 
     an out-of-state order is registered in a new jurisdiction. 
     Requires recipients of STOP and Pro-Arrest grant funds, as a 
     condition of funding, to facilitate filing and service of 
     protection orders without cost to the victim in both civil 
     and criminal cases.
       Clarifies that tribal courts have full civil jurisdiction 
     to enforce protection orders in matters arising within the 
     authority of the tribe.
     Sec. 1102. Enhancing the Role of Courts in Combating Violence 
         Against Women
       Engages state courts in fighting violence against women by 
     targeting funds to be used by the courts for the training and 
     education of court personnel, technical assistance, and 
     technological improvements. Amends STOP and Pro-Arrest grants 
     to make state and local courts expressly eligible for funding 
     and dedicates 5 percent of states' STOP grants for courts.
     Sec. 1103. STOP Grants Reauthorization
       Reauthorizes through 2005 this vital state formula grant 
     program that has succeeded in bringing police and prosecutors 
     in close collaboration with victim services providers into 
     the fight to end violence against women. (``STOP'' means 
     ``Services and Training for Officers and Prosecutors''). 
     Preserves the original Act's allocations of states' STOP 
     grant funds of 25 percent to police and 25 percent to 
     prosecutors, but increases grants to victim services to 30 
     percent (from 25 percent), in addition to the 5 percent 
     allocated to state, tribal, and local courts.
       Sets aside five percent of total funds available for State 
     and tribal domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions 
     and increases the allocation for Indian tribes to 5 percent 
     (up from 4 percent in the original Act).
       Amends the definition of ``underserved populations'' and 
     adds additional purpose areas for which grants may be used.
       Authorization level is $185 million/year (FY 2000 
     appropriation was $206.75 million (including a $28 million 
     earmark for civil legal assistance)).
     Sec. 1104. Pro-Arrest Grants Reauthorization
       Extends this discretionary grant program through 2005 to 
     develop and strengthen programs and policies that mandate and 
     encourage police officers to arrest abusers who commit acts 
     of violence or violate protection orders.
       Sets aside 5 percent of total amounts available for grants 
     to Indian tribal governments.
       Authorization level is $65 million/year (FY 2000 
     appropriation was $34 million).
     Sec. 1105. Rural Domestic Violence and Child Abuse 
         Enforcement Grants Reauthorization
       Extends through 2005 these direct grant programs that help 
     states and local governments focus on problems particular to 
     rural areas.
       Sets aside 5 percent of total amounts available for grants 
     to Indian tribal governments.
       Authorization level is $40 million/year (FY 2000 
     appropriation was $25 million).
     Sec. 1106. National Stalker and Domestic Violence Reduction 
         Grants Reauthorization
       Extends through 2005 this grant program to assist states 
     and local governments in improving databases for stalking and 
     domestic violence.
       Authorization level is $3 million/year (FY 1998 
     appropriation was $2.75 million).
     Sec. 1107. Clarify Enforcement to End Interstate Battery/
         Stalking
       Clarifies federal jurisdiction to ensure reach to persons 
     crossing United States borders as well as crossing state 
     lines by use of ``interstate or foreign commerce language.'' 
     Clarifies federal jurisdiction to ensure reach to battery or 
     violation of specified portions of protection order before 
     travel to facilitate the interstate movement of the victim. 
     Makes the nature of the ``harm required for domestic 
     violence, stalking, and interstate travel offenses consistent 
     by removing the requirement that the victim suffer actual 
     physical harm from those offenses that previously had 
     required such injury.
       Resolves several inconsistencies between the protection 
     order offense involving interstate travel of the offender, 
     and the protection order offense involving interstate travel 
     of the victim.
       Revises the definition of ``protection order'' to clarify 
     that support or child custody orders are entitled to full 
     faith and credit to the extent provided under other Federal 
     law--namely, the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1980, 
     as amended.
       Extends the interstate stalking prohibition to cover 
     interstate ``cyber-stalking'' that occurs by use of the mail 
     or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, such as by 
     telephone or by computer connected to the Internet.
     Sec. 1108. School and Campus Security
       Extends the authorization through 2005 for the grant 
     program established in the Higher Education Amendments of 
     1998 and administered by the Justice Department for grants 
     for on-campus security, education, training, and victim 
     services to combat violence against women on college 
     campuses. Incorporates ``dating violence'' into purpose areas 
     for which grants may be used. Amends the definition of 
     ``victim services'' to include public, nonprofit 
     organizations acting in a nongovernmental capacity, such as 
     victim services organizations at public universities.
       Authorization level is $10 million/year (FY 2000 STOP grant 
     appropriation included a $10 million earmark for this use).
       Authorizes the Attorney General to make grants through 2003 
     to states, units of local government, and Indian tribes to 
     provide improved security, including the placement and use of 
     metal detectors and other deterrent measures, at schools and 
     on school grounds.
       Authorization level is $30 million/year.
     Sec. 1109. Dating Violence
       Incorporates ``dating violence'' into certain purposes 
     areas for which grants may be used under the STOP, Pro-
     Arrest, and Rural Domestic Violence and Child Abuse 
     Enforcement grant programs. Defines ``dating violence'' as 
     violence committed by a person: (A) who is or has been in a 
     social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the 
     victim; and (B) where the existence of such a relationship 
     shall be determined based on consideration of the following 
     factors: (i) the length of the relationship; (ii) the type of 
     relationship; and (iii) the frequency of interaction between 
     the persons involved in the relationship.

        Title II--Strengthening Services to Victims of Violence

     Sec. 1201. Legal Assistance to Victims of Domestic Violence 
         and Sexual Assault
       Building on set-asides in past STOP grant appropriations 
     since fiscal year 1998 for civil legal assistance, this 
     section authorizes a separate grant program for those 
     purposes through 2005. Helps victims of domestic violence, 
     stalking, and sexual assault who need legal assistance as a 
     consequence of that violence to obtain access to trained 
     attorneys and lay advocacy services, particularly pro bono 
     legal services. Grants support training, technical 
     assistance, data collection, and support for cooperative 
     efforts between victim advocacy groups and legal assistance 
     providers.
       Defines the term ``legal assistance'' to include assistance 
     to victims of domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault 
     in family, immigration, administrative agency, or housing 
     matters, protection or stay away order proceedings, and other 
     similar matters. For purposes of this section, 
     ``administrative agency'' refers to a federal, state, or 
     local governmental agency that provides financial benefits.
       Sets aside 5 percent of the amounts made available for 
     programs assisting victims of domestic violence, stalking, 
     and sexual assault in Indian country; sets aside 25 percent 
     of the funds used for direct services, training, and 
     technical assistance for the use of victims of sexual 
     assault.
       Appropriation is $40 million/year (FY 2000 STOP grant 
     appropriation included a $28 million earmark for this use).
     Sec. 1202. Expanded Shelter for Battered Women and Their 
         Children
       Reauthorizes through 2005 current programs administered by 
     the Department of Health and Human Services to help 
     communities provide shelter to battered women and their 
     children, with increased funding to provide more shelter 
     space to assist the tens of thousands who are being turned 
     away.
       Authorization level is $175 million/year (FY 2000 
     appropriation was $101.5 million).

[[Page 22073]]


     Sec. 1203. Transitional Housing Assistance for Victims of 
         Domestic Violence
       Authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to 
     make grants to provide short-term housing assistance and 
     support services to individuals and their dependents who are 
     homeless or in need of transitional housing or other housing 
     assistance as a result of fleeing a situation of domestic 
     violence, and for whom emergency shelter services are 
     unavailable or insufficient.
       Authorization level is $25 million for FY 2001.
     Sec. 1204. National Domestic Violence Hotline
       Extends through 2005 this grant to meet the growing demands 
     on the National Domestic Violence Hotline established under 
     the original Violence Against Women Act due to increased call 
     volume since its inception.
       Authorization level is $2 million/year (FY 2000 
     appropriation was $2 million).
     Sec. 1205. Federal Victims Counselors Grants Reauthorization
       Extends through 2005 this program under which U.S. Attorney 
     offices can hire counselors to assist victims and witnesses 
     in prosecution of sex crimes and domestic violence crimes.
       Authorization level is $1 million/year (FY 1998 
     appropriation was $1 million).
     Sec. 1206. Study of State Laws Regarding Insurance 
         Discrimination Against Victims of Violence Against Women.
       Requires the Attorney General to conduct a national study 
     to identify state laws that address insurance discrimination 
     against victims of domestic violence and submit 
     recommendations based on that study to Congress.
     Sec. 1207. Study of Workplace Effects from Violence Against 
         Women
       Requires the Attorney General to conduct a national survey 
     of programs to assist employers on appropriate responses in 
     the workplace to victims of domestic violence or sexual 
     assault and submit recommendations based on that study to 
     Congress.
     Sec. 1208. Study of Unemployment Compensation For Victims of 
         Violence Against Women
       Requires the Attorney General to conduct a national study 
     to identify the impact of state unemployment compensation 
     laws on victims of domestic violence when the victim's 
     separation from employment is a direct result of the domestic 
     violence, and to submit recommendations based on that study 
     to Congress.
     Sec. 1209. Enhancing Protections for Older and Disabled Women 
         from Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault.
       Adds as new purposes areas to STOP grants and Pro-Arrest 
     grants the development of policies and initiatives that help 
     in identifying and addressing the needs of older and disabled 
     women who are victims of domestic violence or sexual assault.
       Authorizes the Attorney General to make grants for training 
     programs through 2005 to assist law enforcement officers, 
     prosecutors, and relevant court officers in recognizing, 
     addressing, investigating, and prosecuting instances of elder 
     abuse, neglect, and exploitation and violence against 
     individuals with disabilities, including domestic violence 
     and sexual assault, against older or disabled individuals.
       Authorization is $5 million/year.

        Title III--Limiting the Effects of Violence on Children

     Sec. 1301. Safe Havens for Children Pilot Program
       Establishes through 2002 a pilot Justice Department grant 
     program aimed at reducing the opportunity for domestic 
     violence to occur during the transfer of children for 
     visitation purposes by expanding the availability of 
     supervised visitation and safe visitation exchange for the 
     children of victims of domestic violence, child abuse, sexual 
     assault, or stalking.
       Authorization level is $15 million for each year.
     Sec. 1302. Reauthorization of Victims of Child Abuse Act 
         Grants
       Extends through 2005 three grant programs geared to assist 
     children who are victims of abuse. These are the court-
     appointed special advocate program, child abuse training for 
     judicial personnel and practitioners, and grants for 
     televised testimony of children.
       Authorization levels are $12 million/year for the special 
     advocate programs, $2.3 million/year for the judicial 
     personnel training program, and $1 million/year for televised 
     testimony (FY 2000 appropriations were $10 million, $2.3 
     million, and $1 million respectively).
     Sec. 1303. Report on Parental Kidnapping Laws
       Requires the Attorney General to study and submit 
     recommendations on federal and state child custody laws, 
     including custody provisions in protection orders, the 
     Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980, and the Uniform 
     Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act adopted by the 
     National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 
     July 1997, and the effect of those laws on child custody 
     cases in which domestic violence is a factor. Amends 
     emergency jurisdiction to cover domestic violence.
       Authorization level is $200,000.

Title IV--Strengthening Education & Training To Combat Violence Against 
                                 Women

     Sec. 1401. Rape Prevention and Education Program 
         Reauthorization
       Extends through 2005 this Sexual Assault Education and 
     Prevention Grant program; includes education for college 
     students; provides funding to continue the National Resource 
     Center on Sexual Assault at the Centers for Disease Control 
     and Prevention.
       Authorization level is $80 million/year (FY 2000 
     appropriation was $45 million).
     Sec. 1402. Education and Training to End Violence Against and 
         Abuse of Women with Disabilities
       Establishes a new Justice Department grant program through 
     2005 to educate and provide technical assistance to providers 
     on effective ways to meet the needs of disabled women who are 
     victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
       Authorization level is $7.5 million/year.
     Sec. 1403. Reauthorization of Community Initiatives to 
         Prevent Domestic Violence
       Reauthorizes through 2005 this grant program to fund 
     collaborative community projects targeted for the 
     intervention and prevention of domestic violence.
       Authorization level is $6 million/year (FY 2000 
     appropriation was $6 million).
     Sec. 1404. Development of Research Agenda Identified under 
         the Violence Against Women Act.
       Requires the Attorney General to direct the National 
     Institute of Justice, in consultation with the Bureau of 
     Justice Statistics and the National Academy of Sciences, 
     through its National Research Council, to develop a plan to 
     implement a research agenda based on the recommendations in 
     the National Academy of Sciences report ``Understanding 
     Violence Against Women,'' which was produced under a grant 
     awarded under the original Violence Against Women Act. 
     Authorization is for such sums as may be necessary to carry 
     out this section.
     Sec. 1405. Standards, Practice, and Training for Sexual 
         Assault Forensic Examinations
       Requires the Attorney General to evaluate existing 
     standards of training and practice for licensed health care 
     professions performing sexual assault forensic examinations 
     and develop a national recommended standard for training; to 
     recommend sexual assault forensic examination training for 
     all health care students; and to review existing protocols on 
     sexual assault forensic examinations and, based on this 
     review, develop a recommended national protocol and establish 
     a mechanism for its nationwide dissemination.
       Authorization level is $200,000 for FY 2001.
     Sec. 1406. Education and Training for Judges and Court 
         Personnel.
       Amends the Equal Justice for Women in the Courts Act of 
     1994, authorizing $1,500,000 each year through 2005 for 
     grants for education and training for judges and court 
     personnel instate courts, and $500,000 each year through 2005 
     for grants for education and training for judges and court 
     personnel in federal courts. Adds three areas of training 
     eligible for grant use.
     Sec. 1407. Domestic Violence Task Force
       Requires the Attorney General to establish a task force to 
     coordinate research on domestic violence and to report to 
     Congress on any overlapping or duplication of efforts among 
     the federal agencies that address domestic violence.
       Authorization level is $500,000.

                   Title V--Battered Immigrant Women

       Strengthens and refines the protections for battered 
     immigrant women in the original Violence Against Women Act. 
     Eliminates a number of ``catch-22'' policies and unintended 
     consequences of subsequent changes in immigration law to 
     ensure that domestic abusers with immigrant victims are 
     brought to justice and that the battered immigrants Congress 
     sought to help in the original Act are able to escape the 
     abuse.

                        Title VI--Miscellaneous

     Sec. 1601. Notice Requirements for Sexually Violent Offenders
       Amends the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and 
     Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act to require sex 
     offenders already required to register in a State to provide 
     notice, as required under State law, of each institution of 
     higher education in that State at which the person is 
     employed, carries on a vocation, or is a student. Requires 
     that state procedures ensure that this registration 
     information is promptly made available to law enforcement 
     agencies with jurisdiction where the institutions of higher 
     education are located and that it is entered into appropriate 
     State records or data systems. These changes take effect 2 
     years after enactment.
       Amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require 
     institutions of higher education to issue a statement, in 
     addition to other disclosures required under the Act, 
     advising the campus community where law enforcement agency 
     information provided by a State concerning registered sex 
     offenders may be obtained. This change takes effect 2 years 
     after enactment.

[[Page 22074]]

       Amends the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 
     1974 to clarify that nothing in that Act may be construed to 
     prohibit an educational institution from disclosing 
     information provided to the institution concerning registered 
     sex offenders; requires the Secretary of Education to take 
     appropriate steps to notify educational institutions that 
     disclosure of this information is permitted.
     Sec. 1602. Teen Suicide Prevention Study
       Authorizes a study by the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services of predictors of suicide among at-risk and other 
     youth, and barriers that prevent the youth from receiving 
     treatment, to facilitate the development of model treatment 
     programs and public education and awareness efforts.
       Authorization is for such sums as may be necessary.
     Sec. 1603. Decade of Pain Control and Research
       Designates the calendar decade beginning January 1, 2001, 
     as the ``Decade of Pain Control and Research.''
                                  ____


 Title V, the Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 2000--Section-
                           by-Section Summary

       Title V is designed to improve on efforts made in VAWA 1994 
     to prevent immigration law from being used by an abusive 
     citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse as a tool to 
     prevent an abused immigrant spouse form reporting abuse or 
     living the abusive relationship. This could happen because 
     generally speaking, U.S. immigration law gives citizens and 
     lawful permanent residents the right to petition for their 
     spouses to be granted a permanent resident visa, which is the 
     necessary prerequisite for immigrating to the United States. 
     In the vast majority of cases, granting the right to seek the 
     visa to the citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse makes 
     sense, since the purpose of family immigration visas is to 
     allow U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents to live 
     here with their spouses and children. But in the unusual case 
     of the abusive relationship, an abusive citizen or lawful 
     permanent resident can use control over his or her spouse's 
     visa as a means to blackmail and control the spouse. The 
     abusive spouse would do this by withholding a promised visa 
     petition and then threatening to turn the abused spouse in to 
     the immigration authorities if the abused spouse sought to 
     leave the abuser or report the abuse.
       VAWA 1994 changed this by allowing immigrants who 
     demonstrate that they have been battered or subjected to 
     extreme cruelty by their U.S. citizen or lawful permanent 
     resident spouses to file their own petitions for visas 
     without the cooperation of their abusive spouse. VAWA 1994 
     also allowed abused spouses placed in removal proceedings to 
     seek ``cancellation of removal,'' a form of discretionary 
     relief from removal available to individuals in unlawful 
     immigration status with strong equities, after three years 
     rather than the seven ordinarily required. Finally, VAWA 1994 
     granted similar rights to minor children abused by their 
     citizen or lawful permanent resident parent, whose 
     immigration status, like that of the abused spouse, would 
     otherwise be dependent on the abusive parent. VAWA 2000 
     addresses residual immigration law obstacles standing in the 
     path of battered immigrant spouses and children seeking to 
     free themselves from abusive relationships that either had 
     not come to the attention of the drafters of VAWA 1994 or 
     have arisen since as a result of 1996 changes to immigration 
     law.
     Sec. 1501. Short Title.
       Names this title the Battered Immigrant Women Protection 
     Act of 2000.
     Sec. 1502. Findings and Purposes
       Lays out as the purpose of the title building on VAWA 
     1994's efforts to enable battered immigrant spouses and 
     children to free themselves of abusive relationships and 
     report abuse without fear of immigration law consequences 
     controlled by their abusive citizen or lawful permanent 
     resident spouse or parent.
     Sec. 1503. Improved Access to Immigration Protections of the 
         Violence Against Women Act of 1994 for Battered Immigrant 
         Women.
       Allows abused spouses and children who have already 
     demonstrated to the INS that they have been the victims of 
     battery or extreme cruelty by their spouse or parent to file 
     their own petition for a lawful permanent resident visa 
     without also having to show they will suffer ``extreme 
     hardship'' if forced to leave the U.S., a showing that is not 
     required if their citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse 
     or parent files the visa petition on their behalf. Eliminates 
     U.S. residency as a prerequisite for a spouse or child of a 
     citizen or lawful permanent resident who has been battered in 
     the U.S. or whose spouse is a member of the uniformed 
     services or a U.S. government employee to file for his or her 
     own visa, since there is no U.S. residency prerequisite for 
     non-battered spouses' or children's visas. Retains current 
     law's special requirement that abused spouses and children 
     filing their own petitions (unlike spouses and children for 
     whom their citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or 
     parent petitions) demonstrate good moral character, but 
     modifies it to give the Attorney General authority to find 
     good moral character despite certain otherwise disqualifying 
     acts if those acts were connected to the abuse.
       Allows a victim of battery or extreme cruelty who believed 
     himself or herself to be a citizen's or lawful permanent 
     resident's spouse and went through a marriage ceremony to 
     file a visa petition as a battered spouse if the marriage was 
     not valid solely on account of the citizen's or lawful 
     permanent resident's bigamy. Allows a battered spouse whose 
     citizen spouse died, whose spouse lost citizenship, whose 
     spouse lost lawful permanent residency, or from whom the 
     battered spouse was divorced to file a visa petition as an 
     abused spouse within two years of the death, loss of 
     citizenship or lawful permanent residency, or divorce, 
     provided that the loss of citizenship, status or divorce was 
     connected to the abuse suffered by the spouse. Allows a 
     battered spouse to naturalize after three years residency as 
     other spouses may do, but without requiring the battered 
     spouse to live in marital union with the abusive spouse 
     during that period.
       Allows abused children or children of abused spouses whose 
     petitions were filed when they were minors to maintain their 
     petitions after they attain age 21, as their citizen or 
     lawful permanent resident parent would be entitled to do on 
     their behalf had the original petition been filed during the 
     child's minority, treating the petition as filed on the date 
     of the filing of the original petition for purposes of 
     determining its priority date.
     Sec. 1504. Improved Access to Cancellation of Removal and 
         Suspension of Deportation under the Violence Against 
         Women Act of 1994.
       Clarifies that with respect to battered immigrants, 
     IIRIRA's rule, enacted in 1996, that provides that with 
     respect to any applicant for cancellation of removal, any 
     absence that exceeds 90 days, or any series of absences that 
     exceed 180 days, interrupts continuous physical presence, 
     does not apply to any absence or portion of an absence 
     connected to the abuse. Makes this change retroactive to date 
     of enactment of IIRIRA. Directs Attorney General to parole 
     children of battered immigrants granted cancellation until 
     their adjustment of status application has been acted on, 
     provided the battered immigrant exercises due diligence in 
     filing such an application.
     Sec. 1505. Offering Equal Access to Immigration Protections 
         of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 for All 
         Qualified Battered Immigrant Self-Petitioners
       Grants the Attorney General the authority to waive certain 
     bars to admissibility or grounds of deportability with 
     respect to battered spouses and children. New Attorney 
     General waiver authority granted (1) for crimes of domestic 
     violence or stalking where the spouse or child was not the 
     primary perpetrator of violence in the relationship, the 
     crime did not result in serious bodily injury, and there was 
     a connection between the crime and the abuse suffered by the 
     spouse or child; (2) for misrepresentations connected with 
     seeking an immigration benefit in cases of extreme hardship 
     to the alien (paralleling the AG's waiver authority for 
     spouses and children petitioned for by their citizen or 
     lawful permanent resident spouse or parent in cases of 
     extreme hardship to the spouse or parent); (3) for crimes of 
     moral turpitude not constituting aggravated felonies where 
     the crime was connected to the abuse (similarly paralleling 
     the AG's waiver authority for spouses and children petitioned 
     for by their spouse or parents); (4) for health related 
     grounds of inadmissibility (also paralleling the AG's waiver 
     authority for spouses and children petitioned for by their 
     spouse or parent); and (5) for unlawful presence after a 
     prior immigration violation, if there is a connection between 
     the abuse and the alien's removal, departure, reentry, or 
     attempted reentry. Clarifies that a battered immigrant's use 
     of public benefits specifically made available to battered 
     immigrants in PRWORA does not make the immigrant inadmissible 
     on public charge ground.
     Sec. 1506. Restoring Immigration Protections under the 
         Violence Against Women Act of 1994
       Establishes mechanism paralleling mechanism available to 
     spouses and children petitioned for by their spouse or parent 
     to enable VAWA-qualified battered spouse or child to obtain 
     status as lawful permanent resident in the United States 
     rather than having to go abroad to get a visa.
       Addresses problem created in 1996 for battered immigrants' 
     access to cancellation of removal by IIRIRA's new stop-time 
     rule. That rule was aimed at individuals gaming the system to 
     gain access to cancellation of removal. To prevent this, 
     IIRIRA stopped the clock on accruing any time toward 
     continuous physical presence at the time INS initiates 
     removal proceedings against an individual. This section 
     eliminates application of this rule to battered immigrant 
     spouses and children, who, if they are sophisticated enough 
     about immigration law and has sufficient freedom of movement 
     to ``game the system'', presumably would have filed self-
     petitions, and more likely do not even know that INS has 
     initiated proceedings against them because their abusive 
     spouse or parent has withheld their mail. To implement this 
     change, allows a battered immigrant spouse or child to file a 
     motion to reopen removal

[[Page 22075]]

     proceedings within 1 year of the entry of an order of removal 
     (which deadline may be waived in the Attorney General's 
     discretion if the Attorney General finds extraordinary 
     circumstances or extreme hardship to the alien's child) 
     provided the alien files a complete application to be 
     classified as VAWA-eligible at the time the alien files the 
     reopening motion.
     Sec. 1507. Remedying Problems with Implementation of the 
         Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act 
         of 1994
       Clarifies that negative changes of immigration status of 
     abuser or divorce after abused spouse and child file petition 
     under VAWA have no effect on status of abused spouse or 
     child. Reclassifies abused spouse or child as spouse or child 
     of citizen if abuser becomes citizen notwithstanding divorce 
     or termination of parental rights (so as not to create 
     incentive for abuse victim to delay leaving abusive situation 
     on account of potential future improved immigration status of 
     abuser). Clarifies that remarriage has no effect on pending 
     VAWA immigration petition.
     Sec. 1508. Technical Correction to Qualified Alien Definition 
         for Battered Immigrants
       Makes technical change of description of battered aliens 
     allowed to access certain public benefits so as to use 
     correct pre-IIRIRA name for equitable relief from 
     deportation/removal (``suspension of deportation'' rather 
     than ``cancellation of removal'') for pre-IIRIRA cases.
     Sec. 1509. Access to Cuban Adjustment Act for Battered 
         Immigrant Spouses and Children
       Allows battered spouses and children to access special 
     immigration benefits available under Cuban Adjustment Act to 
     other spouses and children of Cubans on the basis of the same 
     showing of battery or extreme cruelty they would have to make 
     as VAWA self-petitioners; relatives them of Cuban Adjustment 
     Act showing that they are residing with their spouse/parent.
     Sec. 1510. Access to the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central 
         American Relief Act for Battered Spouses and Children
       Provides access to special immigration benefits under 
     NACARA to battered spouses and children similarly to the way 
     section 509 does with respect to Cuban Adjustment Act.
     Sec. 1511. Access to the Haitian Refugee Fairness Act of 1998 
         for Battered Spouses and Children
       Provides access to special immigration benefits under HRIFA 
     to battered spouses and children similarly to the way section 
     509 does with respect to Cuban Adjustment Act.
     Sec. 1512. Access to Services and Legal Representation for 
         Battered Immigrants
       Clarifies that Stop grants, Grants to Encourage Arrest, 
     Rural VAWA grants, Civil Legal Assistance grants, and Campus 
     grants can be used to provide assistance to battered 
     immigrants. Allows local battered women's advocacy 
     organizations, law enforcement or other eligible Stop grants 
     applicants to apply for Stop funding to train INS officers 
     and immigration judges as well as other law enforcement 
     officers on the special needs of battered immigrants.
     Sec. 1513. Protection for Certain Crime Victims Including 
         Victims of Crimes Against Women
       Creates new nonimmigrant visa for victims of certain 
     serious crimes that tend to target vulnerable foreign 
     individuals without immigration status if the victim has 
     suffered substantial physical or mental abuse as a result of 
     the crime, the victim has information about the crime, and a 
     law enforcement official or a judge certifies that the victim 
     has been helpful, is being helpful, or is likely to be 
     helpful in investigating or prosecuting the crime. The crime 
     must involve rape, torture, trafficking, incest, sexual 
     assault, domestic violence, abusive sexual contact, 
     prostitution, sexual exploitation, female genital mutilation, 
     being held hostage, peonage, involuntary servitude, slave 
     trade, kidnapping, abduction, unlawful criminal restraint, 
     false imprisonment, blackmail, extortion, manslaughter, 
     murder, felonious assault, witness tampering, obstruction of 
     justice, perjury, attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the 
     above, or other similar conduct in violation of Federal, 
     State, or local criminal law. Caps visas at 10,000 per fiscal 
     year. Allows Attorney General to adjust these individuals to 
     lawful permanent resident status if the alien has been 
     present for 3 years and the Attorney General determines this 
     is justified on humanitarian grounds, to promote family 
     unity, or is otherwise in the public interest.

  Mr. HATCH. The sex trafficking conference report also contains 
legislation known as ``Aimee's law.'' The purpose of Aimee's law is to 
encourage States to keep murderers, rapists, and child molesters 
incarcerated for long prison terms. Last year, a similar version of 
Aimee's law passed the Senate 81 to 17, and Aimee's law passed the 
House of Representatives 412 to 15.
  This legislation withholds Federal funds from certain States that 
fail to incarcerate criminals convicted of murder, rape, and dangerous 
sexual offenses for adequate prison terms. Aimee's law operates as 
follows: In cases in which a State convicts a person of murder, rape, 
or a dangerous sexual offense, and that person has a prior conviction 
for any one of those offenses in a designated State, the designated 
State must pay, from Federal law enforcement assistance funds, the 
incarceration and prosecution cost of the other State. In such cases, 
the Attorney General would transfer the Federal law enforcement funds 
from the designated State to the subsequent State.
  A State is a designated State and is subject to penalty under Aimee's 
law if (1) the average term of imprisonment imposed by the State on 
persons convicted of the offense for which that person was convicted is 
less than the average term of imprisonment imposed for that offense in 
all States; or (2) that person had served less than 85 percent of the 
prison term to which he was sentenced for the prior offense. In 
determining the latter factor, if the State has an indeterminate 
sentencing system, the lower range of the sentence shall be considered 
the prison term. For example, if a person is sentenced to 10-to-12 
years in prison, then the calculation is whether the person served 85 
percent of 10 years.
  The purpose of Aimee's law is simple: to increase the term of 
imprisonment for murderers, rapists, and child molesters. In this 
respect, Aimee's law is similar to the Violent-Offender-and-Truth-in-
Sentencing Program and the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Since 1995, 
the Truth-in-Sentencing Program has provided approximately $600 million 
per year to States for prison construction. In order to receive these 
funds, States had to adopt truth-in-sentencing laws that require 
violent criminals to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences. As a 
result of such sentencing reforms, the average time served by violent 
criminals in State prisons increased more than 12 percent since 1993. 
Similarly, the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 created the Federal 
sentencing guidelines and increased sentences for Federal inmates. I am 
proud to have supported both of these initiatives to increase prison 
terms for violent and repeat offenders.
  Some will say that Aimee's law violates the principles of federalism, 
and in many respects, I am sympathetic to these arguments. However, I 
would note that Aimee's law does not create any new Federal crimes, nor 
does it expand Federal jurisdiction into State and local matters. 
Instead, this law uses Federal law enforcement assistance funds to 
encourage States to incarcerate criminals convicted of murder, rape, 
and dangerous sexual offenses for adequate prison terms.
  In conclusion, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of Senator 
Santorum. He has been a tireless champion of Aimee's law. Without his 
leadership, Aimee's law would not have been included in the sex 
trafficking conference report. The State of Pennsylvania should be 
proud to have such an able and energetic Senator.
  My friend and colleague, the distinguished ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee, has expressed frustration with certain legislative 
items being added to the sex trafficking conference report. I respect 
him for voicing his concerns. I too would have preferred to have each 
of the measures that were included in this sex trafficking conference 
report considered on their own. But we have witnessed, during this 
session of Congress, dilatory procedural maneuvering of the like I have 
never witnessed before in the Senate.
  Several bills which have passed both the House and the Senate are 
being held up with threats to filibuster the appointment of conferees. 
Motions to proceed to legislation are routinely objected to. As 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I was not even given the courtesy 
of being told that there was a Democratic hold on my interstate alcohol 
bill until after I sought to include it in the sex trafficking 
conference report. The public even witnessed the spectacle of the 
minority joining with the majority to limit debate on, and the 
amendments to, the Hatch H-1B bill and then turning around to 
repeatedly try to add non-relevant amendments to the bill in clear 
violation of the Senate rules.

[[Page 22076]]

  Just so the record is clear, there has been--and continues to be--an 
effort on the part of the minority to tie the Senate up in procedural 
knots and then accuse the majority of being unable to govern. That is 
their right under the rules. I do not recall engaging in similar 
tactics when Republicans were in the minority but I am confident there 
are instances where one could accuse of having engaged in similar 
dilatory tactics. But, I believe we eventually reached the point where 
our fidelity to the institution and our oaths of office transcended the 
short-term interests of ballot box legislating.
  The Senate has previously passed the interstate alcohol bill and the 
Aimee's law legislation by overwhelming votes. Ironically, the one 
piece of legislation included in this bill which my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle do not object to having been added is the 
Violence Against Women Act. This legislation has not been considered by 
the Senate, although I am confident had it been, it would have passed 
overwhelmingly.
  In short, no one respects the rules of the Senate more than me, In 
the end, I hope the minority will rethink its tired and belabored 
efforts to prevent the Senate from doing the public's work. Then we can 
adjourn and return to our respective states where the intervening 
adjournment can be spent with the real people of America--the workers, 
the teachers, and students--instead of the pollsters and spin doctors 
which seem to be of paramount attention to too many of my colleagues.
  Mr. President, today I am pleased by the likely passage tonight of S. 
577, the Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act. Originally introduced 
on March 10, 1999, this legislation provides a mechanism that will 
finally enable states to effectively enforce their laws prohibiting the 
illegal interstate shipment of beverage alcohol.
  At the outset, I should note that S. 577 has enjoyed overwhelming 
support on both sides of the aisle and in both the Senate and the House 
of Representatives.
  Originally passed by the Senate as an amendment by Senator Byrd to 
the Juvenile Justice bill, S. 254, on a lopsided vote of 80-17 on May 
18, 1999, a revised version of S. 577 bill passed out of the Judiciary 
Committee on a 17-1 vote on March 2, 2000. As of the time of final 
passage, there were 23 cosponsors of the bill in the Senate--12 
Republicans and 11 Democrats.
  In the House, the companion legislation to S. 577, H.R. 2031, 
sponsored by my friend from Florida, Representative Joe Scarborough, 
passed the House initially by a vote of 310-112 on August 3, 1999. H.R. 
2031 was backed by a coalition of 45 cosponsors in the House.
  What is included in the conference report is the version of S. 577 as 
passed by the Judiciary Committee in March. It is important to note 
that the legislation, as revised with some amendments in the Committee 
to address both the Wine Institute's and the American Vintners 
Association's concerns, even got the support of Senators Feinstein and 
Schumer, the two most vocal early opponents of the legislation. We 
worked hard with representatives of the wineries on language to further 
clarify that this bill does not, even unintentionally, somehow change 
the balancing test employed by the Courts in reviewing State liquor 
laws. We were able to reach agreement and incorporated those changes in 
the bill. The Wine Institute and the Vintners Association both have 
written us that they are no longer oppose the legislation.
  Let me get to the substance of the legislation, the purpose behind it 
and the history of this issue--both legislative and constitutional. I 
think it is important to fully understand this history to appreciate 
this legislation.
  The simple purpose of this bill is to provide a mechanism to enable 
States to effectively enforce their laws against the illegal interstate 
shipment of alcoholic beverages. Interstate shipments of alcohol 
directly to consumers have been increasing exponentially--and, while I 
certainly believe that interstate commerce should be encouraged, and 
while I do not want small businesses stifled by unnecessary or overly 
burdensome and complex regulations, I do not subscribe to the notion 
that purveyors of alcohol are free to avoid State laws which are 
consistent with the power bestowed upon them by the Constitution. 
Unfortunately, that is exactly want is happening, and that is what this 
legislation will address.
  All States, including the State of Utah, need to be able to address 
the sale and shipment of liquor into their State consistent with the 
Constitution. As my colleagues know, the Twenty First Amendment ceded 
to the States the right to regulate the importation and transportation 
of alcoholic beverages across their borders. States need to protect 
their citizens from consumer fraud and have a claim to the tax revenue 
generated by the sale of such goods. And of the utmost importance, 
States need to ensure that minors are not provided with unfettered 
access to alcohol. Unfortunately, indiscriminate direct sales of 
alcohol circumvent this State right.
  Let me emphasize that there are many companies engaged in the direct 
interstate shipment of alcohol who do not violate State laws. In fact, 
many of these concerns look beyond their own interests and make 
diligent efforts to disseminate information to others to ensure that 
State laws are understood and complied with by all within the 
interstate industry. This legislation only reaches those that violate 
the law.
  Now, I would like to say a few words on the history of this issue. As 
many of my colleagues know, debate over the control of the distribution 
of beverage alcohol has been raging for as long as this country has 
existed. Prior to 1933, every time individuals or legislative bodies 
engaged in efforts to control the flow and consumption of alcohol, 
whether by moral persuasion, legislation or ``Prohibition,'' others 
were equally determined to repeal, circumvent or ignore those barriers. 
The passage of state empowering federal legislation such as the Webb-
Kenyon Act and the Wilson Act were not sufficient, in and of 
themselves, to provide states with the power they needed to control the 
distribution of alcohol in the face of commerce clause challenges. It 
took the passage of a constitutional amendment--and the re-enactment of 
the Webb-Kenyon Act in 1935--to give states the power they needed to 
control the importation of alcohol across their borders.
  The Twenty-First Amendment was ratified in 1933. That amendment ceded 
to the States the right to regulate the importation and transportation 
of alcoholic beverages across their borders. By virtue of that grant of 
authority, each State created its own unique regulatory scheme to 
control the flow of alcohol. Some set up ``State stores'' to effectuate 
control of the shipment into, and dissemination of alcohol within, 
their State. Others refrained from direct control of the product, but 
set up other systems designed to monitor the shipments and ensure 
compliance with its laws. But whatever the type of State system 
enacted, the purpose was much the same: to protect its citizens and 
ensure that its laws were obeyed.
  With passage of the ``Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act,'' the 
States will be empowered to fight illegal sales of alcohol--let me 
emphasize illegal. This legislation is particularly well-timed in that 
it comes on the heels of a powerful opinion uphold state rights under 
the 21st Amendment in the case of Bridenbaugh v. Freeman-Wilson, by 
respected jurist Frank Easterbrook and the Seventh Circuit Court of 
Appeals. In an opinion upholding a state's right to regulate the 
importation of alcohol and prohibit illegal sales, Judge Easterbrook 
cogently articulated the role of the 21st Amendment in the 
Constitutional framework:

       . . . the twenty-first amendment did not return the 
     Constitution to its pre-1919 form. Section 2 . . . closes the 
     loophole left by the dormant commerce clause, . . . No longer 
     may the dormant commerce clause be read to protect interstate 
     shipments of liquor from regulation; sec. 2 speaks directly 
     to these shipments . . . No decision of the Supreme Court 
     holds or implies that laws limited to the importation of 
     liquor are problematic under the dormant commerce clause.

  Some who would seek to avoid state and federal laws have erroneously 
complained that S. 577 will allow states to

[[Page 22077]]

enforce discriminatory state laws. These complaints are without merit. 
In actuality, failure to pass this bill would have had the effect of 
discriminating against in-state distributors by effectively giving out-
of-state distributors de facto immunity from state regulation. Congress 
and the Constitution have recognized that States have a legitimate 
interest in being able to control the interstate distribution of 
alcohol on the same terms and conditions as they are able to control 
in-state distribution. As Judge Easterbrook pointed out:

       Indeed, all ``importation'' involves shipments from another 
     state or nation. Every use of sec. 2 could be called 
     ``discriminatory'' in the sense that plaintiffs use that 
     term, because every statute limiting importation leaves 
     intrastate commerce unaffected. If that were the sort of 
     discrimination that lies outside state power, then sec. 2 
     would be a dead letter. . . . Congress adopted the Webb-
     Kenyon Act, and later proposed sec. 2 of the twenty-first 
     amendment, precisely to remedy this reverse discrimination 
     and make alcohol from every source equally amenable to state 
     regulation.

  That is exactly what S. 577 accomplishes. It simply ensures that all 
businesses, both in-state and out-of-state, are held accountable to the 
same valid laws of the state of delivery.
  It is important to note that the Webb-Kenyon Act already prohibited 
the interstate shipment of alcohol in violation of state law. 
Unfortunately, that general prohibition lacked an appropriate 
enforcement mechanism, thus thwarting the states' ability to enforce 
their laws--those same laws they enacted pursuant to valid 
Constitutional authority under the Twenty-First Amendment--in state 
court proceedings through jurisdictional roadblocks. The legislation 
passed today removes that impediment to state enforcement by simply 
providing the Attorney General of a State, who has reasonable cause to 
believe that his or her State laws regulating the importation and 
transportation of alcohol are being violated, with the ability to file 
an action in federal court for an injunction to stop those illegal 
shipments.
  This bill is balanced to ensure due process and fairness to both the 
State bringing the action and the company or individual alleged to have 
violated the State's laws. The bill:
  1. Assures defendants of due process by requiring that no injunctions 
may be granted without notice to the defendants or an opportunity to be 
heard;
  2. Assures defendants of due process by requiring that no preliminary 
injunction may be issued without proving: (a) irreparable injury, and 
(b) a probability of success on the merits;
  3. Clarifies that injunctive relief only may be obtained--no damages, 
attorneys fees or other costs--may be awarded;
  4. Assures that cases brought are truly interstate/federal in 
character by clarifying that in-state licensees and other authorized 
in-state purveyors, readily amenable to state proceedings, may not be 
subjected to federal injunctive actions;
  5. Allows actions only against those who have violated or are 
currently violating state laws regulating the importation or 
transportation of intoxicating;
  6. Notes that evidence from an earlier hearing on a request for a 
preliminary injunction--but from no other state or federal proceedings, 
may be used in subsequent hearings seeking a permanent injunction--
conserving court resources but protecting a defendant's right to 
confront the evidence against him;
  7. Ensures that S. 577 may not be construed to interfere with or 
otherwise modify the Internet Tax Freedom Act;
  8. Provides for venue where the violation actually occurs--in the 
state into which the alcohol is illegally shipped.
  9. Protects innocent interactive computer services (ICS's) and 
electronic communications services (ECS's) from the threat of 
injunctive actions as a result of the use of those services by others 
to illegally sell alcohol;
  10. Prohibits injunctive actions involving the advertising or 
marketing (but not the sale, transportation or importation) of alcohol 
where such advertising or marketing would be lawful in the jurisdiction 
from which the advertising originates;
  11. Requires that laws sought to be enforced by the states under S. 
577 be valid exercises of authority conferred upon the states by the 
21st Amendment and the Webb-Kenyon Act.
  Madam President, contrary to some of the erroneous claims of some in 
the narrow opposition, I want to reemphasize that S. 577 is intended to 
assist the states in the enforcement of constitutionally-valid state 
liquor laws by providing them with a federal court forum. We are not 
stopping Internet or for that matter, any, legal sales of alcohol. 
Indeed, there is no objection to this legislation by a host of 
companies who sell wine over the Internet, such as Vineyards. The sole 
remedy available under the bill is injunctive relief--that is, no 
damages, no civil fines, and no criminal penalties may be imposed 
solely as a result of this legislation.
  We specifically included rules of construction language in subsection 
2(e) stating that this legislation ``shall be construed only to extend 
the jurisdiction of Federal courts in connection with State law that is 
a valid exercise of power invested in the States'' under the Twenty-
First Amendment as that Amendment has been interpreted by the U.S. 
Supreme Court ``including interpretations in conjunction with other 
provisions of the Constitution.'' This bill is not to be construed as 
granting the States any additional power beyond that.
  Consequently, the state power vested under the Twenty-First 
Amendment, as I have discussed above, is appropriately interpreted with 
and against other rights and privileges protected by the Constitution, 
as the Supreme Court does in every case. It should also be made clear 
that by enacting S. 577, we are not passing on the advisability or 
legal validity of the various state laws regulating alcoholic 
beverages, which continue to be litigated in the courts, and should 
appropriately be a matter for the courts to decide.


               colloquy on 21st amendment enforcement act

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I have strong misgivings about one part 
of the conference report we are about to consider. The provisions 
relating to interstate sales of alcoholic beverages, known as the 21st 
Amendment Enforcement Act, would dramatically reduce the ability of 
small wineries in my state to market their products across the country.
  These wineries are small, independent, often family-owned, 
operations. They are the ``little guys'' in the winemaking industry. 
They need to sell their products directly to consumers around the 
country, and the Internet, especially, holds great promise for their 
future economic success.
  Already, some of them have been hurt by state laws banning interstate 
sales of wine. The Matanzas Greek Winery in Sonoma County estimates 
that it is turning away around $8,000 a month in direct sales from 
consumers who had visited the winery and hoped to place orders from 
their homes in other states.
  I am very concerned that the 21st Amendment Enforcement Act will make 
it even more difficult for these ``little guys'' to compete in the wine 
business.
  I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, Senator Hatch, whether he would consider the impact of this 
legislation on my small wineries. Would the senator be willing, after 
the legislation has been on the books for a year or so, the review its 
impact on small wineries and to work with me to make such amendments as 
are necessary to take care of them?
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I would be happy to consider this issue 
after next year and examine the legislation's impact on small wineries. 
I respect my colleagues from California's commitment to their 
constituents. I must reemphasize, however, that this legislation does 
nothing to hurt the so-called small wineries in competing or marketing 
their products in the wine business. I worked hard for over a year with 
the wine industry to ensure that the legislation does not have any 
unintended consequences, and want to reassure my colleague from 
California that

[[Page 22078]]

the version of the legislation that is included in the conference 
report incorporates revisions made in the committee to address both the 
Wine Institute's and the American Vintners Association's concerns. We 
also included language to further clarify that this bill does not, even 
unintentionally, somehow change the balancing test employed by the 
courts in reviewing state liquor laws. I should also not that the Wine 
Institute and the Vintners Association, as well as numerous Internet 
commerce companies, have written us that they no longer oppose the 
legislation.
  The simple purpose of this bill is to provide a mechanism to enable 
States to effectively enforce their laws against the illegal interstate 
shipment of alcoholic beverages. I hope the distinguished Senator from 
California knows that while I certainly believe that interstate 
commerce should be encouraged, and while I do not want small businesses 
stifled by unnecessary or overly burdensome and complex regulations, I 
do not subscribe to the notion that purveyors of alcohol are free to 
avoid State laws which are consistent with the power bestowed upon them 
by the Constitution--and I should add that I don't think that Senator 
Boxer subscribes to that notion either.
  Let me emphasize that there are many companies engaged in the direct 
interstate shipment of alcohol who do not violate State laws. In fact, 
many of these concerns look beyond their own interests and make 
diligent efforts to disseminate information to others to ensure that 
State laws are understood and complied with by all within the 
interstate industry. This legislation only reaches those that violate 
the law, and only allows the attorney general of a state to go to 
Federal court to enforce its laws. It is just a jurisdictional 
legislation and does not allow or prohibit any sales or marketing by 
any winery, large or small.
  Having said that, I do hear the concerns by Senator Boxer and am 
willing to consider the impact of this legislation after the law has 
been on the books for a year or so, as my colleague has asked. I look 
forward to working with her to insure that this legislation does not 
harm small wineries which comply with the law.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator for his interest and concern, and for 
his commitment to review the impact of the 21st Amendment Enforcement 
Act on small wineries in the future.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
Senator from Pennsylvania.


                              aimee's law

  Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the 
Trafficking Victims Protection Act conference report, H.R. 3244, which 
in addition to seeking to end the trafficking of women and children 
into the international sex trade, slavery and force labor also includes 
major provisions reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, 
providing justice for victims of terrorism, and Aimee's law.
  One of the most disturbing human rights violations of our time is 
trafficking of human beings, particularly that of women and children, 
for purposes of sexual exploitation and forced labor. Every year, the 
trafficking of human beings for the sex trade affects hundreds of 
thousands of women throughout the world. Women and children whose lives 
have been disrupted by economic collapse, civil wars, or fundamental 
changes in political geography have fallen prey to traffickers. 
According to the Department of State, approximately 1-2 million women 
and girls are trafficked annually around the world.
  I commend Senator Sam Brownback and Senator Paul Wellstone for their 
bipartisan leadership on the International Trafficking of Women and 
Children Victim Protection Act. The bill specifically defines 
``trafficking'' as the use of deception, coercion, debt bondage, the 
threat of force, or the abuse of authority to recruit, transport, 
purchase, sell, or harbor a person for the purpose of placing or 
holding such person, whether for pay or not, in involuntary servitude 
or slavery-like conditions. Using this definition, the legislation 
establishes within the Department of State an Interagency Task Force to 
Monitor and Combat Trafficking. The Task Force would assist the 
Secretary of State in reporting to Congress the efforts of the United 
States government to fight trafficking and assist victims of this human 
rights abuse. In addition, the bill would amend the Immigration and 
Nationality Act to provide for a non-immigrant classification for 
trafficking victims in order to better assist the victims of this 
crime.
  Senator Orrin Hatch and Senator Joe Biden introduced S. 2787, the 
Violence Against Women Act. This bipartisan bill would reauthorize 
federal programs which have recently expired for another five years to 
prevent violence against women. It seeks to strengthen law enforcement 
to reduce these acts of violence, provide services to victims, 
strengthen education and training to combat violence against women and 
limit the effects of violence on children. I am an original cosponsor 
of this important legislation which has been endorsed by the National 
Association of Attorneys General, the National Governor's Association, 
and the American Medical Society. On September 26, the House of 
Representatives passed its version of the Violence Against Women Act, 
H.R. 1248, by a vote of 415 to 3. I am pleased that this important 
legislation is included in the Sex Trafficking conference report which 
passed the House of Representatives on October 6 by a 371-1 vote 
margin.
  The reauthorization legislation also creates new initiatives 
including transitional housing for victims of violence, a pilot program 
aimed at protecting children during visits with parents accused of 
domestic violence, and protections for elderly, disabled, and immigrant 
women. The bill also would provide grants to reduce violent crimes 
against women on campus and extend the Violent Crime Reduction Trust 
Fund. It authorizes over $3 billion over five years for the grant 
programs. As a Member of the House of Representatives in the 103rd 
Congress, I supported H.R. 1133, the original Violence Against Women 
Act, offered by Representative Pat Schroeder of Colorado. Since FY1995, 
VAWA has been a major source of funding for programs to reduce rape, 
stalking, and domestic violence. I am also very pleased that my own 
legislation to strengthen incentives for violent criminals, including 
rapists and child molesters, to remain in prison and hold states 
accountable is included in the conference report.
  Aimee's law was prompted by the tragic death of a college senior 
Aimee Willard who was from Brookhaven, Pennsylvania near Philadelphia. 
Arthur Bomar, a convicted murderer was early paroled from a Nevada 
prison. Even after he had assaulted a woman in prison, Nevada released 
him early. Bomar traveled to Pennsylvania where he found Aimee. He 
kidnapped, brutally raped, and murdered Aimee. He was prosecuted a 
second time for murder for this heinous crime in Delaware County, PA. 
Aimee's mother, Gail Willard, has become a tireless advocate for 
victims' rights and serves as an inspiration to me and countless 
others.
  This important legislation would use federal crime fighting funds to 
create an incentive for states to adopt stricter sentencing and truth-
in-sentencing laws by holding states financially accountable for the 
tragic consequences of an early release which results in a violent 
crime being perpetrated on the citizens of another state. Specifically, 
Aimee's law will redirect enough federal crime fighting dollars from a 
state that has released early a murderer, rapist, or child molester to 
pay the prosecutorial and incarceration costs incurred by a state which 
has had to reconvict this released felon for a similar heinous crime. 
More than 14,000 murders, rapes, and sexual assaults on children are 
committed each year by felons who have been released after serving a 
sentence for one of those very same crimes. Convicted murderers, 
rapists, and child molesters who are released from prisons and cross 
state lines are responsible for sexual assaults on more than 1,200 
people annually, including 935 children.
  Recidivism rates for sexual predators are the highest of any category 
of violent crime. Despite this, the average

[[Page 22079]]

time served for rape is only five and one half years, and the average 
time served for sexual assault is under four years. Also troubling is 
the fact that thirteen percent of convicted rapists receive no jail 
time at all. We have more than 130,000 convicted sex offenders right 
now living in our communities because of the leniency of these systems. 
The average time served for homicide is just eight years. Under Aimee's 
law, federal crime fighting funds are used to create an incentive for 
states to adopt stricter sentencing and truth-in-sentencing laws.
  This legislation is endorsed by Gail Willard, Aimee's mother, Marc 
Klass, Fred Goldman, and numerous organizations such the National 
Fraternal Order of Police, the National Rifle Association, and the Law 
Enforcement Alliance of America. 39 victims' rights organizations also 
support Aimee's law including Justice For All, the National Association 
of Crime Victims' Rights, the Women's Coalition, and Kids Safe. These 
groups consider Aimee's law one of their highest priority bills. It 
sends a message that if a state has very lenient sentencing it impacts 
other states and crime victims in those states as well.
  I first offered Aimee's law as an amendment to the juvenile justice 
bill on May 19, 1999, which passed the Senate by a 81-17 vote margin. 
Congressman Matt Salmon also offered the legislation as an amendment in 
the House of Representatives on June 16, 1999, which passed by a 412-15 
vote. Due to a lack of progress on the conference report it became 
necessary to move the legislation separately. On May 11, I joined 
Aimee's mother Gail at a hearing of the U.S. House Subcommittee on 
Crime, to urge the House to approve legislation separately to keep 
sexual predators behind bars. The House of Representatives subsequently 
passed the legislation again by a unanimous voice vote.
  Aimee's law is an appropriate way to protect the citizens of one 
state from inappropriate early releases of another state. One of the 
forty plus national organizations supporting Aimee's law, the National 
Fraternal Order of Police, said the following.

       One of the most frustrating aspects of law enforcement is 
     seeing the guilty go free and, once free, commit another 
     heinous crime. Lives can be saved and tragedies averted if we 
     have the will to keep these predators locked up. Aimee's Law 
     addresses this issue smartly, with Federalizing crimes and 
     without infringing on the State and local responsibilities of 
     local law enforcement by providing accountability and 
     responsibility to States who release their murders, rapists, 
     and child molesters to prey again on the innocent.

  We have made several modest changes to address implementation 
concerns by the states in the effort to achieve the best protection 
possible for our citizens. These include (1) Definitions: utilizing the 
definitions for murder and rape of part I of the Uniform Crime Reports 
of the FBI and for dangerous sexual offenses utilizing the definitions 
of chapter 109A of title 18- to provide for uniform comparisons across 
the states; (2) Sentencing Comparisons: Eliminating the additional 10 
percent requirement and utilizing a national average for sentencing 
only as a benchmark; (3) Study: Also building into the process a study 
evaluating the implementation and effect of Aimee's Law in 2006; (4) 
Source of Funds: Provides states the flexibility to choose the source 
of federal law enforcement assistance funds (except for crime victim 
assistance funds); (5) Implementation: Delays the implementation of 
Aimee's Law to January 1, 2002 to allow states the opportunity to make 
any modifications that they would choose to do; and (6) Indeterminate 
Sentencing States: Safe harbor for states with sentencing ranges allows 
for the use of the lower number in the calculation (e.g. if sentencing 
guideline is 10-15 years, 10 years will be utilized.)
  We are sending a clear message with Aimee's law. We want tougher 
sentences and we want truth in sentencing. A child molester who 
receives four years in prison, when you consider the recidivism rate, 
is an abomination. Murders, rapists, and child molesters do not deserve 
early release; our citizens deserve to be protected. In this 
legislation we are protecting one state's citizens from the complacency 
of another state, and appropriate role for the federal government. I 
want to thank my colleagues for their support and urge the passage of 
this legislation.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the statement of Gail 
Willard be printed in the Record, along with the list of endorsements.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        Testimony of Gail Willard Before the Crime Subcommittee

       It has been one thousand four hundred twenty one days since 
     Aimee's murder. This nightmare began on June 20, 1996. At 
     4:45 AM, I was awakened by a phone call--something every 
     parent dreads and hopes will never happen to them. I was told 
     that the police had found my car on the ramp of a major 
     highway. The car engine was running; the driver's side door 
     was open; the headlights were on; the radio was playing 
     loudly; and there was blood in front of and next to the car. 
     Who was the driver? Where was the driver? That night, my 
     beautiful twenty-two year old daughter, Aimee, had my car. 
     She had gone to a reunion with high school friends, and now 
     she was missing. Late that afternoon Aimee's body was found 
     in a trash-strewn lot in the ``badlands'' of North 
     Philadelphia. She had been raped and beaten to death.
       Aimee was a wonder, a delight, a brilliant light in my 
     life. With dancing blue eyes and a bright, beautiful smile, 
     she drew everyone who knew her into the web of her life. She 
     would light up a room just by walking into it. She could run 
     like the wind, and she enjoyed the game--every game. She had 
     friends and talents and dreams for a spectacular future, so 
     it seemed only natural and right to believe that she would 
     live well into old age. Never one to complain when things 
     didn't go her way, Aimee always worked and played to the best 
     of her ability, happy with her successes, taking her failure 
     in stride. Aimee lived and loved well. She never harmed 
     anyone; in fact, Aimee rarely ever spoke ill of anyone. She 
     was almost too good to be true. On June 20, 1996, at age 
     twenty-two years and twelve days. Aimee was robbed of her 
     life, and our family was robbed of the joy and love and 
     innocent simplicity that were Aimee's special gift to us. We 
     will never be the same. There is an ache deep within each one 
     of us--and ache that cries out, ``Why God? Why?''
       ``Just Do It'' was Aimee's motto. She never worried about 
     what she could not do well; she put her energy into doing 
     what she could do well. In athletics, Aimee took her God-
     given talents and worked them to perfection. For college 
     Aimee accepted a scholarship to play soccer for George Mason 
     University in Fairfax, Virginia. In her sophomore year, she 
     joined the lacrosse team. A two sport Division 1 athlete, 
     Aimee was on her way to becoming a legend at George Mason 
     University. In the spring of 1996, the spring before she was 
     murdered, Aimee led her lacrosse conference, scoring fifty 
     goals with twenty-nine assists. In fact, 1995-96 was a banner 
     year for Aimee. She was named to the Colonial Athletic 
     Association All-Conference Team in both soccer and lacrosse, 
     and to the All-American team for the Southeast region in 
     lacrosse.
       Aimee's athletic success is only part of her glory. Her 
     friends describe her as a quiet presence, a fun-loving kid, a 
     good listener, a loyal friend. They used words like shy, 
     modest, kind, strong, focused, intense, caring, sharing and 
     loving when they speak about Aimee. They tell of Aimee's 
     magic with people. So that you will understand the impact her 
     murder had on them, I want to share an excerpt from a letter 
     one of her friends wrote to me.
       ``For the past few weeks my heart has been breaking for all 
     of us in our devastating loss, but more recently I think my 
     heart has been hurting a bit more for those who will never 
     get the chance to know the woman who played two Division 1 
     sports, making the all-conference teams in both, and All-
     American in one. They will never meet the girl who was always 
     being named `Athlete of the Week' and had no idea that she 
     was half the time. These people will never get the chance to 
     argue with her over things like Nike vs. Adidas, Bubblicious 
     vs. Bubble Yum, Coke vs. Cherry Coke, or whether certain 
     professional athletes were over-rated. I am one of the 
     fortunate ones. I have volumes of Aimee's memories. I know 
     the beauty of those big blue eyes under a low brim of a Nike 
     hat. I know the carefree serenity that gave birth to the 
     goofy laugh. I witnessed her grace with grit, her passion 
     with patience, her pride without arrogance, her speed without 
     exhaustion, and her sweat that was enough to start an ocean. 
     If I was given the opportunity to trade in all my present 
     pain in exchange for never being able to say, `Aimee was my 
     teammate; Aimee was my friend,' I'd stick with the pain. The 
     memory of her is so wonderful.''
       It is impossible to adequately describe the impact of 
     Aimee's murder on the countless people who knew her and loved 
     her. We are all trying to survive the pain and emptiness

[[Page 22080]]

     of this great loss. How often I turn to tell Aimee something 
     silly or dumb when I'm watching one of our favorite 
     television shows, or a basketball or football game, but she 
     isn't there. I'm out shopping and I say, ``Aimee would look 
     great in that outfit. I'll buy if for her.'' But Aimee will 
     never wear a new outfit again. I will never have the joy of 
     holding Aimee in my arms again, or of seeing her sparkling 
     blue eyes, freckled nose and bright smile. I will never know 
     the children Aimee dreamed of having, or the children Aimee 
     dreamed of coaching.
       I do have wonderful memories of Aimee. Her life was wrapped 
     in my love, and mine was wrapped in her love. Because of evil 
     incarnate in Arthur Bomar, I now also have horrible 
     nightmares of the fear, the absolute terror, Aimee must have 
     known, and of the dreadful pain she was forced to endure. I 
     who had been with Aimee in every facet of her life, every 
     event big and small, was not there to protect her from the 
     fear and the pain. I never had the chance to say good-bye. 
     This despicable individual had condemned me, my other two 
     children, the rest of our family and all of Aimee's friends 
     who live with an ache deep in our hearts. The void can never 
     be filled. The pain of the loss of Aimee is forever.
       Aimee's life was ended on June 20, 1996, a night of total 
     madness. She was kidnaped from her own car, raped, and then 
     beaten to death--beaten so badly around the head and face 
     that she was identified by the Nike swoosh tattoo on her 
     ankle--beaten so badly that she had an empty heart when she 
     was found. Every pint of blood had spilled from her body. The 
     person who did this to Aimee is a convicted felon who was on 
     parole.
       Arthur Bomar was released from Nevada's prison system after 
     serving only twelve years of a life sentence for murdering a 
     man. While he was awaiting trial for the murder charge, he 
     shot a woman. While he was in prison serving time for both 
     these crimes, he assaulted a woman who was visiting him 
     there. Despite all these violent crimes, and sentences even 
     beyond the life sentence, Nevada released him after only 
     twelve years. Did they think he was reformed? All they had to 
     do was read his record to know that he wasn't. A reformed, 
     contrite prisoner sentenced to life doesn't beat up a woman 
     visitor. But he was released by Nevada, and he came to 
     Pennsylvania and murdered my Aimee.
       On October 1, 1998, Arthur Bomar was convicted of first 
     degree murder, kidnaping, rape and abuse of a corpse. After 
     the jury announced their decision for the death penalty, this 
     reformed felon from Nevada raised his hand with his middle 
     finger extended and shouted, ``F - - - you, Mrs. Willard, her 
     brother and her sister.''
       This kidnapper, rapist and murderer should never have been 
     on the street in June of 1996. And Aimee Willard should be 
     teaching and coaching, living and loving, spreading her joy 
     among us. But she isn't. Her legacy will live on, however, in 
     scholarship funds, aid to those in need, and a beautiful 
     memorial garden on that lot in the ``badlands'' of North 
     Philadelphia. Her legacy will live on because of Aimee's Law, 
     the ``No Second Chances'' law proposed by Matt Salmon from 
     Arizona and co-sponsored by Curt Weldon from Pennsylvania and 
     many other Congressmen and Senators.
       Our entire justice system, as I see it, cries out for 
     reform. Our system lacks real truth in sentencing. Life in 
     prison does not mean life. Murderers are returned to the 
     streets to murder again. Willful murderers do not deserve a 
     second chance. If ``Aimee's Law'' is passed in 2000, the 
     States will have strong incentive to reform their parole 
     systems and to keep predators in prison actually for life. If 
     not, they will risk a reduction of federal funds if their 
     paroled murderers cross state lines and commit another 
     violent crime.
       I am asking you, the members of the Sub-Committee on Crime, 
     to support the passage of ``Aimee's Law'' if you want to stop 
     the nightmare or convicted murderers continuing to murder. If 
     this law is passed, our streets will be a little safer, some 
     families will be spared the heartache we have suffered, and 
     Aimee Willard's name, not the name of her killer, will be 
     remembered forever. Please remember that Aimee has no second 
     chance at life.
       Thank you.
                                  ____


                              Aimee's law

       Protects Americans from convicted murders, rapists, and 
     child molesters by requiring states to pay the costs of 
     prosecution and incarceration for a previously convicted 
     criminal who travels to another state and commits a similar 
     violent crime. The payment would come from federal law 
     enforcement assistance funds chosen by the state. The 
     legislation is designed to keep violent criminals with high 
     recidivism rates in prison for most of their sentences 
     consistent with the principles of truth in sentencing. The 
     federal government needs to be involved to protect the 
     citizens of one state from inappropriate early releases of 
     another state such as occurred with Aimee Willard from the 
     Philadelphia area, a college senior, who was kidnapped and 
     brutally raped and murdered by a man who was released early 
     from prison in Nevada. Passed the Senate last year 81-17; 
     passed the House of Representative 412-15.


                      partial list of endorsements

       The National Fraternal Order of Police, Washington, DC.
       Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Falls Church, 
     Virginia.
       KlaasKids Foundation, Sausalito, California.
       Childhelp USA, Scottsdale, Arizona.
       Kids Safe, Granada Hills, California.
       Concerned Women for America, Washington, PC.
       California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA), 
     Sacramento, California.
       National Rifle Association (N.R.A.), Falls Church, 
     Virginia.
       Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau, Sacramento, California.
       Mothers Outraged at Molesters Organization (M.O.M.s), 
     Independence, Missouri.
       Southern States Police Benevolent Association, Virginia.
       Garland, Texas Police Department, Garland, Texas.
       Action Americans--Murder Must End Now (A.A.M.M.E.N.), 
     Marietta, Georgia.
       Arizona Professional Police Officers, Association, Phoenix, 
     Arizona.
       Arizona Voice for Crime Victims, Phoenix, Arizona.
       Association of Highway Patrolmen of Arizona, Tucson, 
     Arizona.
       California Protective Parents Association, Sacramento, 
     California.
       Christy Ann Fornoff Foundation, Mesa, Arizona.
       Citizens and Victims for Justice Reform, Louisville, 
     Kentucky.
       Concerns of Police Survivors (C.O.P.S.), Missouri.
       International Children's Rights Resource Center, 
     Washington.
       Justice for All, New York, New York.
       Justice for Murder Victims, San Francisco, California.
       Kids In Danger of Sexploitation (K.I.D.S.), Orlando, 
     Florida.
       McDowell County Sheriff's Department, Marion, North 
     Carolina.
       Memory of Victims Everywhere (M.O.V.E.), San Juan 
     Capistrano, California.
       National Association of Crime Victims' Rights, Portland, 
     Oregon.
       New Mexico Survivors of Homicide, Inc., Albuquerque, New 
     Mexico.
       Parents Legal Exchange Alliance, San Francisco, California.
       Parents of Murdered Children, Cincinnati, Ohio.
       Parole Watch, New York, New York.
       Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, Phoenix, Arizona.
       Protect Our Children, Cocoa, Florida.
       Security On Campus, Inc., King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
       Speak Out for Stephanie (S.O.S.), Overland Park, Kansas.
       Survivor Connections, Inc., Cranston, Rhode Island.
       Survivors and Victims Empowered (S.A.V.E.), Lancaster, 
     Pennsylvania.
       Survivors of Homicide, Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico.
       Victims of Crime and Leniency (V.O.C.A.L.), Montgomery, 
     Alabama.
       The Women's Coalition, Pasadena, California.


           Endorsements From Individuals: (*interstate cases)

       Ms. Gail Willard (PA; mother of Aimee Willard, a college 
     student raped and murdered by a released killer*)
       Ms. Mary Vincent (WA; survivor of rape/attempted murder in 
     CA; her attacker, released from prison, later killed a mother 
     of three in Florida*)
       Mr. Fred Goldman (CA; father of Ron Goldman, who was killed 
     in CA along with Nicole Simpson)
       Mr. Marc Klass (CA; father of Polly, who was molested and 
     murdered in Nevada by a released sex offender)
       Ms. Dianne Bauer (AK; daughter of Dr. Lester Bauer, who was 
     murdered in Nevada by a released murderer*)
       Ms. Jeremy Brown (NY; survivor of rape; her attacker had 
     served time for murder*)
       Ms. Trina Easterling (LA; mother of Lorin, an 11 year-old 
     girl abducted, raped, and murdered, allegedly by Ralph 
     Stogner, who had served time for raping a pregnant woman*)
       Mr. Louis Gonzalez (NJ; brother of Ippolito ``Lee'' 
     Gonzalez, a policeman murdered by a released killer*)
       Ms. Dianne Marzan (TX; mother of daughters molested by an 
     HIV-positive, released sex offender*)
       The Pruckmayr family (PA; parents of Bettina, brutally 
     stabbed 38 times in our nation's Capital by a paroled 
     murderer)
       Ms. Beckie Walker (TX; wife of TX Police Officer Gerald 
     Walker, who was murdered by a released double-killer*)
       Mr. Ray Wilson (CO; father of Brooklyn Ricks, who was raped 
     and murdered by a released rapist*)

  Mr. SANTORUM. In conclusion, Madam President, I thank Senator 
Brownback for his great work and perseverance in bringing this crime-
fighting package to the Senate to pass it and turn it into law quickly. 
Aimee's law was debated and considered here in the Senate during this 
session of Congress. It passed 81-17. It has passed the

[[Page 22081]]

House with over 400 votes. It is a provision that has very broad 
support. It is one of the No. 1 legislative provisions that the victims 
rights organizations in America would like to see done.
  This is a piece of legislation that targets three types of 
offenders--murderers, rapists, and sex offenders, child molesters in 
particular. What this does is focus on those three because, obviously, 
they are three of the most heinous crimes on the books, but they are 
also crimes that have the highest incidence of repeat offenders, 
particularly the sexual crimes.
  Aimee's law is given that name for Aimee Willard. She was a college 
student outside of Philadelphia who was raped and murdered by Arthur 
Bomar. Arthur Bomar was released from a Nevada prison after serving 
only a small fraction of his sentence for a similar crime. He was 
released, and within a few months he found his way to Philadelphia, 
where Aimee was out one evening. She was attacked, raped, and murdered. 
It was a case that sent shockwaves through southeastern Pennsylvania 
and the whole Delaware Valley. Aimee's mother, Gail, has been on a 
crusade since then to do something to make sure convicted rapists and 
murderers and other sex offenders serve their full sentences.
  If you look at the sentences that are meted out for these crimes, it 
is somewhat chilling to realize that if you look at the sentences that 
are served for murder, for example, the average sentence for murder is 
8 years. The average sentence for rape is 5\1/2\ years. This is the 
actual time they serve, and the actual time served for a sex or child 
molestation offense is 4 years.
  We believe that you have a high incidence of recidivism in these 
crimes, and people need to serve longer sentences so they are not a 
threat to our communities. In fact, more than 14,000 murders, rapes, 
and sexual assaults on children are committed each year by felons who 
had been released after serving a sentence on one of those very same 
crimes. So 14,000 of these crimes are committed by people who have 
committed these crimes in the past, who were let go to commit a crime 
again.
  What we believe and what we have suggested is, frankly, very modest. 
It is modest in the sense that it is, I argue, even for those 81 
Senators who voted for this legislation the last time around--and some 
expressed concern that this was going to be too tough on the States--
not as tough as it was before. We have changed it in ways that have 
made it a little less onerous on States to have to keep up with these 
provisions. We tightened the definitions more. We created flexibility 
for the States for them to choose which funds they would use.
  This is basically what this proposal does. It says if you release 
someone from prison who has not served 85 percent of their sentence, or 
has served a sentence below the national average for the crimes that we 
enumerate, and that person goes out and commits a crime in another 
State, then the State in which the person has committed the second 
crime--the released felon commits a second crime--then it has a right 
to go to the original State who let this person out early and seek 
compensation for all the costs associated with the prosecution, 
conviction, and incarceration of that criminal.
  That hardly seems like the overbearing Federal Government dictating 
to States how to run their criminal justice system. These are Federal 
funds. States can choose which Federal funds they can allocate for this 
purpose. But what it says is we need to get tougher in having tougher 
sentences and making sure that those sentences, when given, are served.
  I don't believe that is too much to ask for this Congress, and I very 
strongly urge my colleagues to support this measure, and recognize that 
if this measure is not supported this bill will be dead and will have 
to start over again in the House of Representatives.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I yield myself 3 minutes. I want to 
recognize the leadership of my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator 
Santorum, in this provision. This is something he fought for to put in 
this overall package, to keep in this overall package, and it was 
something when we started down this road, frankly, I was saying I want 
a little, clean, simple bill to deal with sex trafficking. And several 
Members on the House side, and Senator Santorum on this side, fought to 
put this in.
  The more I studied this, the consistency of the flow was there with 
this. This is dealing with trying to protect people who have been 
subject to domestic crimes, domestic violence, to protect people who 
have been subject to trafficking and protect people who have been 
subject to, frankly, early release and high recidivism offenders in 
other States, such as what happened, unfortunately, in his State in the 
case of Aimee Willard.
  I applaud my colleague's work. I note one other thing. Other 
colleagues look at this and raise questions about does this really fit 
within the overall package, and one can make their decision one way or 
the other. But the point is, if this is pulled out, the bill has to go 
back to the House. We don't have time, so it effectively kills the 
bill. The House has already voted 371-1 for this package. It is a 
package and if this gets pulled out, it has to go back to the House. 
The House is going out on Friday for a funeral of one of its Members. 
Tomorrow, it has its calendar set up. It kills the bill, so everything 
else gets killed as well, regardless of what the arguments are. I plead 
with colleagues and say let's look at this and go ahead and support the 
entire package and not support the motion to strike the Aimee's law 
provision.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Madam President.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, off whose time is the quorum call 
charged?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the understanding of the Chair that, 
under the previous order, all quorum calls are being charged today to 
both sides equally.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I note for the record, as we put it in, it was charged 
against all sides equally because there are four people who have 
separate allotted time. It should be allocated equally to all of those.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's understanding is correct. It 
will be so allocated.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I note that we are planning on a vote 
at 4:30. Senator Thompson has the time reserved from 3:30 to 4:30. I 
note for my colleagues that if anybody wishes to speak on this 
particular bill, Senator Thompson has an entire hour reserved. Under 
the unanimous consent order, we immediately go to both votes--the vote 
on the appeal of the ruling of the Chair for Senator Thompson, and 
immediately we will go to a vote on final passage of the conference 
report.
  If anybody seeks to speak on this bill, they should do so at the 
present time because otherwise it will be allocated to Senator 
Thompson.
  I will use a couple of minutes of my time at this point. I note that 
within the bill there is the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act that 
has been spoken of by Senator Lautenberg and Senator Mack, which seeks 
justice for victims of terrorism that is taking place. That is in the 
bill. I think it is an important part of the legislation. I hope we 
will have some discussion taking place on that as well.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 22082]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time, if 
any, is under the control of the Senator from Delaware?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes 48 seconds.
  Mr. BIDEN. I ask the ranking member whether or not he is willing to 
yield additional time if I need it?
  Mr. LEAHY. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield the 6 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, what a difference a year makes. Last year, 
I came to the floor and indicated I thought in light of the resistance 
taking place regarding the Violence Against Women Act and its 
reauthorization and the Violence Against Women II Act, it would be a 
tough fight to renew and strengthen the Violence Against Women Act. 
Thanks to the help and support of a number of folks in and out of this 
Senate--from attorneys general in the various States, to police, to 
victims advocates, doctors, nurses, Governors, women's groups--I am 
proud to say we finally arrived at a point where the Violence Against 
Women Act 2000 is on the verge of passing the Senate as part of the sex 
trafficking conference report.
  I thank particularly my good friend from Minnesota. Since he has 
arrived in the Senate, he has been the single strongest supporter I 
have had. Along with his wife, who is incredible, she has been the 
single most significant outside advocate for the Violence Against Women 
Act in everything that surrounds and involves it.
  I dealt him a bit of advice. When I went to a conference on a bill he 
was working very mightily for, along with our friend and Republican 
colleague, the sex trafficking bill, which is a very important bill in 
and of itself--by itself it is important--if we were doing nothing else 
but passing that legislation that he and Senator Brownback have worked 
so hard on, it would be a worthy day, a worthy endeavor for the Senate 
and the U.S. Government.
  I realize people watching this on C-SPAN get confused when we use the 
``Senate speak.'' We talk of conferences and conference reports and 
various types of legislation. The bottom line is, I was part of that 
agreement where we sat down with House Members and Senate Members to 
talk about the sex trafficking legislation. I didn't surprise him--I 
told him ahead of time, but I am sure I created some concern--by 
attempting to add the Violence Against Women Act to that legislation. 
We ultimately did.
  It is the first time in the 28 years I have been in the Senate that I 
have gone to a conference and added a major piece of legislation in 
that conference, knowing that it might very well jeopardize the passage 
of the legislation we were discussing. And it is worthy legislation. I 
am a cosponsor. I can think of nothing--obviously, you would expect me 
to say that, being the author of this legislation--I can think of 
nothing of more consequence to the women of America and the children of 
America than our continuing the fight--and I am sure my friend from 
Minnesota agrees with me--regarding violence against women.
  I thank Senator Hatch for working so hard with me to pass this 
legislation. This legislation was not a very popular idea on the other 
side of the aisle 8 years ago when we wrote this, and 6 years ago when 
we got close to passing it, and 5 years ago when we passed it. Senator 
Hatch stood up and led the way on the Republican side. And I thank my 
Republican colleagues, about 25 of whom--maybe more now--cosponsored 
it. I attribute that to Senator Hatch's leadership, and I thank him for 
that.
  This legislation is very important. I will try as briefly as I can to 
state why it is important.
  First of all, it reauthorizes the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, 
referred to as landmark legislation. I believe it is landmark 
legislation. It is the beginning of the end of the attitude in America 
that a woman is the possession of a man, that a woman is, in fact, 
subject to a man's control even if that requires ``physical force.'' 
This clearly states, and we stated it for the first time on record in 
1994, that no man has a right under any circumstance other than self-
defense to raise his hand to or to use any physical force against a 
woman for any reason at all other than self-defense.
  One might think: Big deal; we all knew that. No, we didn't all know 
that. It has begun to shape societal attitudes. What has happened is 
that we have seen a decline of 21 percent in the violent acts committed 
by significant others against their spouses and/or girlfriends and/or 
mate. That is a big deal. What happens if we don't pass this today? The 
Violence Against Women Act goes out of existence. It is no longer 
authorized. So this is a big deal, a big, big deal.
  No. 2, I promised when I wrote this legislation in 1994 that, after 
seeing it in operation, I would not be wedded to its continuation if it 
wasn't working, and that I would propose, along with others, things 
that would enhance the legislation. That is, places where there were 
deficiencies we would change the law and places where the law in place 
was useless or counterproductive, we would eliminate that provision of 
the law. We have kept that promise.
  This legislation does a number of things. It makes improvements in 
what we call full faith and credit of enforcement orders. Simply 
stated, that means if a woman in the State of Maryland goes to court 
and says, ``This man is harassing me,'' or ``He has beaten me,'' or 
``He has hurt me,'' and the court says that man must stay away from 
that woman and cannot get within a quarter mile--or whatever the 
restriction is--and if he does, he will go to jail, that is a 
protection order, a stay away order.
  What happens in many cases when that woman crosses the line into the 
State of Delaware or into the State of Pennsylvania or into the 
District of Columbia and that man follows her, the court in that 
district does not enforce the stay away order from the other State for 
a number of reasons: One, they don't have computers that they can 
access and find out whether there is such an order; two, they are blase 
about it; or three, they will not give full faith and credit to it.
  This creates a development and enhancement of data collection and 
sharing system to promote tracking and enforcement of these orders. Big 
deal.
  Second, transition housing. This is a change. We have found that we 
have provided housing for thousands and thousands and thousands of 
women who have gotten themselves into a dilemma where they are 
victimized but have no place to go. So we, all of us in the Congress, 
have provided moneys for building credible and decent and clean 
shelters, homes for women where they can bring their children.
  I might note parenthetically the majority of children who are 
homeless, on the street, are there because their mothers are the victim 
of abuse and have no place to go. So they end up on the street. We are 
rectifying that.
  We found out there is a problem. There is a problem because there are 
more people trying to get into this emergency housing and there is no 
place for some of these women to go between the emergency housing--and 
they can't go back to their homes--and having decent housing. So we 
provide for a transition, some money for transition housing. In the 
interest of time, I will not go into detail about it.
  Third, we change what we call incorporating dating violence into the 
purposes that this act covers, where there is a pro-arrest policy, 
where there are child abuse enforcement grants, et cetera. The way the 
law was written the first time, an unintended consequence of what I did 
when I wrote the law is, a woman ended up having to have an extended 
relationship with the man who was victimizing her in order to qualify 
for these services. That is an oversimplification, but that is the 
essence. If a woman was a victim of date rape, the first or second time 
she went out with a man of whom she was a victim, she did not qualify 
under the law for those purposes. Now that person would qualify.

[[Page 22083]]

  We also provide legal assistance for victims of domestic violence and 
sexual harassment. We set aside some of the money in the Violence 
Against Women Act, hopefully through the trust fund which, hopefully, 
the Presiding Officer will insist on being part of this. We provide for 
women getting help through that system. We provide for safe havens for 
children, pilot programs.
  As my friend from Minnesota knows, most of the time when a woman gets 
shot or killed in a domestic exchange, it is when she is literally 
dropping off a child at the end of the weekend. That is when the 
violence occurs. So we provide the ability for the child to be dropped 
off in a safe place, under supervised care--the father leaves, and then 
the mother comes and picks the child up and regains custody--because we 
find simple, little things make big, giant differences in safety for 
women. This also provides pilot programs relating to visitation and 
exchange.
  We put in protective orders for the protection of disabled women from 
domestic violence. Also, the role of the court in combating violence 
against women engages State courts in fighting violence by setting 
aside funds in one of the grant programs.
  And we provided a domestic violence task force. We also provide 
standards, practices, and training for sexual forensic examinations 
which we have been doing in my State, and other States have done, but 
nationwide they are not being done. So much loss of potential evidence 
is found when the woman comes back into court because they did not 
collect the necessary evidence at the time the abuse took place.
  Also, maybe the single most important provision we add to the 
Violence Against Women Act is the battered immigrant women provision. 
This strengthens and refines the protections for battered immigrant 
women in the original act and eliminates the unintended consequence of 
subsequent charges in immigration law to ensure that abused women 
living in the United States with immigrant victims are brought to 
justice and the battered immigrants also escape abuse without being 
subject to other penalties.
  There is much more to say.
  We have worked hard together over the past year to produce a strong, 
bipartisan bill that has gained the overwhelming support of the 
Senate--with a total of 74 cosponsors. All of my Democratic colleagues 
are cosponsors, along with 28 of my Republican friends.
  Passage of this bill today would not have been possible without the 
effort and commitment of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, my 
friend Orrin Hatch, who has dedicated years to addressing the scourge 
of violence against women.
  I also want to take this opportunity to thank our committee's ranking 
member, Senator Leahy, for his constant support of my efforts to bring 
this bill to a vote, and my friends in the House, Representatives John 
Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Connie 
Morella, for their leadership on this important legislation.
  The need for this law is as clear today as it was more than a decade 
ago when I first focused on the problem of domestic violence and sexual 
assault.
  Consider this: In my state of Delaware, I regret to report that more 
than 30 women and children have been killed in domestic violence-
related homicides in the past three years.
  No area or income-bracket has escaped this violence. To stop domestic 
violence beatings from escalating into violent deaths, more than one 
thousand police officers throughout Delaware--in large cities and 
small, rural towns alike--have received specialized training to deal 
with such cases.
  Every State in this country now has similar police training, and the 
Violence Against Women Act is providing the necessary funding.
  To ensure these officers collect evidence that will stand up in 
court, they are being armed with state-of-the-art instant cameras and 
video cameras.
  The Violence Against Women Act is providing the necessary funding for 
these cameras--nationwide.
  The National Domestic Violence Hotline handles 13,000 calls from 
victims per month and has fielded over half a million calls since its 
inception. The Violence Against Women Act is providing the necessary 
funding.
  We are also working hard to create an army of attorneys nationwide 
who have volunteered to provide free legal services to victims--from 
filing a protection order, to divorce and custody matters. But many, 
many more women need legal assistance. The Violence Against Women Act 
of 2000, which is before us today, authorizes and provides the 
necessary funding to help victims of domestic violence, stalking, and 
sexual assault obtain legal assistance at little to no cost.
  Don't take my word for the need for this legislation. You have heard 
from folks in your states. Listen to their stories and the programs 
they've put into place over the past five years since we passed the 
Violence Against Women Act in 1994--with overwhelming bipartisan 
support.
  Unless we act now--and renew our commitment to stopping violence 
against women and children--our efforts and successes over the past 
five years will come to a screeching halt. The Violence Against Women 
Act expired September 30.
  If the funding dries up--make no mistake--the number of domestic 
violence cases and the number of women killed by their husbands or 
boyfriends who profess to ``love'' them--will increase.
  Domestic violence has been on a steady decline in recent years. U.S. 
Department of Justice statistics show a 21 percent drop since 1993.
  Why?
  From Alabama to Alaska--New Hampshire to New Mexico--Michigan to 
Maine--California to Kentucky--Delaware to Utah--police, prosecutors, 
judges, victims' advocates, hospitals, corporations, and attorneys are 
providing a seamless network of ``coordinated response teams'' to 
provide victims and their children the services they need to escape the 
violence--and stay alive.
  In National City, California, family violence response team 
counselors go directly to the scenes of domestic violence cases with 
police.
  Violence Against Women Act funds have facilitated changes from 
simple, common sense reforms--such as standardized police reporting 
forms to document the abuse . . . to more innovative programs, such as 
the Tri-State Domestic Violence Project involving North Dakota, 
Montana, and Wyoming. This project includes getting the word out to 
everyone from clergy to hairdressers to teachers--anyone who is likely 
to come into contact with a domestic violence victims--so that they can 
direct victims to needed housing, legal, and medical services. And the 
services and protections are offered across State lines.
  Such coordinated projects have different names in different States--
in Oregon, they have domestic violence intervention teams.
  In Vermont they have ``PAVE.'' The Project Against Violent 
Encounters.
  Washington State has developed ``Project SAFER''--which links 
attorneys with victims at battered women shelters to ``Stop Abuse and 
Fear by Exercising Rights.''
  In Washington, D.C. they formed Women Empowered Against Violence--
known as WEAVE--which provides a total package for victims, from legal 
assistance to counseling to case management through the courts.
  Utah has developed the ``CAUSE'' project, or the Coalition of 
Advocates for Utah Survivors' Empowerment. It is a statewide, nonprofit 
organization that has created a system of community support for sexual 
assault survivors.
  In Kansas, they've funded a program called ``Circuit Riders,'' who 
are advocates and attorneys who travel to rural parts of the State to 
fill the gaps in service.
  Different names for these programs but the same funding source and 
inspiration--the Violence Against Women Act.
  Experience with the act has also shown us that we need to strengthen 
enforcement of protection from abuse orders across state lines.
  Candidly, a protection from abuse order is just one part of the 
solution. A

[[Page 22084]]

piece of paper will not stop a determined abuser with a fist, knife, or 
gun.
  But look at what states like New York and Georgia are doing to make 
it easier--and less intimidating--for women to file for a protection 
from abuse order.
  They have implemented a completely confidential system for a victim 
to file for a protection from abuse order without ever having to walk 
into a courtroom.
  It is all on-line over the internet. After the victim answers a 
series of questions and describes the abuse, the information is deleted 
once transmitted to the court--with no information stored 
electronically.
  This project is part of specialized domestic violence courts 
established in many states--where one judge handles the entire case--
from protection orders, to divorce, custody, and probation issues.
  The Center for Court Innovation is working with the New York courts 
to develop customized computer technology that will link the courts, 
police, probation officers, and social service agencies--so that 
everyone is on the same page, and knows exactly what's happening with a 
domestic violence case.
  We need to take this technology nationwide. And the Violence Against 
Women Act of 2000 before us today will provide funding to states for 
such technology. and not all our solutions are high-tech.
  To help victims enforce protection orders, states and cities across 
this country have teamed up with the cellular phone industry to arm 
victims with cell phones.
  In my state of Delaware, I spearheaded a drive to collect two 
thousand used cell phones, so that every person with a protection from 
abuse order can get a cell phone programmed to automatically dial 9-1-1 
if the abuser shows up at her house, place of work, at the school yard 
when she picks up her child, the bus stop or the grocery store.
  Commonsense solutions--all sparked by the Violence Against Women Act 
this body passed overwhelmingly in 1994.
  Again, listen to the voices of victims we have helped.
  Phyllis Lee from Tennessee says she is alive today thanks to the 
battered women shelter in Dayton. Without it, she is certain her 
abusive husband would have killed her with his violent beatings. After 
enduring 17 years of torturous abuse, including severe beatings to her 
head and body, rape, and the withholding of needed medical care, 
Phyllis finally escaped.
  After a particularly severe beating, she hid in the woods for 20 
hours, paralyzed with fear that her husband would find her. She crawled 
to a nearby farmhouse and asked for help.
  With the help of the woman who lived there, she contacted Battered 
Women, Inc.--an organization that assists victims of domestic violence. 
This program, which includes a hotline, counselors, and a shelter, is 
heavily funded by the Violence Against Women Act. It provided a way out 
for Phyllis and her children, whose lives were in grave danger.
  Battered Women, Inc. also helped Phyllis get her GED and she is now 
working as an advocate for other battered women. She says that without 
this program, she never would have known that the option to live 
without abuse existed.
  States with large Indian reservations--such as California and 
Nevada--have formed Inter-Tribal Councils so that Native American women 
no longer have to suffer in silence at the hands of their violent 
abusers. One victim in California writes:

       If it were not for the Inter-Tribal Council's efforts, I 
     would be dead, homeless or living in my car, with my children 
     hungry.

  In California, the Inter-Tribal Council has reached out to Native 
American communities to establish the ``Stop and Take Responsibility'' 
program.
  First, and foremost, this program is about education--educating 
Native American men that hitting your spouse is a serious crime, and 
educating mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters--that no man has a 
right to lay a hand on them.
  This past May, the shooting of Barry Grunnow, an English teacher in 
Lake Worth, Florida--by a seventh grade honor roll student named 
Nathaniel Brazil--shocked the nation.
  Recently, Lake Worth police released reports showing a history of 
domestic violence in the Brazil home.
  As the Palm Beach Post wrote recently in an editorial--

       While violence in the home can hardly be directly blamed 
     for the tragic shooting . . . this case does demonstrate the 
     way in which domestic violence affects society at large, how 
     violence in the home increased the likelihood for violence in 
     the surrounding community. It is about time that we push for 
     bipartisan Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization in 
     Congress to combat domestic violence and its horrible 
     consequences.

  And if any of you doubt the link between children growing up in a 
home watching their mother get the living hell beat out of her--and 
that child growing up to be violent as well, consider this recent case 
two months ago in San Diego.
  A prosecutor was in her office, interviewing a mother who was 
pressing charges against her husband after suffering years of abuse. As 
the questioning stretched on, the woman's 8-year-old son grew restless.
  Just as little kids do--the boy tugged at his mother's sleeve, 
saying, ``Let's go. I'm hungry . . . can we leave yet.''
  He became even more agitated and said: ``Come on, Mom, I want to 
go.''
  Finally, the 8-year-old boy shouted: ``I'm talking to you?'' Then, he 
curled up his fist and punched her.
  Now, where did he learn that?
  That prosecutor not only had a victim in her office. She had a future 
domestic violence abuser.
  But states are not giving up on these kids. For example, in Pasco 
County, Florida the Sheriff's Office has developed a special program 
just to focus on the children in homes with domestic violence.
  It's called KIDS, which stands for Kids in Domestic Situations. The 
sheriff hired four new detectives, a supervisor, and a clerk. They 
review every domestic violence call to see if a child lives in the 
home. They are specially trained to interview that child and get him or 
her the needed counseling--to break the cycle of violence.
  Unfortunately, the abuse does not stop for women once they are 
divorced--particularly when the father uses the children to continue 
the harassment. All too often, Kids caught in the crossfire of a 
divorce and custody battle need safe havens.
  One woman in Colorado had to confront her former husband and abuser 
at her son's soccer games--to exchange custody for the weekend. She had 
to endure continued mental and emotional abuse, putting herself in 
physical harms-way. Finally a visitation center opened. Now she drops 
off her son into the hands of trained staff in a secure environment.
  In Hawaii, Violence Against Women Act funding has allowed officials 
to open three new visitation centers in the island's most rural 
counties.
  The Violence Against Women Act of 2000 adds new funding for safe 
havens for children to provide supervised visitation and safe 
visitation exchange in situations involving domestic violence, child 
abuse, sexual assault, or stalking.
  Of course, there are also the battered women's shelters. Over the 
past five years, every State in this country has received funding to 
open new and expand existing shelters. Two thousand shelters in this 
country now benefit from this funding.
  In my State of Delaware we have increased the number of shelters from 
two to five, including one solely for Hispanic women.
  For as much as we've done, so much more is needed. Our bipartisan 
Biden-Hatch bill increases funding for tens of thousands of more 
shelter beds. It also establishes transitional housing services to help 
victims move from shelters back into the community.
  And let's not forget the plight of battered immigrant women, caught 
between their desperate desire to flee their abusers and their 
desperate desire to remain in the United States. A young Mexican woman 
who married her husband at the age of 16 and moved to the United States 
suffered years of physical abuse and rape--she was literally locked in 
her own home like a prisoner. Her husband threatened deportation if she 
ever told police or left

[[Page 22085]]

the house. When she finally escaped to the Houston Area Women's Center 
in Texas, she was near death.
  That shelter gave her a safe place to live, and provided her the 
legal services she needed to become a citizens and get a divorce.
  Our bipartisan bill expands upon the protections for battered 
immigrant women.
  Thanks to nurses and emergency room doctors across this country--we 
have made great strides in helping victims who show up at the emergency 
room, claiming they ran into a door or fell down the stairs.
  The Kentucky General Assembly has made it mandatory for health 
professionals in emergency rooms to receive three hours of domestic 
violence training.
  The National Hospital Accreditation Board is encouraging all 
hospitals to follow Kentucky's lead.
  The SANE program, sexual assault nurse examiners, are truly angels to 
victims. They are specially trained to work with police to collect 
needed evidence in a way that is sensitive and comforting to victims.
  The Violence Against Women Act of 2000 facilitates these efforts by 
ensuring that STOP grants can be used for training on how to conduct 
rape exams and how to collect, preserve, and analyze the evidence for 
trial.
  Finally, I am very pleased to report, this legislation expands grants 
under the Violence Against Women Act to states, local governments, 
tribal governments, and universities to cover violence that arises in 
dating relationships. Hopefully, this important change will help 
prevent tragedies like the death of Cassie Diehl, a 17-year-old high 
school senior from Idaho, killed by a boyfriend who left her for dead 
after the truck he was driving plunged 400 feet of a mountain road.
  What is especially tragic about this story is the great lengths to 
which Cassie's parents went, before her death, to seek help from local 
law enforcement agencies and local prosecutors in putting an end to the 
boyfriend's constant abuse of their child, even seeking a protection 
order from a judge. All of these efforts failed because Cassie was a 
teenager involved in an abusive dating relationship. Law enforcement 
officials believed that because Cassie was a 17-year-old high school 
student living at home she could not be abused by a boyfriend, that she 
was not entitled to protection under the law.
  The legislation we will vote on today will help avoid future horror 
stories like Cassie's by providing training for law enforcement 
officers and prosecutors to better identify and respond to violence 
that arises in dating relationships and by expanding victim services 
programs to reach these frequently young victims.
  Thanks in part to the landmark law we passed in 1994, violence 
against women is no longer regarded as a private misfortune, but is 
recognized as the serious crime and public disgrace that it is. We have 
made great strides to putting an end to the days when victims are 
victimized twice--first by their abuser, then by the emergency response 
and criminal justice systems. We are making headway.
  I have given you plenty of examples, but there are hundreds more.
  In addition to the battered women's shelters, the STOP grants, the 
National Domestic Violence Hotline, and other grant programs I have 
mentioned, the Biden-Hatch Violence Against Women Act of 2000 
reauthorizes for five years the Pro-Arrest grants, Rural Domestic 
Violence and Child Abuse Enforcement grants, campus grants, the rape 
prevention and education grant program, and three victims of child 
abuse programs, including the court-appointed special advocate program 
(CASA).
  So, let us act now to pass the Biden-Hatch bill.
  There is one thing missing, I must point out, from this legislation. 
Unfortunately, the conference report does not extend the Violent Crime 
Reduction Trust Fund that would guarantee the funding for another five 
years--so that these innovative, effective projects can continue.
  I believe that extending the trust fund is critical. Remember, none 
of this costs a single dime in new taxes. It's all paid for by reducing 
the federal government by some 300,000 employees. The paycheck that was 
going to a bureaucrat is now going into the trust fund. So I will 
continue to work to extend the trust fund to ensure that these programs 
actually receive the funding we have authorized.
  Let me just close by saying that it has been a tough fight over the 
past 22 months to get my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to focus 
on the need to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. But we have 
finally done it.
  I greatly appreciate the support, daily phone calls, letters, and e-
mails of so many groups--who are the real reason we have been able to 
get this done this year. The National Association of Attorneys General, 
every law enforcement organization, all the many women's groups, the 
National and 50 individual State Coalitions Against Domestic Violence, 
the American Medical Association, the National Governors Association, 
nurses, the list goes on and on--more than 150 groups total.
  If you'll allow me one more point of personal privilege, this act--
the Violence Against Women Act--is my single greatest legislative 
accomplishment in my nearly 28 years in the United States Senate.
  Why? Because just from the few examples provided above--it's having a 
real impact in the lives of tens of thousands of women and children. 
You see it and hear the stories when you're back home.
  So let us today pass the bipartisan Biden-Hatch Violence Against 
Women Act now, and renew our national commitment to end domestic 
violence.
  Mr. President, I am happy now to yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. May I have 30 seconds of the time I yielded to the 
Senator?
  Mr. BIDEN. Yes.
  Mr. LEAHY. I will speak more on this in another venue, but I think it 
is safe to say VAWA would not be voted on today had it not been for the 
persistence of the Senator from Delaware. That persistence is something 
the public has not seen as much as those of us who have been in private 
meetings with him, where his muscle really counted. We would not have 
this vote today, and I suspect it will be an overwhelmingly supportive 
vote--that vote would not have been today were it not for the total and 
complete persistence of the Senator from Delaware, just as the vote on 
sex trafficking is to the credit of the Senators from Kansas and 
Minnesota.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for that. The 
beginning of my comments was a polite way of apologizing for my being 
so persistent. I have been here 28 years. I have never threatened a 
filibuster. I have never threatened to hold up legislation. I have 
never once stopped the business on the floor--not that that is not 
every Senator's right. I have never done that. I care so much about 
this legislation that I was prepared to do whatever it would take. I 
apologize for being so pushy about it. But there is nothing I have done 
in 28 years that I feel more strongly about than this. I apologize to 
my friends for my being so persistent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I know my colleague, Senator Brownback, wants to speak 
as well. Let me thank Senator Biden for his great leadership as well. 
We are very proud we were able to work this out and do trafficking and 
the reauthorization for the Violence Against Women Act together. Let me 
thank him for safe visas. He was kind enough to mention my wife Sheila. 
That was really an initiative on which she has been working. I was so 
pleased to see that in this bill.
  Let me also say to my colleague, as much as I appreciate the work of 
the Senator from Tennessee, I want to make the point that this is not 
about the rule 28 scope of conference. I think the Chair will rule 
against my colleague from Tennessee. I think the Chair will rule 
against him with justification.
  Most importantly, I want colleagues to know the majority of you voted 
for Aimee's law. I voted against it. But if

[[Page 22086]]

the Senator from Tennessee should succeed--I know this is not his 
intention--that is the end of this conference report, that is the end 
of this legislation on trafficking, that is the end of reauthorization 
of VAWA, and it would be a tragic, terrible mistake.
  I hope colleagues will continue to support it. I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I note the hour of 3:30 approaches. 
Senator Thompson has a lot of time.
  If we are able to pass this legislation today, we still have a hurdle 
left to go. This is a major victory for women and children subject to 
violence here and abroad. This is a major piece of legislation for us 
to be able to pass through this body. It is late in the session. We are 
already past the time scheduled for adjournment. To be able to get this 
legislation passed at this time is a significant accomplishment. The 
Senator from Delaware pushed aggressively and hard on VAWA, as a number 
of people did on other items.
  This is a good day, a great day for the Senate to stand up and do 
some of the best work we can to protect those who are the least 
protected in our society, to speak out for those who are the least 
protected here and around the world.
  This is a great day for this country, and it is a great day for this 
body.
  I am pleased we are wrapping up this portion of the debate. I think 
we have had a good discussion. We will have the vote on the appealing 
of the point of order by the Chair. I plead with my colleagues, with 
all due respect to my colleague from Tennessee, to vote against my 
colleague from Tennessee so we can proceed to pass this important 
legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I have 20 seconds, with the 
indulgence of my colleague from Tennessee, I thank Senator Brownback 
again. I also thank a whole lot of people, a whole lot of human rights 
organizations, women's organizations, grassroots organizations, 
religious organizations, who have been there for the bill, 
organizations of others who have really worked hard for reauthorization 
of the Violence Against Women Act. Thank you for your grassroots work.
  I yield the floor and thank my colleague from Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Tennessee is recognized to make a point of order against the conference 
report. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the 
conferees included matters not in the jurisdiction of the Foreign 
Relations Committee. I am referring specifically to Aimee's law.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's point of order is not well 
taken.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator controls 1 hour of debate. The 
Senator from Tennessee is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for the manner in which this has 
been handled and the opportunity this affords me to make the statement 
I am going to make today.
  This is an objection to the conference report. There are many good 
things in this conference report. Unfortunately, Aimee's law is a part 
of it. I prefer to have the consideration of that independently, 
separate and apart from the conference report, but that is not to be.
  Historically, of course, Aimee's law did pass as a part of a much 
larger bill, the juvenile justice bill, some time ago but was never 
signed into law. When I voiced my objection to it at that point, it was 
put into this conference report. I cannot let it go without raising my 
objection to something that I think has to do with an important 
principle.
  It is very unfortunate, when we have tragic circumstances that happen 
in this country, such as young people being killed, all the violence 
and abuse that goes on in this country, we take that and use the 
emotionalism from it to make bad law.
  I do not think anybody within the sound of my voice can accuse me of 
being soft on crime. I ran in 1994 on that issue. I ran again in 1996 
on that issue. My position is clear. But my position is also clear that 
we are continuing the trend toward the centralization of decisionmaking 
in this country. In other words, if we do not like what a State is 
doing with regard to its criminal laws, we tend to find a way around 
it.
  I do not like the idea that some States let prisoners out sooner than 
they should, but if we really do not like that and we really do not 
have any concerns about taking over the criminal jurisdiction in this 
country, things that have been under the purview of States for 200 
years, why don't we just pass a Federal law using the commerce clause 
and state that it affects interstate commerce?
  Perhaps the Supreme Court will allow it; maybe they will not. Why 
don't we just pass a Federal law on murder? Why don't we just have a 
Federal law that says anyone convicted of murder has to serve so much 
time and just get on with it? Even the people pushing things such as 
Aimee's law apparently recognize there is a principle that causes us 
problems, and that is, we are set up with a Federal system.
  Every kid learns in school that we have a system of checks and 
balances, one branch against another, also Federal versus State and 
local law. It is a diffusion of power. It is time honored. It is in the 
Constitution. It is in the 10th amendment. Some things the States do 
and some things the Federal Government does.
  If we do not believe in that anymore, if we are going to say every 
time there is some tragic circumstance, such as the drive-by shootings 
in 1992--we federalized the crime of drive-by shootings. In 1997, there 
was not one Federal prosecution for drive-by shootings, but yet it was 
in the headlines, and we could not help ourselves because we wanted to 
express our outrage at this crime that was being taken care of at the 
State level.
  No one has ever accused these States with high-profile crimes of not 
jumping in and taking care of the situation, sometimes imposing the 
death penalty. You cannot do much more than that. Yet we feel the 
necessity to pass Federal laws that will ultimately create a Federal 
police force to do things we have left to the purview of the States for 
200 years. That is a serious matter.
  Nobody wants to vote against something called Aimee's law as a result 
of a tragedy of some young woman getting killed, for goodness' sake. 
Unfortunately, it happens all across this country all the time. But we 
have greater responsibilities when we take the oath of the office we 
hold. We are supposed to uphold the Constitution. Is the relationship 
between the State and Federal Government the one we studied in school, 
the one the courts tell us is still in effect, and, more fundamentally, 
do we need States anymore? States do not behave the way we want them to 
sometimes. States do not do what the Federal Government wants them to 
do. States do different things.
  People in Tennessee might not look at something exactly the same way 
people in New York might look at it. People in New York might not look 
at something the same way people in California do. We have certain 
basic things on which we agree in our Federal Constitution, but the 
Founding Fathers gave us leeway to experiment.
  Nobody I know of inside Washington, DC, has the answers to all these 
problems. We all have the same motivation: No one wants crime, no one 
wants these terrible tragedies, but we certainly do not have a monopoly 
on what to do about it. That is why we have States to experiment, to do 
different things.
  Too often, under the glare of the headlines, we want one solution; we 
want one answer; we want one Federal answer with our name on the 
legislation so we ``did something'' about some tragic murder that 
happened in one of

[[Page 22087]]

the States, which is prosecuted by the State and the person has long 
been sent to the penitentiary or death row.
  We need to concentrate on the fact that we do not seem to think we 
need the States anymore. We had this fundamental disagreement at the 
founding of our country between Jefferson and Hamilton. Hamilton wanted 
a strong Federal Government, we all remember from our schooldays. 
Jefferson said: No, that is too much centralization of power; remember 
what happened to us earlier in our history. We need to diffuse that 
power, and the States need certain rights, so we need to balance that 
out.
  One of my House colleagues said: The problem with Congress is we are 
Jeffersonians on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays and Hamiltonians on 
Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. We give lipservice to the 
proposition of limited Government, decentralization, giving more power 
back to the States, getting things out of Washington. We all run on 
that platform, and as soon as we get here, we can't wait to pass some 
sweeping Federal law that, in many cases, supersedes State law and the 
different ways States have chosen to handle a different problem.
  We preempt State law. We pass Federal laws all the time. The 
Constitution allows us, under the supremacy clause, to do that. We will 
not even say when we are preempting. The courts have to decide that. We 
pass laws all the time, and the courts have to take a look at them 
later on to decide to what extent we are preempting State laws, and so 
we strike down those State laws.
  We continue to criminalize State law. Five percent of the criminal 
prosecutions in this country are Federal. Yet last year there were over 
1,000 pieces of legislation introduced in this Congress having to do 
with criminal law. It clogs the courts. Justice Rehnquist on a regular 
basis comes over here and pleads with us to stop this: You are not 
doing anything for law enforcement--he tells us--by trying to 
criminalize everything at the Federal level that is already covered at 
the State level; you are clogging the courts.
  The Judicial Conference reports to us from time to time: You are 
clogging the courts with all this stuff that should not be in Federal 
court; the States are already taking care of that. Nobody is claiming 
they are not. So for the same offense, we have this array of State laws 
and this array of criminal laws, and the prosecutor can use that 
against a defendant however he might choose. It is not something that 
will enhance our system of justice but something that only enhances our 
own stature when we believe we are able to say we passed some tough 
criminal law. We are doing more to harm criminal justice by doing this 
than we are doing to help it.
  My favorite last year was the legislation that was considered in 
Congress to prohibit videos of animal abuse using stiletto heels. That 
is not a joke. Unfortunately, we have bills such as that introduced in 
Congress all the time.
  We, from time to time, try to get around the commerce clause. We want 
to federalize things, such as guns in schools. Every State in the Union 
has a tough law they deal with in their own way as to what to do about 
a terrible problem--guns in schools. We get no headlines out of that, 
so we had a Federal law to which the Supreme Court said: No, that does 
not affect interstate commerce. Then we just try to basically directly 
force States to enforce Federal laws and regulations that we make--
background checks for guns, when judges should retire, Federal 
regulations. Finally, the Supreme Court said: No, we cannot do that. 
The 10th amendment prohibits us from doing that. So we have a steady 
array of our attempting to figure out ways in and around the 
Constitution in order to impose our will because ``we know best.''
  The latest, of course, now is the use of the spending clause. The 
courts have said, basically, if Congress sends the money, they have the 
right to attach strings. States blithely go along many times--not all 
the time, but many times. Oftentimes they accept that free Federal 
money and learn that they are getting 7 percent of their money for 
their problem and 75 percent of the regulations and redtape, the 
requirements that go along with it.
  So this is the context in which we find ourselves when we consider 
Aimee's law. This is all just a little bit of history we have been 
dealing with to which not many people pay much attention. But it has to 
do with our basic constitutional structure. It has to do with the 
fundamental question in this country and, I think, our fundamental job; 
that is, What should the Federal Government do, or what should 
Government do, and at what level should Government do it? What is more 
fundamental than that? What is more important than that, as we hastily 
pass out and introduce these thousands of bills up here? If they sound 
good, do it--all the while eroding a basic constitutional principle 
that we all claim we believe in.
  So this Aimee's law came about because of another tragic set of 
circumstances. We have seen them: The dragging death in Texas, the 
drive-by shooting case in 1992, the situation that produced Aimee's 
law. There is always something in the headlines of a tragic nature in 
criminal law.
  Under Aimee's law, if Tennessee, for example, tries somebody--let's 
say for murder or rape--and convicts them, and that person serves their 
sentence under State law, under Tennessee law, and then they are 
released, and that person goes to Kentucky and commits another similar 
criminal offense, here is where the Federal Government comes into play. 
The Attorney General does this calculation and says, basically, that 
unless Tennessee's law under which this guy was convicted provides for 
the average term of imprisonment of all the States--you look at all the 
States and say: What is the average term of imprisonment for murder?--
if Tennessee has a little less than the average of all the other 
States, and he goes to Kentucky and kills somebody else, then Tennessee 
has to pay Kentucky to apprehend the guy, to try the guy, and to 
incarcerate him for however long Kentucky wants to incarcerate him.
  That is basically what Aimee's law is. So this is moving the ball a 
little bit farther down the road for those who want Washington to 
decide all the criminal laws in this country.
  Here we have a standard not that Congress has set. A lot of times we 
will say: We want everybody on the highways to be driving under the old 
.08 rule because we believe that ought to be the intoxication limit. We 
are going to withhold funds if you don't. It is a Federal standard. You 
can argue with it or you can agree with it.
  But that is not what we have here. This is not a standard that 
Congress has had hearings on and has determined that Tennessee has to 
live up to. It is a standard that is based upon a calculation of what 
the average is among all the other States.
  What if Tennessee looks at it a little differently? They ought to 
have the right to have a little more stringent laws or a little more 
lenient laws. They have the people of Tennessee to answer to. They have 
their own legislature. They have their own Governor. These are things 
that Tennessee has been deciding for 200 years. If they do not do what 
the average of other States do, when it is totally within their 
prerogative, should they be penalized?
  There are several problems with this law. Some of them are 
constitutional because it has ex post facto concerns. I do not know, 
for example, in reading this law, whether it intends to apply to people 
who have already been sentenced or whether it applies to people who 
will be sentenced after this law comes into effect.
  I wish one or any of the sponsors of this bill would come to the 
floor and tell us whether or not the intent of this law is to have this 
law apply to people who have already been sentenced maybe 5 years ago, 
maybe 10 years ago. If so, then what can a State do about that to avoid 
being penalized the way I just described?
  Secondly, if a person is still serving time, and the State knows it 
is going to be penalized if he is released under the State law because 
other States might have a little more stringent law, what is going to 
happen next time that

[[Page 22088]]

person comes up to the parole board? Are they going to be looking at it 
objectively?
  Or, better still, the question is, to the sponsors of this 
legislation: What about people who have already been convicted and 
already served their time and have been out of jail now for 15, 20 
years, and they go to Kentucky and kill somebody else? Does this apply 
to them? If that is the case, there are thousands and thousands and 
thousands of people in every State who have been convicted of crimes 
and are now out of jail and going to other States. Are we going to go 
back and calculate what the average law provided for incarceration for 
all of those people? I think it is silent.
  If the intent is, in fact, to catch all of those people and, if they 
do something else, have this law apply, it has ex post facto 
ramifications with regard to the State. You are not doing anything to 
the individual, but you are forcing the State to either lose money or 
to try to extend the time these people stay in jail.
  Can you imagine the litigation you are going to have with regard to 
these parole board hearings, when a person apparently looks as though 
he is eligible for parole, but the parole board has discretion, and 
they know if they release this person, he is going to be one of these 
people caught under the law? Can you imagine the litigation that is 
going to come about as a result?
  If, on the other hand, it is not meant to be ex post facto, if, in 
fact, this law only applies to those who are convicted of crimes after 
the effective date of this law, then this law is going to be a nullity 
for the most part, I imagine, for many years, if people serve out terms 
in prison for horrendous crimes.
  I would like to know, seriously, what the intention of the law is 
because it is not clear from the legislation itself. As Fred Ansell has 
said:
  If it applies retroactively, then the law could apply retroactively 
in different ways. It could mean that the law applies only if an 
offender is released from a State after 2002 after having served a less 
than average sentence, and then commits a crime. Or it could even mean 
that a person commits a crime as early as January 1, 2002, who was 
released from prison many years ago.
  If the State is liable for what an already-released offender does in 
the future, and it accepts the Federal funds with these conditions, 
then the State has agreed to accept an unlimited future liability. It 
will be liable for the crimes that thousands of offenders might commit, 
as measured by the costs of apprehension, prosecution, and 
incarceration. This is not losing 5 percent of transportation funds for 
not enacting a 21-year-old drinking age, as was upheld in South Dakota 
v. Dole. This is where Federal ``pressure turns into compulsion.'' 
Moreover, the funds are not attached to a new program. The conditions 
are attached to funds that States have already satisfied conditions to 
receive now and are being used for law enforcement purposes now. 
Prisons under construction now might have to be abandoned if the States 
can no longer receive Federal funds for prisons unless they lengthen 
their sentences. Drug task forces, police assistance, prosecutorial 
assistance, all of which are currently functional, would be 
jeopardized, causing possible loss of life and limb to the citizenry, 
if States did not adopt Washington's sentencing policy in order to be 
sure to continue receiving the money. That is coercion, not inducement.
  If the measure is retroactive only with respect to people who are 
released after 2002 for earlier committed crimes, the compulsion is not 
as great, but is still very strong, as the State still faces unlimited 
liability for any prisoners for future crimes committed over many 
years. To avoid that, a State seeking to retain Federal funding might 
essentially, in the Supreme Court's words, be ``induced . . . to engage 
in activities which would themselves be unconstitutional,'' such as 
lengthening the sentences of those who would otherwise be released, 
violating the ex post facto clause.

  This wouldn't be a direct lengthening, but it would certainly have a 
potential effect with regard to, for example, parole board activities. 
So not only do you have an ex post facto problem, you have a spending 
loss problem. The Supreme Court has held that Congress can withhold 
money, unless the States engage in the behavior that Congress wants 
them to as they receive the money. They don't have to take the money, 
but if they do, they have to take the strings attached to it. The 
Supreme Court has basically upheld that. The Supreme Court also said 
the conditions that the Federal Government places on the use of the 
money must be unambiguous. The States must know what they have to do in 
order to get this money.
  I submit that under the present case, Aimee's law, the States could 
not tell what they have to do in order to get this money because they 
are always dealing with a moving target. If you remember what I said a 
while ago, the name of the game is for the States to keep ratcheting up 
their incarceration time so they are within the national average. If 
they fall below that for their own good purposes, whatever the reasons 
and circumstances--they want to devote more money to prevention, or 
they want to devote more to rehabilitation instead of prisons, whatever 
their decisions might be--if they fall a little below, they are going 
to lose their money. If they want to keep their money, how high are 
they supposed to raise their incarceration rates? Because by the time 
they change their law and raise their incarceration rates for these 
various offenses, other States, presumably, could be doing the same 
thing. You are always going toward a moving target. Each State is 
trying to outstrip each other, and each State, if it wants to keep its 
money and not have to pay for 40 or 50 years for somebody in another 
State--their incarceration expense--the safe thing for it to do is 
ratchet up the time. The safest thing for it to do would be to give 
life sentences without parole.
  For some people, I think that is a good idea anyway. But is that 
something we ought to be forcing States to do with regard to any and 
all prisoners who come before them who are charged with this particular 
list of crimes? It is a list that this Congress has decided is the 
protected list--not anything else, just this protected list. If the 
States don't comply, then they lose their Federal money. So the States 
can't tell what they are supposed to do in order to keep their money. 
It is a very ambiguous, bad piece of legislation.
  There are policy reasons in addition to what I have described and in 
addition to the constitutional problems. It pits one State against 
another. We are supposed to be doing things to unify this country--I 
thought. The Supreme Court and this Congress spends a lot of time and 
attention on implementing the commerce clause, designed to make sure 
there is the free flow of goods and people and information one State to 
another.
  The Supreme Court strikes down laws that States might want which 
might say another State can't come in, or where they are trying to 
impose their will on another State outside their boundary. The commerce 
clause promotes a free flow of commerce, but under this particular law 
you are pitting one State against another, calculating to see if they 
can get some money from another State because they have a different 
criminal law than this other State had, and the Attorney General of the 
Federal Government is the referee and she keeps the books on all of 
that. That is a terrible idea.
  Another policy reason is that Aimee's law defeats the very purpose 
that it is trying to carry out. Much of the money that will be 
withheld, if a State doesn't comply with this Federal mandate, will go 
for prisons. One of the reasons, presumably, why some States have to 
turn people out before we would like is because of a lack of prison 
space. They are getting this Federal money in order to help them with 
more prisons.
  This is a very circular kind of situation the Federal Government is 
creating. We are cutting them off from money to do the very thing that 
is the reason we are cutting them off because they didn't do it in the 
first place. It makes no sense whatsoever. There is

[[Page 22089]]

no additional inducement--is the next policy reason--under Aimee's law 
for the States--other than to keep their Federal money--for the States 
to comply with this Federal rule.
  We are concerned about people getting out of jail and committing 
other crimes. We are all concerned about that. But seven out of eight 
crimes that are committed by people who have gotten out of jail happen 
in the States in which they were confined. So the State of Tennessee 
has every reason in the world to want to have laws that are reasonable 
for the protection of its own citizens and to keep people confined for 
a reasonable period of time for these crimes for the protection of 
their own citizens. Do they need any inducement because one out of 
eight might go somewhere else and commit a crime and that State might 
come back on them?
  You have a situation here of particular crimes. Murder, as defined 
under Federal law, could mean anything from vehicular homicide on up. 
So, presumably, someone could be convicted of vehicular homicide in 
Tennessee and go to California and be convicted of first-degree murder; 
they are both murder under the meaning of this law. California could 
get Tennessee's Federal money to incarcerate this guy for the next 
however many years for murder when he was only convicted of vehicular 
homicide in Tennessee.
  This has not been thought through.
  The Federal Government simply should not be setting the standards for 
State crimes. They ought to set the standards for Federal crimes. 
States ought to have the flexibility to choose with their limited 
resources.
  We tax the citizens of the States at a rate unprecedented since World 
War II. We put mandates on States with which we have been struggling, 
and we are trying to back off that a little bit. We have all of these 
regulations we put on the States. They have limited resources most 
years. They are doing a little better these days. They ought to have 
the right to decide for themselves--the people who elect their 
officials--how they use those resources.
  If they want to spend more money for education, if they want to spend 
more money for health care, if in the criminal area they want to spend 
more money for prevention, if they want to spend more for 
rehabilitation, those are different things that different States are 
doing all across the country. We can see who has been successful and 
who has not been successful.
  That is the reason we have States. That is the reason our Founding 
Fathers set up States. If we don't allow them to do that, what is the 
use of having them? Why do we have them? Why don't we just go ahead and 
pass a Federal law for everything and abrogate the States, if we don't 
need that kind of diversity and if we don't need that kind of 
experimentation?
  The Federal Government would have States keep people--let's say the 
elderly--and have to make the tradeoff of using limited resources to 
keep people in jail who are, say, elderly and long past the time when 
you would think they would be dangerous to people, but keep them there 
on the off chance that they might get out and commit a crime in another 
State, and so forth. It doesn't make any sense.
  This is simply an indirect attempt by the Federal Government--by us, 
by the Congress--to get States in a bidding war as to who can pass the 
most stringent laws in all of these areas. That is OK in and of itself. 
But it shouldn't be done because we are threatening them to do it. We 
think we have the answers to these problems, and we don't.
  I served on the Judiciary Committee a while back, and I was chairman 
of the Juvenile Justice Subcommittee for a while. For anybody who deals 
in criminal law, the first thing they have to come away with, if they 
are being fair about it, is a sense of great humility.
  There is so much we do not know about what causes crime--why young 
people commit crimes, what the best solution is, and so forth. My own 
view is that we should spend a lot more time, money, and research, and 
we should spend a lot more time, money, and effort in finding out what 
is going on in these various communities around the country with the 
various approaches communities and States have had and the various 
kinds of problems. It is very complex and very controversial. But that 
doesn't stop us. Last time I checked, we had 132 programs on juvenile 
crime alone at the Federal level without a clue as to whether or not 
any of them are working or doing any good. My guess is that some of 
them are probably counterproductive.
  A lot of people want to pass, as a part of a bill, to have youthful 
offenders sentenced as adults. In some cases, if States want to do 
that, that is fine with me. But we were going to impose a requirement 
that all States sentence youthful offenders as adults within certain 
categories until we found out that the way it plays out in some cases 
is they would get less time as an adult than they would in a juvenile 
facility.
  There is just an awful lot we don't know.
  Why should we be forcing States to adhere to some kind of a national 
standard as to how long a person ought to serve for a list of crimes? 
If we really believe we ought to do that, why don't we just go ahead 
and do it directly?
  We have seen the benefit of a system our Founding Fathers established 
over and over and over again. This is not just textbook stuff. It has 
to do with power, and the use of power, and who is going to use power, 
and how concentrated you want it. It has to do with innovation. It has 
to do with experimentation. It has to do with good competition among 
the States. We have seen welfare reform, education choice, competitive 
tax policies, and public-private partnerships all thrive at the State 
level. Good things are happening.
  This law is another step away from all of that, another step toward 
Federal centralization and the monopolizing of criminal policy in this 
country. I could not let this go and could not let this pass without 
making that abundantly clear once again.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Thompson for his consistency 
and for the remarks he just made. I don't know that it will sway the 
vote, but it is certainly worth contemplating what he just said.

                          ____________________